51
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

52
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/LeftConnoisseur - originally from r/GenZhou

53
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/CMDR_VegShiva - originally from r/GenZhou

54
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

55
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.

56
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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?

57
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
58
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/kissyoursister - originally from r/GenZhou
I’m currently reading Patriots, Traitors & Empires and I’m really enjoying it so far. I learned absolutely nothing about Kim Il Sung and Korea’s history in school, so I have to learn about it all on my own time now in college (I don’t take any history classes).

From what I’ve read thus far, it’s very obvious that Kim Il Sung and all his merits led him to the position that he was in and that he earned his place as the founder and leader of the DPRK. My only concern, and I guess confusion, is why his son took over following his death. I don’t want to flat-out call the DPRK a monarchy because I’m not that educated on how they operate, but I’m sure you can all understand how someone in the West would see it as a monarchy through Western media and how the country is portrayed.

I guess my question is that is there any reason Marxist-Leninists should support the DPRK’s leadership from Kim Jong Il to now Kim Jong Un? Aside from being descendants of the DPRK’s founder, do they really have any qualifications? Kim Il Sung was a guerrilla leader and dedicated his life to liberating Korea, so why did the passing of command not work like a meritocracy wherein the most qualified person would take Kim Il Sung’s place once he died?

Is this “monarchy”, as it is viewed by most Westerners, widely popular in the DPRK? By that I mean do the DPRK’s proletariat accept this chain of leadership that they will be guided by the descendants of Kim Il Sung? I feel like if the answer is “yes” in any way, it would be hard to buy into that idea because Western media portrays their population as brainwashed and subjugated under a feudal monarchy. I, however, am more than willing to accept that it’s simply a different culture and their conditions are vastly different than other countries, especially the West.

I’m sure someone is going to tell me to watch Hakim’s video on why the DPRK is so weird but I’ve already seen it and it didn’t answer my question or clear up my confusion. It seems like the DPRK is the most lied about country of nearly all-time, and the difference in culture and structure between my country (America) and theirs is so vast that I want to learn more.

59
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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?
60
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/sourmysoup - originally from r/GenZhou

61
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.)

62
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.

63
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/Trebuh - originally from r/GenZhou

64
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/SteamboatJesus - originally from r/GenZhou
Stephen Gowans book is amazing and I want more like it.

65
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.

66
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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?

67
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

68
2
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

69
2
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

70
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/LeftConnoisseur - originally from r/GenZhou

71
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/signhimupfergie - originally from r/GenZhou

72
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/abkhazian_patriot - originally from r/GenZhou
I feel like one of the Libertarian candidates such as Ron Paul would be best, considering they actually seem to somewhat criticize the extensive U.S. troop presence around the world. What do you guys think?

Edit: I should add, an actually plausible candidate. Let's be honest, Americans are way too reactionary to vote in an actual socialist or communist.

73
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/snapp3r - originally from r/GenZhou
According to Lenin, the five basic features are:

  1. The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life
  2. the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
  3. the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
  4. the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
  5. the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

Does Russia fulfill this criteria?

74
0
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/Moon4503 - originally from r/GenZhou

75
1
submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

u/jsonism - originally from r/GenZhou
Today's discussion of Ukraine is unusually enthusiastic. In fact, Ukraine is definitely a country that deserves our serious attention because it is a textbook of color revolutions, an all-around, flawless, and comprehensive three-dimensional control group. After understanding the situation in Ukraine, you can basically understand the general operation of color revolutions.

  1. Ukraine had a fantastic start

Why is that? Because Ukraine has too good of a foundation.

There are many backward countries in the world, but the key is knowing how you are backward.

For example, in some small countries in Africa, the natural environment are poor, land resources are low, more than 90% of their territory are desert, and they also don’t have any shorelines for transportation, so they might have a hard time developing their country, it is easy to understand, isn’t it?

