GenZhouArchive

224 readers
1 users here now

A space to archive anything from /r/GenZhou

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
51
 
 

u/wumaointraining - originally from r/GenZhou
[removed]

52
 
 

u/LeftConnoisseur - originally from r/GenZhou

53
 
 

u/Babybroda69 - originally from r/GenZhou
Did it get taken down?

54
 
 

u/WeWantTheFunk120 - originally from r/GenZhou
Just to make things clear before I start, this is NOT because I want to give Liberals the benefit of the doubt. Liberals are useless idiots for Imperialism and Western Chauvinist that must be opposed all the same. Why I dislike calling them Fascist is more pedantic.

It's pretty common for MLs to say "Scratch a Liberal, a Fascist bleeds" or the famous Stalin quote "Social Democracy is objectively the moderate form of Fascism". Here's why I disagree with these assessments and don't think this is the case" Fascism as an ideology is inherently ANTI-liberalism and ANTI-democracy, therefore they are completely incompatible and opposite to Western Liberalism.

When I was 18/19, I was curious about what Fascism actually was and delved deep into researching its ideology. This was because I found out the American school system and MSM lied to me about America being the beacon of Freedom and Democracy^(tm) and doing everything overseas out of altruism, thus I began to wonder what else they were lying to me about. I began wondering if they were also lying to me about Fascism and Hitler, so I read the Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini and Gentile and parts of Mein Kampf (before I got bored and dropped it). Now, obviously I was not convinced at all by them, as the ideas espoused in them are incredibly easy to debunk, but I was surprised to find out Fascism actually had a defined ideology behind it.

What Fascism, as outlined by Mussolini and Gentile themselves, advocated for is total and complete authoritarianism within a mixed, Corporatist economy. Fascism is fundamentally opposed to Communism, Anarchism, Liberalism (here in the Classical sense), and Democracy. Fascism believes absolute Statism and the state controlling all sectors of society as well as openly advocating for Cults of Personality. Basically, real Fascism is unironically what Liberal propaganda thinks North Korea is. Fascism entirely rejects Classical Liberalism (what we in the US today call Libertarianism) and free-market capitalism, as well as Social Liberalism (What makes up todays so-called "American Left"):

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere. The importance of liberalism in the 19th century should not be exaggerated for present day polemical purposes, nor should we make of one of the many doctrines which flourished in that century a religion for mankind for the present and for all time to come. " - Page 5.

Fascists were clearly opposed to the Laissez-faire capitalism advocated for by todays US Conservatives and Libertarians. And this was shown in practice by the fact that by 1939, 4/5 of Italy's economy was State-owned and Nazi Germany had incredible power over its private corporations.

Fascists advocated for Corporatism/National Syndicalism. A sort of highly-regulated State Capitalism in which the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat would cooperate with each other through the Fascist state rather than abolish class altogether:

" No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State." - Page 2

So this is why I don't believe in calling Western Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians "Fascists", because the ideology is fundamentally incompatible and opposed to them. There is a reason why after murdering all the Communist and Socialists, Fascists then went on to ruthlessly persecute the Liberals. And the reason I am making a big deal out of this is because we can all agree that Fascist has been obscenely overused as an insult to the point of meaning absolutely nothing today. It's bad enough we have Anarcunts (such as the dumbshits on r/tankiejerk) calling everyone and everything under the sun fascist, or Conservative grifters like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder saying that Communism is Fascist, I don't think we should further contribute to its misuse. This does not mean Liberals are still not the enemy, but I wouldn't call them Fascists. I believe we should only reserve the term for people who are actually Fascists by every definition of the word.

If you disagree, please let me know why. I am interested to hear your opinion.

55
 
 

u/jmattchew - originally from r/GenZhou
Question is in the title. I know that everything is more complicated than this, but is it a fair shorthand assessment or not? Could it be too simple to say that feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism, or is this actually the right way to look at it? Did the USSR fail because it went straight from feudalism to socialism and then introduced the wrong reforms?

56
57
 
 

u/ThePeoplesBadger - originally from r/GenZhou
It seems that based on what I have read:

