this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
8 points (100.0% liked)

GenZhou

949 readers
13 users here now

GenZhou is GenZedong without the shitposts

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space (shared with GenZedong). See this thread for more information.

Rules:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml
8
What do/did article 35 and article 125 of the 1982 PRC and 1936 USSR constitution actually do? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 21 hours ago by King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzhou@lemmygrad.ml
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Chapter 2 article 35: Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.

ARTICLE 125: In conformity with the interests of the toilers, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: — (a) Freedom of speech; (b) Freedom of the Press ; (c) Freedom of assembly and of holding mass meetings; (d) Freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

I'm not going to sit here and be like "urmagod china ussr is a 1984 dictatorism" but I do just want to know what this actually means. For instance, both countries engaged in very obvious censorship and banning of materials. I'm not saying these actions were right or wrong, but just (at least on the face of it) contradictory to the previously stated articles. Presumably there have been court cases in both of these countries that actually helps outline what they mean.

This isn't to say Bourgeois countries follow freedom of speech either (I will leave proving this as an exercise to the reader. And by exercise I mean a slow walk to the other side of the room), but I think my main question is why include them so broadly, or at all really, if they [at least from what I remember] haven't really been enforced

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lydialmao22@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Specifically look at the wording of 'In conformity with the interests of the toilers, and in order to strengthen the socialist system...' in the soviet version. Working class speech is protected, working class media is protected, the ability of hte working class to gather is protected, etc. Anti working class perversions of these things are the issue. Someone trying to own media privately to peddle anti communism and/or to personally profit is a problem. Someone trying to gather with the goal of organizing a counter revolution is a problem. Really its the same shit liberal states do but the opposite, where they are more than happy to prohibit proletarian speech and working class demonstrations. Socialist states however never felt the urge to dress it up in nice words and were pretty straight up about it.

At least this is all the concept and the goal. This isnt to say there have been 0 mistakes ever, or that it worked as intended all the time, this is just the general idea behind these things.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 15 hours ago

To add to it. Socialist states live up to the actual human ideal of being transparent.

Westoids tend to assume that states lie because "thats what states do" just that socialist states dont need to lie as their interests converge with the interests of the people, mostly.

Therefore, when socialist states proclaim freedom of speech, you of course are not allowed to make a case for child r*** for example because it is horrific.

Only westoids used to this kind of perverse thinking have this twisted idea of "freedom of speech" where you can literally kill someone with your words and be chill about it.

Liberalist brainworms.