Also, some countries in the Middle East, stuck in the geopolitical crossroads, plagued with civil and foreign wars, intermingled with multiple forces, their resources and industries can not be developed, with their internal and external difficulties, it is not difficult to understand they would have a hard time developing too.

Furthermore, some countries in Asia are far from war, but for historical reasons, they have poor infrastructure, and most people are illiterate, so they can not be quickly developed for now, but as late-developing countries, they are also trying their best, right?

And there comes Ukraine, which was not the same as all the countries above.

To begin with, In terms of the size of the country, Ukraine is as large as Britain, France, Germany, and other European countries, and its population is 50 million.

Next, In terms of resources, Ukraine is the third-largest exporter of food in the world, along with the Northeast of China and the Mississippi of the United States. There are more than 80 kinds of rich minerals that can be mined, including coal, iron, manganese, nickel, titanium, mercury, graphite, and so on.

At the same time, there is the Black Sea which is to the south of Ukraine, which has both fishing resources and good transportation conditions. The Danube River, which is familiar to many people, flows through nine countries and is eventually flowing into the Black Sea in Ukraine.

Basically, they have all the necessary resources as a nation.

It is important to note that Ukraine is not an agricultural country with resources, but an industrial country with a very advanced industrial system and a system of universal education, which was also established as a production center in the former Soviet Union. With a literacy rate of 99.7%, Ukraine probably had the fourth-highest level of education in the world at that time, and had a large number of universities.

Moreover, Ukraine inherited a bunch of highly sophisticated factories from the Soviet era.

For example, the Nikolaev Shipyard - better known to the Chinese as the Black Sea Shipyard - was the largest shipyard in Europe at the time and built nine aircraft carriers for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the predecessor of China's Liaoning aircraft carrier “The Varyag” the predecessor of China's Liaoning aircraft carrier, was nearly 70% completed here.

Kharkiv Morozov Mechanical Design Bureau, where the famous T34 was designed and developed.

Antonov Design Bureau - in the 1980s the world's largest aircraft was built - the An-225 transport aircraft.

Motor Sich - the world's largest aero-engine research and manufacturing company, specializing in the supply of engines for all types of aircraft, known as the "power tsar"

Ukraine inherited 3,594 Soviet military-industrial enterprises, with 3 million workers, capable of producing aircraft, tanks, aircraft carriers, rockets, large transport aircraft, and land, maritime, aero equipment, and they were all at the top of the world at the time.

The most important thing is that Ukraine is not a fat sheep, it directly inherited 700,000 Soviet troops, more than 6,000 tanks, 1,500 aircraft, 300 ships, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and -- 2,500 tactical nuclear weapons.

Yup, the thing countless countries have been dreaming of, countless powers have been thinking about, topping the sanctions while taking their belt in pawn would want to build – the nuclear weapon. Ukraine directly inherited a bunch that year.

Overall, during the Soviet period, Ukraine ranked second in the Soviet Union in terms of industrial level, the military industry was particularly developed, and it was also ranked first in agriculture, culture, and education, and was second only to Russia in terms of overall strength, and was thus jokingly called by us Chinese the "Second hairy". (Big hairy Russia two hairy Ukraine three hairy Belarus, the hairy bear, of course, is the Soviet Union)

Therefore, it may be difficult for Ukraine to surpass the United Kingdom and catch up with the United States, but it has no problem developing into a small, rich regional power.

However, Ukraine did not become a strong country, it even fell into a weak and poor country.

In 1989, Ukraine's GDP per capita was 1598$, Romania's GDP per capita was 1818$, Russia's GDP per capita was 3429$, and China's GDP per capita was only 311$. Ukraine was five times larger than us.

Then twenty years passed

In 2016, Ukraine's GDP per capita is still only $2186$, Romania's GDP per capita is $9520$, Russia's GDP per capita is $8748$, and China's GDP per capita has come to $8123$ (source IMF official website)

As a matter of fact, at present, Ukraine has an even lower GDP per capita than Vietnam

There are many reasons why Ukraine has gone from a quasi-developed power to what it is today

For instance, the side effect of the planned economy, the famous quote by Makarov, the captain of the Black Sea Shipyard back then, is actually a side effect of this problem.