  • WW1 and the foreign-backed civil war utterly destroyed Russia and its population, but the Bolsheviks won out after a very long and drawn out period of devastation.
  • Lenin introduced the NEP to begin to build the basis for an eventually socialist economy by developing industry and agriculture with similar practices to other capitalist countries (but without imperialism)
  • There was disagreement in the Bolshevik leadership after Lenin's strokes and passing on how to move forward. Some top party leaders suggested moving forward "at a snail's pace," but it seems that Stalin had a very "yes we can" attitude, introduced five year plans, and completely revolutionized the country/countries in socialist construction.
  • When Stalin died, Khrushchev turned around and in his "secret speech," condemned Stalin and hung all blame on Stalin for all of the problems in the USSR.
  • Khrushchev initiated changes and reforms that were seen by China as extremely problematic and revisionist, contributing to the Sino-Soviet split.
  • China followed some very similar approaches to building socialism as the USSR but also approaches unique to the material nature of China, hence "socialism with Chinese characteristics."
  • Mao dies in the 70s (right? I could have the dates wrong) and the torch is passed to Deng Xiaoping, and China opens up to foreign trade and meets with Nixon and China becomes an economic power on the international market.
  • It seems like since then, China has been working deliberately and exactingly toward eliminating poverty, raising the living standards, and building up industries and trade across the entire spectrum.

Please correct any misunderstandings I may have above, as these are the understandings that form the basis of my questions.

  1. What were the reforms initiated by Khrushchev?
  2. What were the reforms initiated by Deng?
  3. How/why were the Khrushchev reforms revisionist?
  4. Were the Deng reforms revisionist, and regardless, why or why not?
58
 
 

u/sourmysoup - originally from r/GenZhou

59
 
 

u/sprucecassidy - originally from r/GenZhou
I’m a retail worker in California, and my workplace is unionized. Essentially, my coworkers and I had to watch a presentation about discrimination in the workplace; it included the stuff you would expect, such as racial prejudices and gender identity and such, but it also included a section about how your employer cannot fire you for political activities… unless you’re a member of the CPUSA or another “communist front organization.” I want to know if comrades getting fired for their politics is something that still happens today like it did during the Red Scare, or if employers today would even really care or even bother to look into their employees political activities to begin with. I am assuming that it’s a situation similar to how the CPUSA is technically banned but that ban was never really enforced, however I want to be cautious and not put myself into a perilous situation. And if I were to be fired, would my union be able to help me? (I don’t want to ask my union about this directly, because I don’t know what their specific politics and views on communists are.)

60
 
 

u/ouch_oof - originally from r/GenZhou
R1: So, recently, I came across a post by a neoliberal/socdem Vaush fan who tried to downplay the effects of sanctions on North Korea. I'm only addressing one part of the post, which is the economy, because that's the only part I can kind of address (I mean, could do the Korean War part, but to keep things short, I would rather stick to one thing). Again, for the sake of time and readability, I will paraphrase the arguments that are being made by this person. Without further ado, let's lose some braincells:

"but the leaders prosper and import goods while people starve"

First of all, we aren't even acting like market economies such as India starve more than North Korea. Second, only a select few can afford those goods, the entire population cannot afford such things and, again, they can bypass, but that can only mediate the problem to some degree for a limited amount of people. You can't always get your own way with sanctions, it is often quite hard.

"but South Korea surpassed North Korea and the Soviets and Chinese helped!!!"

Economically, yes, South Korea did surpass North Korea, which is a point which nobody denies. North Korea also did have help from the Soviets and Chinese. However, what this dolt completely sweeps under the rug is the fact that the Soviets and Chinese were not that advanced themselves (China was a borderline feudalist country lol) at that point (the Soviets made good progress, but they still had a long way to go in terms of development) and that socialist countries had embargos placed on them by the West which prevented them from getting high tech goods and access to markets. For instance, countries such as East Germany, which tried to produce various semiconductors and microchips had difficulties doing so due to limitations from embargoes. Access to markets and such have made a difference in socialist countries nowadays such as Vietnam and China in their technological advancement. South Korea had no problem getting access to these markets and tech because it was allied with the West (which had most of the advanced industry, tech, etc. at the time). Not to mention, South Korea wasn't even that impressive. Socialist Romania, which had major limitations due to various embargoes and was less than fortunate with its situation regarding IMF loans, had quicker growth than South Korea from 1960-1980 (basically until the time when Ceaușescu started austerity programs to pay off the huge debt Romania was in). Plus, the HDI of Romania and South Korea in 1990 were quite similar, with South Korea being barely higher. Finally, South Korea has extracted approximately $1.7 trillion from the Global South from 1960-2017, which has given it a tremendous advantage.

"how could they grow when muh self-reliance"

This is a horrible attempt at trying to understand Juche and represents a very childish/lacking understanding of what it actually is. North Korea is not exactly isolationist, it is a country that has been forced into isolation. They were heavily reliant on trade with the USSR and have attempted to form trade relations with other countries such as India. Self-reliance doesn't exactly mean to be an isolationist country, it means trying to develop local industry and military. Also, yes, North Korea has $10 trillion in mineral wealth, but cannot exactly access it properly, even mainstream news outlets have admitted this.

Anyways, that will do it for this post, I'm not going to address the rest because this part alone gave me brainworms because of the sheer lack of knowledge.

