September 25th, 2025

So the map quiz was given back, and guess what? 100% BABYYYY! It’s only 5% of the grade but it was a bit of an ego boost. The first half of the lecture was dedicated to the group discussion. This week we had to read two pieces about women under socialism: Kristen Ghodsee’s Gross Domestic Orgasms and Daphne Berdahl’s Designing Women.

My professor asked the class what we thought the differences between the articles/chapters were. A student said that Ghodsee’s book was very promotional of Socialism. My professor said that there is something there in her thesis, she is not so sure that a 40 year old with multiple kids who stood in line for 2 hours would want to have six when she came home. My professor does not believe that Ghodsee’s has proved much in this chapter of her book, it was not a scholarly account, it is not to be taken seriously. She also said that women who were enthusiastic about democracy back then are now nostalgic and had more opportunities under socialism.

For the Berdahl piece, the consensus was that it was about how women were designed by the state, how women designed themselves under socialism, and how women were redesigned after unification of the GDR. Under socialism women seemed to have more agency but were still under control. I am curious as to how my fellow students define words, are they anarchists? Libertarians? What does control mean here and why is it inherently bad? I am not trying to be rude as I am genuinely curious as to what is happening here. Are all forms of control bad?

My professor said that women were expected to work, not stay at home. Daycares and lunches were provided at work, but traditional roles were still promoted by the Church. A girl in my class said that women were infantilized in the factories. My professor then brought up how women were ma to work very useless factory jobs that could’ve been done by machines, it was work for the sake of work.

Despite talk of equality women were still given light work. Men were still sexist despite the state trying to encourage them to do more housework. This did not work. But I ask, what do they want? Do they want the state involved or not? Because they complain when the state does things and they complain when they do not, so what now? Social issues are complicated as hell and are going to take a lot longer to unravel than the economic structure. They are deeply ingrained and cannot be switched on a dime. But maybe it has been done, I do not know. Did China’s cultural revolution solve this? I do know that individual families still prefer boys, but it’s not a state thing. Anyway, enough of my rambling.

GDR women felt that they had a purpose, but when unification happened they were made to be housewives. The shift from structure to a non-routine meant depression for many. They lost their identity as workers. The Berdahl piece is about a small religious town, which matters here. My professor then talked about how when she was spying she was discouraged from using makeup. The GDR handbook for young couples encouraged equal partnership but the pictures used still portrayed the woman as the house-maker while the man was the labourer. Another female student said she did not think women’s lives improved, it got worse as the Socialist system controlled a lot and tradition still existed.

The crisis in the 90s made things hard, so making any real judgements is difficult. My professor said that women in the local council were kicked out after 1990. Did this worsen women’s lives? I think so, because what the fuck? How is this even a question? Women are losing their rights and opportunities, but thats better than living under socialism? Am I being fucked with?

She then asked us if women’s lives improved after the introduction of capitalism. A guy said yes because they have equal opportunities. My professor argued that, under socialism, women had that too, so what now? The guy replied that capitalism is just more equal than socialism. My professor stated that judging by both articles, that is just not true. Thousands of women had to go into prostitution after the fall of communism and pretty much all of them lost their political positions.

Then we went into the lecture, which is about Gorbachev and Perestroika. Glasnost is also talked about but it seems like nobody really cares about it. Why is that? Anyway, first she gave us the prelude in 1982-84 with Yuri Andropov, the incorruptible and ascetic KGB chief. There was a struggle against corruption for the improvement of labour discipline—this was done KGB style. How? Well the police would enter theatres just to check on who was there and why. Another guy, Konstantin Chernenko, was dying of emphysema so Gorbachev conducts a meeting of the central committee. He is then chosen as leader because he was younger and energetic.

Changes in the politburo were made in 1985 via the dismissal of corrupt members, this was a quiet clean-up. At this point the USSR had democracy but only one supreme Soviet candidate. The politburo had all the power. The 27th party congress had open discussion of economic problem, partial decentralization of the economy, and cooperative movements. There was a want for openness and radical reforms. Partial decentralization gave great success to Hungary. Light industries became cooperatives and collective farms would grow whatever they wanted rather than being forced to do what the government wanted. My opinion? I do not see them problem with farms being told to grow certain crops. I remember a John Oliver segment (I know…) about water usage and farms and how farms would just grow alfalfa because of water, no other reason. So if the government is mandating who grows what I do not see an issue with that. Unless there are problems that I am not aware of, of course.

Anyway, that party congress hardly spoke about the market, change in the USSR would align with Marxist-Leninist ideals. Many forbidden books appeared in print. In the late 80s people were constantly reading, most of which were memoirs that were banned before. Freud was forbidden even though they were learning about him in schools. Apparently you needed special permission from the KGB to access Freud’s work. You could now buy books like 1984 (ew) and Brave New World. More reading resulted in more critical thought. China had aa similar system but in 1989 the CPC prohibited everything. You could do whatever you wanted except criticize the party. My professor then talks about how a seminar professor of hers talked about the problems during the Stalinist period, a student of his said “you taught us that the USSR was the best, but it was built on blood,” the professor cried that they’d never understand what they were trying to build, which was a nation built on friendship and brotherhood. The reforms were not fast enough for liberals, but were too fast for socialists.

Here were the pitfalls of glasnost: excessive amounts of criticism, anti-bureaucratic movement, and ghosts from the past emerged like the Soviet concentration camps. What? This was not dwelled on. 1987 saw the dismissal of Yeltsin, and from 1988 to 1989 there was a new election law and contested elections of people’s deputies. This was a moment of happiness for everyone, it was the greatest show on TV. The first democratically elected agency.

Now we get into the problems and tragedies of the late 80s. First is with the 1985 anti-alcohol campaign. Everyone was an alcoholic. All liquor stores were closed during the day, so people made their own, but sugar didn’t exist. Plumbers were paid in moonshine. This did not improve the economy and just increased the criticisms of the party. Then there was the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Gorbachev tried to pretend it didn’t happen, keeping it a secret like a good old fashioned Soviet leader. The first 3 weeks were not reported in newspapers. People had to stay inside during celebrations, but Kyiv parades still happened. Contaminated air went westward so the western media reported on it. Wild rumours developed so Gorbachev had to talk about it. He spoke about Chernobyl as a tragedy and proceeded to call out the lies that were printed in the Western press. This was proof of the dangers in the Soviet economy.

Then, of course, was the fall in world oil prices. The USSR was forced to borrow money which plunged it deeper into debt. Small measures were not capable of resolving these problems. 1987 saw a bad harvest, and in December of 1988 there was an earthquake in Armenia that killed more than 40,000 people.

We finished the class with Perestroika and economic reforms. First was the legalization of private cooperative businesses. Enterprises could now self-manage. Peasants were encouraged to lease out their land, people would work harder when working for themselves. Joint Soviet-foreign enterprises were now permitted, foreign investors move in. A student asked if that was when the 1st MacDonald’s was introduced. My professor didn’t know and I did not care, who the fuck cares about MacDonald’s? It is not the proof of prosperity! Whatever. There was also this 500-day program and it’s more “modest” version, so basically scholars come to say that the corrupt USSR would become a market based economy in 500 days. This was not the answer to the deeply ingrained issues in the Soviet system.

The greatest success of Gorbachev was on the international scene. He wanted a common European home, he also met with Reagan who was a violent ant-communist but he liked Gorbachev quite a bit (in my opinion, that is not the win it is being made out to be). Gorbachev wanted peace and change, thus the west really liked him. But the Soviet people felt very differently. I think their opinion matters much more than those of the west. I believe that all these “successes” were actually abject failures.

This is where class ended.