"The construction of an aircraft carrier requires a state planning commission and an industrial-military commission, nine defense industry departments, more than 600 related professions and more than 8,000 supporting manufacturers, in short, a great nation to complete"

The Soviet industrial system was built on a planned economy with a detailed division of labor, where some develop light industry and others develop heavy industry and eventually integrated.

And after the dissolution of any single individual does not have the same capacity as before, Ukraine can indeed still produce aircraft and tanks, but there is no market to support him, without a large number of orders from the Soviet Union, empty factory workshops can only be vacant.

But if it is limited to this, it can only be said that Ukraine is difficult to continue the previous level of development, but this starting line is still better than the vast majority of countries.

  1. The Textbook of Color revolution

So how did Ukraine end up where it is today? Ukraine is a textbook of color revolutions on all fronts, because it is really hard to imagine a country that has bought into the evil of the other side like this

First, there was shock therapy for the economy.

After Ukraine's independence in 1991, Kravchuk became president, and in order to bring Ukraine's economy out of stagnation and quickly transform from a planned economy to a market economy, he believed in "shock therapy" as did Yeltsin in Russia at the time. As you may have guessed, like Russia, the Ukrainian economy went from stagnation to chaos, with prices soaring and the currency devalued, while some senior officials took the opportunity to use their power to acquire state property and become oligarchs.

But there is still something to say, after all, no one had the experience back then, the problem is the rest of the operations.

Then, there was the disarmament of nuclear weapons for the military

When Ukraine wanted to join the European NATO after USSR's dissolution, in order to convince the west as soon as possible that it was not a threat, it believed in the promises of Europe and the United States and destroyed its nuclear weapons. On the surface, for Ukraine at the time, this step was profitable both in terms of reducing the funds for maintaining nuclear weapons and in exchange for Western assistance.

But realistically speaking, only a company can discuss whether it makes money or not, a country cannot just consider whether it makes money or not, nuclear and non-nuclear countries are completely different things in terms of discourse.

Why did they attack Iraq? Because it was suspected of having weapons of mass destruction

So why not go after North Korea? Because it really does have weapons of mass destruction.

Ukraine could negotiate terms with Europe and the United States back then, not because Europe and the United States were kind-hearted, but because you really had thousands of nuclear warheads in your nuclear arsenal. After Ukraine destroyed its own nuclear weapons, Europe and the United States not only did not fulfill their promises, but even the previously promised loans started to come with conditions.

In addition to nuclear weapons, Europe and the United States also coerced and lured Ukraine into giving up a whole bunch of military equipment.

For example, when Ukraine had already built the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, a Norwegian company offered Ukraine's help to build six ships, but to build them on Platform 0, where the Ulyanovsk carrier was located, and another American steel company took the opportunity to offer a high price for the steel used in the carrier's construction.

Ukraine had an idea: wouldn't it be a good move to kill two birds with one stone? So Ukraine dismantled the Ulyanovsk carrier and prepared to sell it, freeing up the shipyard for the orders of new ships.

But when the carrier was dismantled, the US company refused to buy it on the pretext that the contract was invalid, and then the Norwegian shipbuilding contract was canceled for some reason.

After your economy and military, the next is your whole industrial chain.

The famous "aviation power tsar" Motor Sich company CEO Boguslaev once told reporters that when he took his products to the French exhibition, Western aviation manufacturers unceremoniously told him, "'Your engine is very good, but we don't want it '. Why? Because "your product does not meet the standards."

And what are the standards? The standard is that 24 ways of cutting environment-friendly humanitarian diamond and if you don't buy it then you don't love it. The standard is that the only champagne is the wine produced in the Champagne region of France.

