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:

This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
No dogmatism/idealism
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
Shitposts will be removed (please post them to /c/GenZedong or elsewhere instead)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

What do/did article 35 and article 125 of the 1982 PRC and 1936 USSR constitution actually do? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 day 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

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 21 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.