This is a review and analysis of the book "Why women have better sex under socialism" to illustrate how economic independence shapes relationships and how capitalism profits from lack of love, affection and connection.
Jena, Sept. 2026
When the Wall came down, she was standing right there
Summer of 1990. Kristen Ghodsee is backpacking through a Europe that has just watched one of its founding myths collapse overnight. The Berlin Wall is down and the entire project of the State Socialism of the Eastern Bloc dissolved, but what follows isn't the parade of freedom everyone promised — it's chaos, uncertainty, entire economies dissolving under people's feet. She doesn't look away. She goes deeper: Bulgaria, East Germany, years of fieldwork asking the question almost nobody else was asking — what actually happens to women when a system like this falls apart? Not to GDP. Not to geopolitics. To women, specifically — their jobs, their childcare, their marriages, their bodies, the love inside their relationships. That question followed her through the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock and the Imre Kertész Kolleg in Jena, both in Eastern Germany, and it's the question this whole book is built to answer.Two words nobody wants to put in the same sentence: democratic and socialism
Before we even open to chapter one, there's something worth noticing: the word socialism has been welded to its worst moments of the 20th century — the authoritarian systems of Eastern Europe — until the word alone triggers images of control, repression, food rationing, nothing else. That link isn't accidental, and it isn't fair. Two very different things have been merged into one.
On one side, there's state socialism: the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, one party in charge, elections that weren't really free, almost no room for disagreement. Power moved from the top down, imposed on people rather than chosen by them. On the other side, there's democratic socialism which seeks to overcome capitalism through democratic means, advocating for stronger public ownership, greater social control over the economy, and cooperative forms of organization, accepting capitalism but trying to regulate it and make it fairer through welfare protections and redistribution. Democratic socialism has the same underlying goals as state socialism but reached through free elections, real political competition, and protected civil rights. Power here depends on people choosing it, not on force. For this reason, democratic socialism must be separated from its historical baggage, because confusing these two is exactly why so much of the modern criticism of socialism misses its target: people picture secret police and food scarcity when what's actually on the table is closer to what built the public healthcare system, paid vacation and parental leave, and balanced working times in the contemporary society.
Many of the protections we now take for granted: public healthcare, paid parental leave, labor rights, were won through socialist or social-democratic movements, not despite them. After World War II, British voters elected a majority democratic-socialist government under Clement Attlee, and that government built the National Health Service and much of the modern welfare state — the same system people in Britain still argue about protecting today. Or look at Bulgaria: one of the poorest countries in the European Union, and yet a poor person there often still enjoys stronger social protections than a poor person in the United States.
Yet today neoliberal ideology dominates mainstream political thinking, teaching people to see the market as natural and alternatives as dangerous and irrealizable. Under that belief of the “private as efficient and less corrupt”, austerity policies cut public services while wealth keeps piling up at the top. Women feel it first, because they are expected to take care for the children, the elder and the sick when public health systems weaken or simply don’t exist. It's usually women who quietly absorb the consequences of failed support social nets.
None of this exhaustion happens by accident. The people who benefit from things staying as they are have every reason to want the rest of us tired, cynical, and disconnected from politics — a hopeless population rarely demands anything. So the point isn't nostalgia for a socialism of the past. It's using socialism as a language again, a set of tools for imagining a future that could actually be fairer.
One more thing worth noticing before moving forward: capitalism rarely gets the same scrutiny, even though it reaches into the most private corners of our lives. It sells sexuality through advertising, television, the beauty industry, dating apps — constantly whispering that we're not attractive enough, successful enough, wanted enough, unless we keep buying some bullshit to fix it. Love, desire, self-worth, all turned into products for sale. However, once we notice how the market prices our bodies, our relationships, our emotions, we can start pushing back against that logic, and take back a sense of worth and human dignity that can’t be sold or measured by profit.
Introduction: "You Might Be Suffering From Capitalism"
The central idea is simple: unregulated capitalism is bad for women, and some socialist ideas can make women's lives materially better. The system works well for a small group of women at the top, but for most women, reality looks different — lower wages, less security, less access to healthcare, more dependence on men, less control over their own bodies and futures. Women are usually the last to be hired and the first to be fired, and when budget cuts hit education, healthcare, pensions, or childcare, it's mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives who quietly absorb the unpaid work of caring for the young, the sick, and the elderly.
Economic dependence reaches into intimacy too. Women with less economic freedom often have less control over their own reproduction, more pressure to stay in unhealthy relationships, and fewer real choices about motherhood. By contrast, where the state provides childcare, paid leave, healthcare, and labor protections, something shifts: women get to choose a relationship because they want it, not because they need it to survive.
That shift was one of the real, material achievements of state socialism. In the Soviet Union, East Germany, and much of Eastern Europe, bringing women fully into paid work became an actual political goal — not a slogan. Women entered medicine, engineering, and science, professions that had mostly excluded them, backed by public childcare, shared cafeterias, laundry services, paid leave, and legal rights to work, own property, and live independently. This independence was real enough to be seen as a threat elsewhere: for years after World War II, a woman earning her own wage in the United States or West Germany was treated almost like a sign of communist danger, and that fear helped fuel political reactions. It was also real enough to force capitalist countries to compete — women's rights improved partly because capitalism had a rival to keep up with. None of this makes those socialist systems fair or free of serious problems; many were deeply authoritarian. But it does break a common myth — that these societies were defined only by hunger, repression, and surveillance. They lasted for decades and produced real gains beyond that image.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, the pressure to compete disappeared. Free-market policy expanded fast, protections shrank, and selling off public services was sold as common sense — the state was called inefficient, until private companies failed and had to be rescued with public money anyway. Clear examples are everywhere: in 2008, the US government poured close to $180 billion into the insurance giant AIG and roughly $80 billion into General Motors and Chrysler to stop them from collapsing, while the UK nationalized most of Royal Bank of Scotland almost overnight. Argentina went through its own version of this in 2001–2002: after the peso's fixed exchange rate collapsed and the economy defaulted, the state forced a currency conversion that left banks holding huge losses — and then compensated them with billions of dollars in public bonds, quietly transferring private losses onto public debt. In every case, the pattern repeats: markets fail, and the public ends up paying for a system that never shared its profits the same way.
Women across Eastern Europe who had once worked as professionals were pushed into unstable, low-paid work: cleaning, domestic labor, or the international sex trade. At the same time, nationalist governments opposed to abortion rights told women to return to traditional roles, restricting abortion while asking them to have more children for the nation. The irony is hard to miss: women who once had more independence are now told that this new insecurity is what freedom looks like.
Criticizing capitalism today still gets dismissed with a single word — "communism" — as if history only ever offered two choices. But believing capitalism is the final, fairest system humanly possible is just as naive as believing kings once ruled by divine right. No socialist experiment was ever allowed to grow without outside pressure or open conflict from rival powers, so other paths were never fully explored. The real question isn't whether past socialism was perfect. It wasn't. The real question is why imagining any alternative to today's inequality still feels so hard.
And here's the part worth keeping in mind: in more equal societies, where women depend less on a man's money, a certain kind of male power — built on money, status, and control — loses its grip. That discomfort reveals how much of what is called romance is often just hierarchy disguised as nature.

.jpeg)
.jpeg)


.jpeg)