If you can produce diamonds in West Africa, then I will emphasize the cut, diamonds are important, but a good cut is equally important, only diamonds that are produced in the city of London by a "century-old master", with hyperbolic 4C technique are the precious ones, you understand that thing which is called an artisan spirit!

If you have the cut, I will then emphasize the brightness, only bright diamonds are worthwhile, your dim ones are inferior!

As a result, when China's artificial diamond technology exploded, and they have all the brightness and cut, but…

Guess what the opposite side said?

Only those with flaws are natural! And only natural ones are truly valuable!

Your Xinjiang cotton is cheap and good, I will just say that you used slave labor, the standards are in my hands and can change at any time, how do you play with it?

So many people in reference to the decline of Ukraine's industry have not understood one point, even if it declines tremendously, Ukraine was also able to produce aircraft and tanks, it would still be very much an advanced industrial country, how did it become “not even able to afford to eat?”

The answer is that if there is no market and no right to speak in production then it would be meaningless. You work so hard on R&D to engage in upgrading, no matter how good is the product, how world-renowned it is, and then how it hangs other's competitors, ultimately still you need a market. For them at the market level, they will do anti-dumping, tax increases, and even directly say to you that you do not meet the standards, there are 10,000 ways to deal with you. Without the motherland, as the backing of the enterprise, it would be at the mercy of others (Zhang Yiming upvoted with tear(the CEO of byte dance which owns TicTok, it is sarcasm))

Ukraine wants to go all-in in Europe and the United States, so it did not do well in the Russian market, and how about Europe and the United States? “You are, after all, the second hair, how can I really believe you? I just want to use you as the front line to disgust Russia, the more chaotic you are the happier I am.”

Therefore, repeatedly teased by the west, Ukraine came to its own realization. Ukraine wasn't stupid, of course, they also reacted to the good old "freedom and democracy." Everything will become better they said, turns out that's not true at all, is it?

In 2004, the Ukrainian public felt that they had to change their mindset, not what the west said, so they elected a pro-Russian Yanukovych and tried to move closer to Russia.

Then the final form of the color revolution emerged when the pro-Western Yushchenko, after losing the presidential election, called on his supporters to hold peaceful demonstrations in major cities across the country on the basis of "massive election fraud by Yanukovych", which became known as the "Orange Revolution" because Yushchenko and his supporters wore orange clothes and waved orange flags.

Under strong pressure, the Constitutional Court ruled that the election results were invalid and a new election was held early the following year, which Yushchenko won by a narrow margin.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, along with the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, are considered to be color revolutions, with the common denominator that they took place in the former Soviet Union states and that the initial winners were all pro-Russian or socialist parties.

In short, as long as the democracy elected is not the one "I" want, then it is not "real democracy".

Even if Yushchenko is put on the presidential throne, the reality is still to be seen. Under Yushchenko's rule, Ukraine's economy still did not improve, and people continued to have a hard time, so in 2010, Yanukovych ran again and won.

After he became president, Yanukovych began a series of pro-Russian activities, negotiating with Russia, lowering the price of natural gas, and extending the validity of the Russian Black Sea Fleet's presence in Crimea to 25 years.

In fact, Ukraine's largest trading partner is Russia, and a large number of upstream and downstream industrial chains is also inextricably linked to Russia, it is simply impossible to completely oppose Russia and lean to the West, the most important thing is that Europe and the United States only take care of themselves. Greece joined NATO then it still had a financial crisis, did joining NATO solved all of the problems?

But Yanukovych did not hold after a couple of years, then the second color revolution in Ukraine broke out again

This time it was more serious and more direct than the first. On December 15, 2013, U.S. Senator John McCain flew all the way to Kyiv. On the stage of Independence Square, McCain shout out to the audience that he had come to support the just cause of Ukrainians and promised that the United States would support Ukraine's integration into the European Union and that "Ukraine will make Europe better, and Europe will make Ukraine better." The applause from the stage was deafening.