61
 
 

u/Trebuh - originally from r/GenZhou

62
 
 

u/QuirkyButterscotch81 - originally from r/GenZhou
So basically what happened is that my history teacher showed my class a documentary that was very obviously pro-NATO, and when they said that the Holodomor was an attempt of genocide from the USSR, I called bullshit. But now my teacher asked me to provide sources to back up my claim, and I can't remember where I found out the truth about it myself, so it would save me a lot of time if I could get some here.

I think my teacher would prefer sources from newspapers that are generally seen as reliable in the west and things like that.

Thanks in advance.

63
 
 

u/USSRftw - originally from r/GenZhou
I keep being confronted with the population transfer of several ethnic groups to remote areas during Stalin like the Kalmyks, Tatars, Balkars, Chechens, Koreans, etc. While I have found that there were some cases of spying or even desire to collaborate with the invading Axis forces, I don't think there is a reason to deport all the population? Or is there something else I am missing?

64
 
 

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]

65
 
 

u/basedjuchefemboy - originally from r/GenZhou
Hello comrades! This here is my personal masterpost of sources for debunking Anti-DPRK Propaganda. 

Life in the DPRK

Human Rights in the DPRK

Debunking DPRK Defectors

No North Koreans Aren't banned from leaving 

Conversation with a North Korean Citizen on life in North Korea 

Otto Warmbier showed no signs of torture 1

[Hakim's Video on DPRK (mainly debunking claims)(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EzDhqXuELjo) 

Pro-DPRK Sources/Groups

Phuong DPRK Daily 

Juche Gang 

r/JucheGang

Korean Central TV

The Pyongyang Times 

Messy Room News Sesh 

DefendKorea/NatalieRevolts (Mainly in regards to life in the DPRK)

@DPRK_CAODEBENOS source found courtesy of u/Azkhare

66
 
 

u/ButtigiegMineralMap - originally from r/GenZhou
I’m learning a lot about Marxism recently and this Donetsk and Luhansk situation has made me think more about Seperatists. I’m not pro-taiwan, not pro-HK, not pro-tibet, I’m mostly pro-China, but I don’t have a good understanding of the area and there’s sooo much history in the region. Basically TL;DR, why should I primarily be against these Separatists if I would be pro-Donetsk,Luhansk, thanks. Btw I’ll make it clear I’m not for taiwan or tibet as the title might suggest, that may look confusing

67
 
 

u/LeftConnoisseur - originally from r/GenZhou

68
 
 

u/signhimupfergie - originally from r/GenZhou

69
 
 

u/Moon4503 - originally from r/GenZhou

70
 
 

u/TheThrenodist - originally from r/GenZhou

71
 
 

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]

72
 
 

u/ouch_oof - originally from r/GenZhou
NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Ceausescu or his policies. He made many mistakes and was not a good leader. However, this rather brief post discusses Romania's economic growth and why it constitutes a post-war miracle economy.

In Comparison with the Asian Tigers and Other Economic "Miracles"

Romania after WW2 was a mostly backwards, third-world country. Even with extremely fast growth, it was still a middle-income country. Plus, a country like Romania was a mostly agrarian one and did not have much industry. The GDP per capita for Romania was slightly below that of India in 1950. However, by around 1984, Romania had a GDP per capita that was 3.7 times higher than that of India and 7.6 times higher than it's original GDP per capita. For comparison, South Korea, who had a widely touted economic "miracle" had a GDP per capita 4.9 times larger than India, and 8.3 times higher than it's original GDP per capita by 1984. Not to mention, the South Korean "miracle" was one that was heavily subsidized by the United States. While Romania did receive foreign credit and loans, it became became indebted and would run into numerous issues in the 1980s. For a full comparison with some other Asian Tigers and post-WW2 "miracle" economies, here is the graph from 1950 (few years after WW2) to 1984 (around the time when the East Bloc countries underwent major liberal reforms). Romania's growth aligns more with the East Asian miracle economies, only marginally behind South Korea and Japan.

73
 
 

u/seamasthebhoy - originally from r/GenZhou
Also if you are discussing personal experiences or anything more local than the national organizations, could you say what area you are referencing (only if comfortable of course).

74
 
 

u/lordbootyclapper - originally from r/GenZhou
My mom just sent an article in our group chat from NPR about uyghur students being abused in boarding schools and i feel like there’s just so much information pointing towards there being an issue for there not to be at least some aspect of truth to it. I still want to keep an open mind tho and make sure i’m not being led to a certain conclusion by my western media influences. Can anyone give me some reasoning/explanation behind this? thanks

75
 
 

u/StalinJunior7492 - originally from r/GenZhou

view more: ‹ prev next ›