Peter Poroshenko, who was leading the demonstration, was overwhelmingly elected as the new president in May 2014, after Yanukovych fled to Russia.

If Yushchenko(the previous pro-west leader) was only "pro-west" before, then Poroshenko is not even pretending now

First, all gold reserves were exchanged for U.S. dollars, then the foreign officials, then the senior officials' positions were given directly to the Americans.

What if the other side accuses us of having a foreign influence? Simple, if I issue my nationality directly on the day they took office, then there won't be a foreign influence.

In 2015, Ukraine's GDP fell by 9.9%, gross industrial product by 13.4%, and more than 5 million people lost their jobs.

By 2018, Ukraine had lost 20% of its industrial production capacity compared to before the protest movement, and the structure of the economy was almost completely altered. Poroshenko himself has been repeatedly accused by his opponents of using his power to enrich himself and make a fortune out of the country.

What's more, in order to pay the West's dues and draw a clear line with Russia, Ukraine has tacitly allowed the rise of Nazi ideology

We have all seen that teenager pose that Nazi salute to a WWII veteran. The answer is simple: the Soviet Union was the hero that defeated the Nazis, and discrediting the Soviet Union often comes with glorifying the Nazis. In addition, there is a historical reason, the Ukrainian side of World War II has a formidable pseudo-army(puppet army).

Incidentally, two years ago, the Ukrainian Nazis also made an appearance in Hong Kong, the reason is also simple

The master in the back is the same. As a successful color revolution region, the forerunners naturally have to teach newcomers how to get things done, so is that world-famous painting(Ukrainian nazis in Hong Kong), has historical reasons to it ~ the key is, how you comprehend the "good ending".

BTW, the famous feminist organization, FEMEN, was also born in Ukraine and was initially supported by the NED.

That's why Ukraine is a textbook for color revolutions, from the left to the right, all the methods you've seen now, Ukraine has practiced and staged, and accumulated a wealth of experience.

Eventually, with constant provocation, pro-Russian, ethnic Russian populations and pro-Western conflicts were sparked within Ukraine, and tragedies such as cases like 2014 Odesa clashes emerged.

So some people say that to oppose the war to reflect, OK no problem, the key is that you have to seriously study history to oppose the war

You don't say anything when the oligarchs in Ukraine are enriching themselves and selling out the country

You didn't say anything when the "protestors" in Ukraine, supported by the West, kept stirring up confrontations

You didn't say anything when Ukraine's democratically elected government was overthrown by a color revolution

You didn't say anything when the militias in Ukraine were persecuting the Russian population under the Nazi banner

You didn't say anything when Ukrainian Nazis were exported all over the world and made troubles in the case of Hong Kong and other issues

Even before the Minsk agreements, when Russia wanted a peaceful negotiated settlement "Putin had stressed that the agreement was the only possible solution to the conflict", and then - when Kyiv did not want to fulfill it, you still did not say anything

And finally, after a decade of exaggeration and confrontation, the conflict grew and eventually led to war.

You said, "No matter what, war is not right."

"Leaving aside the previous 99 steps, don't you have any problems at all?"(An analogy for Chinese libs which blames problem single-handedly on one side.)

How does Ukraine from a former regional power-rich country, down to today's economic collapse, social unrest, conflict and confrontation continue to erupt and is even known as "the womb of Europe"(surrogacy)? When we pull a list of history, the truth actually becomes very clear.

To really reflect, all of the above as one fact

Ukraine's chaos is the end result of the U.S. thirty years of the continuous output of color revolutions to provoke confrontation triggered by conflict. In order to be anti-war, first, is to have the fundamental recognition of the United States' injustice.

Not sure if this reflection is the reflection you want.

Source:https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404740745256108547

Machine translated by DeepL, edited by me.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

GenZhouArchive

233 readers
1 users here now

A space to archive anything from /r/GenZhou

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS