u/DrippinUncHo - originally from r/GenZhou
See sources in footnotes below. This post is an attempt to recreate the black book of communism using not ridiculous sources, then comparing the results with the equivalent of an anti-communism death count. A revision of the black book of communism is presented first, then a new book of anti-communism, with a quick overview of fascism and capitalist-imperialism at the end.

Three things to note:

• The idea here is to beat them with their own framing, even if it sucks. The same methodology is used, find good sources and delegate the responsibility of all deaths with applied reasoning.

• This is only a record of active losses, eg. Deaths from activities such as violence and man-made famines. It doesn’t account for passive losses due to the structure of imperialism. Sufficient to say, communism have been astronomically better than any other system in mitigating these. The comparison between India and China, where an amount equal to the great famine perish every 8 years due to capitalism in India, exemplifies the horrific record of capitalist passive deaths in the periphery. They must be remembered. But that’s not what we’re trying to keep track of here.

• We’re unfortunately unable to rid ourselves of structural biases in these historical records. All the material used here is subject to capitalism, because of funding mechanism, because of the system that deploys reporters and researchers, powers that can silence, amplify, legitimize, or ignore voices. The class allegiance of this system inevitably leads to an outcome of lopsided historical records. It should therefore be kept in mind that continuous critical research will likely file down the numbers of victims of communism and adjust upwards the numbers attributed to capitalism.

A slightly gray book of communism

People’s Republic of China: 11,662,310 [1]

• landlord campaign: 200,000

• Campaign to suppress the counterrevolutionaries: 712,000

• the great famine: 10,350,000

• Cultural revolution: 400,000

• 4th July incident. 300

• Falun gong crackdown: 10

Chinese civil war: 600,000 [2]

DPRK: 178,080 [3]

• wartime context.

Vietnam: 15,000 [4]

Khmer Rouge: 1,400,000 [5]

• understood in context of imperial aggression so traumatic can only be compared to the Hutus.

Afghanistan: 562,000. only partial responsibility [6]

Eastern bloc: 5,903. Must be weighted w. the righteousness of defascistization. [7]

Peru: 18,320 [8]

• shining path: 17,600

• TARM: 720

Somalia: 50,000. Context of civil war [9]

Ethiopia: 280,000 [10]

• 200,000 manmade parts of famine

• 50,000 villagization. context of civil war

• 30,000 red terror. context of civil war

Interwar Europe: 1,434 [11]

USSR: 5,337,900 [12]

• 714,000

Of which: 20,000 subject to arbitration in context of dekulakization-collectivization.

Of which: 681,700 are subject to arbitration over the still debated purges.

Of which: 12,300 are intermittent, and above.

Of which an unknown number constitutes legitimate verdicts to common crimes.

• 4,600,000 of which share of responsibility is disputable.

• 22,400 Poland

• 1,500 Mongolia

Republican Spain: 37,843. Must be understood as partially survivalist measures [13]

Malaysia: 1,865 [14] The same applies to the rest of the list.

Philippines: 9,800 [15]

Colombia: 35,000 [16]

Salvador: 3,750 [17]

====

20,261,362

Mao and Stalin are usually used as emblems of the total evil of communism. Outside Mao and Stalin, the death toll is (11,662,000 and 5,337,900)

= 3,261,462

A PITCH-BLACK BOOK ON ANTI-COMMUNISM

KMT: 5,138,000 [1]

• 5,110,000 wartime

• 28,000 on Taiwan

South Korea: 2,856,494 [1]

• 34,574 terror

• 2,821,920 wartime

Vietnam: 3,800,000 [2]

Cambodia: 600,000 [1]

Laos: 62,000

Indonesia: 3,000,000 [3]

Timor: 200,000 [4]

Yugoslavia: 3,008 [5]

Peru: 30,000 [1]

Interwar Europe: 46,971 [1]

Russia: 24,000,000 [6]

Spain: 595,000 [7]

Angola: 805,000 [8]

Malaysia: 9,998 [1]

Philippines: 33,200 [1]

Colombia: 227,197 [1]

Salvador: 71, 250 [1]

Nicaragua: 40,000 [9]

Guatemala: 200,000

Condor: 90,000 [10]

Granada: 93

Turkey: 5,000 [11]

Iraq: 5,000 [12]

Iran: 62,000 [13]

Thailand: 6,054 [14]

Zimbabwe: 20,000 [15]

Mozambique: 1,000,000 [16]

European theatre of WW2: 41 786 686 [17]

==

84,693,051

(42,906,365 outside the war)

u/Revnow2 - originally from r/GenZhou

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

u/LeftConnoisseur - originally from r/GenZhou

u/Dickgray0708 - originally from r/GenZhou

u/ouch_oof - originally from r/GenZhou
yk, the guy who kind of invented the whole cultural marxism crap and said that the soviets were subverting the united states. this guy is mostly loved by nazis and right-liberals. he claims to have worked for the KGB.

u/Lilyo - originally from r/GenZhou
Podcasts

The Real Story: When U.S. Empire Waged War vs. Socialism in Afghanistan: 1978-1990s

Is the U.S. Actually Leaving Afghanistan? Part 2 of our Afghanistan and U.S. Imperialism series

Why the Pentagon Lost in Afghanistan

Civilizations 36a: Islam & Imperialism pt3 – The First Anglo Afghan War aka the Invasion of Afghanistan

Civilizations 36b: Islam & Imperialism 3b – the rest of the Anglo-Afghan Wars

​

Videos

View from Iran: US Withdrawal From Afghanistan Reflects A Weakened Empire, w/ Mohammad Marandi

How The US Crushed Afghanistan's Future

Afghanistan War Exposed: An Imperial Conspiracy (Full Documentary)

CIA Stories: Death Squads in Afghanistan

Afghan Taliban Victory: A Pakistani Left Perspective

​

Articles

The Sickle and the Minaret: Communist Successor Parties in Yemen and Afghanistan after the Cold War

Afghan Tragedy: Still Relevant Today As it Was Analyzed 15 Years Ago

The history of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Afghanistan’s socialist years: The promising future killed off by U.S. imperialism

Timeline of Afghanistan (1919-1996)

Telephone Conversation Between Soviet Premier Alexei N. Kosygin and Afghan Premier Nur Mohammed Taraki - March 18, 1979

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski U.S. President Carter's National Security Adviser

An Afghan socialist talks occupation, war, and the future facing his country

The return of the Taliban 20 years later

The War Nerd: Was There a Plan in Afghanistan?

​

Books

Revolutionary Afghanistan by Beverley Male

Washington’s Secret War Against Afghanistan by Phillip Bonosky

​

Ive seen many widespread misinformation about the Saur Revolution on Reddit lately, so Ive written this summary.

The PDPA was a communist party that came into power in April 1978 during the Saur Revolution with popular support after overthrowing the Daud dictatorship, which itself came into power in a coup in 1973 and became widely unpopular due to widespread food shortages and hoarding by the ruling elites. The PDPA then undertook progressive economic and social reforms to break up the previous semi feudal system, redistribute land from the countryside warlords to the peasants, pass gender equality laws, and abolish religious fundamentalist laws. While these were popular among their constituency especially in the cities, it was hard to grow their membership in the countryside where conservative and reactionary forces made it hard to implement reforms and immediately started an insurrection against them, which the US swiftly backed starting in late 1978 in Operation Cyclone.

The Soviets only intervened at the request of the PDPA afterwards in December 1979 once it was clear the US was funding the counterrevolutionary and reactionary Mujahideen opposition in the countryside which was opposed to the progressive social and economic reforms the PDPA introduced, and after serious internal conflict and factionalism within the PDPA led to the assassination of their leader Taraki in September 1979 by one of his generals Amin, who had ties with the US and tried after couping Taraki to reverse foreign policy and restore relations with the US. Amin was part of the same faction as Taraki but was primarily a nationalist who did not agree with what the PDPA was doing and tried to unsuccessfully appease the Mujahideen while in power. The Soviets entered Afghanistan at the request of the couped government and overthrew Amin and put back into power Karmal of the more moderate wing of the PDPA that had been previously purged by Amin who had managed to plunge the party membership during his brief stay in power.

The PDPA then continued to try and reform the country and fight with Soviet support the insurgent US aided Mujahideen. This went on for 10 years with not a whole lot of success for the PDPA which never managed to defeat the insurgency or establish wide support in the rural countryside, though its important to note their many successes during the time in trying to create a progressive and modernized Afghanistan and made huge leaps in literacy, housing, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. The Soviets had all left by 1989 and the PDPA continued fighting the insurgents until 1992 when after the USSR collapsed the PDPA lost their economic support and everything unraveled from there. A new government was formed by the Mujahideen which also quickly unraveled due to infighting, which led to the uprising of the Taliban in 1994 formed from previous Mujahideen fighters who then seized power in 1996, and governed the country until 2001 when the US invaded.

The Soviets did not do what the Americans did in 2001, this much is clear, though they tried to sustain a government that just never managed to foment popular support among the rural constituency or overcome the reactionary elements of society, but its important to understand the USSR did not create this government, only assisted it, the PDPA came into power through its own struggle and revolution. This is one of the main misunderstandings ive seen.

u/AvantAveGarde - originally from r/GenZhou
As everyone has been witnessing, the Afghani US-backed government led by ex-president Ashraf Ghani’s has collapsed in spectacular fashion. People are making comparisons to the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and Chinese forums like Guancha are taking in the sweet moment to revel in the US' 20 year long blunder as much as they can. The era is over, and the West regrets to declare to the world that it is weaker. and They shouted "America to die" but at the same time they looked friendly, so strange (Google translated headlines).

Unsurprisingly the libs are out in full force, decrying that the country will revert into a mass-rape and Jihadist hotbed and that women will be stripped of all rights as they were in the 90s, all the while failing to acknowledge that the US is chief responsible for creating the social and material conditions in the first place. On the other hand MLs and other leftists are confused on how to take in the developing situation. On one hand US bad, but the Taliban isn’t exactly sunshine and rainbows. No need to bring up what could have been any more times than necessary.

What’s probably confusing the leftist discourse more is that the transition of power to the Taliban is unlike what the liberals on social media are screeching about. A summary of today’s press conference from the Taliban So the situation as far as we can tell is stabilizing, no mass rapes, no public beheadings and no wholesale stripping of the rights of women (so long as you’re willing to take the Taliban’s word at face value.)

To explain why this shouldn’t be as much of a shock we should look at the events leading up to the 10 day surrender of the Afghani government. Namely the diplomatic mission that the Taliban sent to meet foreign minister Wang Yi in Tianjin and the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Dushanbe the weeks prior in July.

https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/russia-china-advance-asian-roadmap-for-afghanistan/

https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/the-taliban-go-to-tianjin/

The SCO is working all-out to present a road map for a Kabul-Taliban political settlement in the next round of negotiations in August… It's all about a comprehensive economic integration package, where the Belt and Road Initiative and its affiliated China-Pakistan Economic Corridor interacts with Russia’s Greater Eurasia Partnership and overall Central Asia-South Asia connectivity.

What Russia-China are investing in with the Taliban is to extract iron-clad guarantees: Don’t allow jihadis to cross Central Asian borders – especially Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan; Fight ISIS-Khorasan head-on and don’t allow them sanctuary, as the Taliban did with al-Qaeda in the 1990s; and Be done with opium poppy cultivation (you did give it up in the early 2000s) while fighting against drug trafficking.

https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/a-saigon-moment-in-the-hindu-kush/

Unlike Think Tank Row in DC, Chinese counterparts seem to have done their homework. They understood that the USSR did not invade Afghanistan in 1979 to impose “popular democracy” – the jargon then – but was in fact invited by the quite progressive UN-recognized Kabul government at the time, which essentially wanted roads, electricity, medical care, telecommunications and education.

China is now picking up where the USSR left. Beijing, in close contact with the Taliban since early 2020, essentially wants to extend the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – one of the Belt and Road Initiative flagship projects – to Afghanistan.

I don’t want to take up too much time posting articles, but the general message is that the Taliban and the members of the SCO have been in close contact on the developing situation in Afghanistan. It not only helps explain why Chinese citizens have been evacuated since July but should also give some insight that this Taliban leading the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has potentially learned from its past mistakes and could be much different than that of the one established in 1996. The Taliban have extracted diplomatically formal recognition from the SCO members, BRI infrastructure development, regional cooperation in exchange for a (mostly) peaceful transition of power, formal distancing from terrorist groups like ETIM, and the protection of the rights of women and children (in accordance with their sharia law). This of course is subject to the developments on the ground, the Taliban could very well go back on their promises, establish a jihadist caliphate and begin a reign of terror. If that is the case expect NATO wardrums and another long period of depravity.

So what to make of this? If the Taliban hold up their promises and act on good behavior in the eyes of Beijing and Moscow, it might possibly be the beginning of reconstruction after a long 40 years of endless conflict, which I believe to be the most important goal if we're looking to improve the material conditions of the Afghani people. The potential inclusion of Afghanistan as another node in the BRI project will have immense changes in the strengthening of regional cooperation. The promises of the end of opium production and allowing women to continue to pursue education are all good signs to this potential reality manifesting. I would suggest everyone to monitor the developing situation and try not to fall into the western anglo media with the foolhardy belief that Afghanistan would be better under US backed development. I do not believe we should acknowledge it to be an ideal situation, but at the very least it is seeming to be better than the worst.

u/roosterkun - originally from r/GenZhou
Hello all,

I recently watched Bay Area415's video that details SWCC and found it very informative - he makes very clear what China's goals are and how they're taking a scientific approach to achieve them.

One thing that I felt he glossed over, however, was the existence of Chinese billionaires. He addresses the topic, but his explanation of their existence boils down to, "they must adhere to the long term goals of the CPC".

He claims they are not capitalist, but I have trouble imagining how someone could possibly amass even a hundred million dollars, let alone a billion, without extracting surplus value from labor. I know some tech industries have a very high profit:labor ratio, which goes a long way to explaining the wealth of Jack Ma & Ma Huateng (Alibaba & Tencent, respectively). But what about Zhong Shanshan (pharmaceuticals) and Wang Wei (package delivery)? How is their net worth in the billions if workers are not being exploited?

u/KimochiiiNe - originally from r/GenZhou
POLITICAL TRENDS

According to Xi Jinping and the current party consensus, there are four broad political trends in China today:

1. "Ultra-left", which upholds the Mao era and Mao Zedong Thought but rejects the Deng Xiaoping era and the theoredical framework of Socialism with Chinese characteristics. This position must be "profoundly re-examined".
2. "Left", which upholds both the Mao and Deng eras, Mao Zedong Thought and SWCC. This position must be "strongly promoted".
3. "Right", which rejects Mao and Mao Zedong Thought but upholds Deng Xiaoping and SWCC. This position must also be "profoundly re-examined".
4. "Ultra-right", which rejects both the Mao and Deng eras, Mao Zedong Thought and SWCC. This position must be "firmly opposed".

Both Mao and Deng comitted leftist and rightist errors respectively. However, their overall contribution to Chinese socialism is immense and should be embraced. In line with this reality, critical tolerance must given to the Ultra-Leftist and the Rightist positions described above. But Ultra-Righists, seeking to "change allegiance" (capitalist restoration) are completely unnaceptable.

This position has been put into practice in party schools, common education, and party discipline. An example of this can be seen in the testimony of expelled former liberal-minded party members in this article of the Sydney Morning Herald:

Someone always loses in any political upheaval. In the rise of Xi, it’s the second-generation elite such as Cai and their families who have been either forced into silence, hiding or exile, leaving Xi unchallenged at the top of the CCP pyramid.

“These are people who have gone to Harvard or Yale, who speak excellent English, and they don’t like Xi.”

He says the combination of the Party as an ideological commitment and as a vehicle for professional promotion had left this group of potential Chinese leaders sidelined.

“These people are seeing their purpose torn up,” he says. “Xi Jinping doesn’t like that group of members, he likes true believers because he’s a true believer."

Essentially, Xi Jinping has focused on eliminating previously widespread graft and corruption as well as completely dismantling CIA networks within the party and state. He has also taken it upon himself to cleanse the party of liberalism, resumé hunters, historical nihilism towards party history, and western idolization; all of which were unfortunate conditions that developed during the Deng era, methastisyzing during the Jiang Zemin (and his Shanghai Clique), Hu Jintao administrations.

Nevertheless, in 2017 at the 19th CPC Congress, a third era in Chinese socialism was declared in accordance with the "Left" position presented above. The primary goals of this era are to assert party authority within the economy in order to carry out the technological, social, cultural and economic tasks necessary to completely lift China from a middle-income low complexity manufacturing export-dependent economy to a high-income, innovative and self-reliant/autarkik economy during the 2021-2035 period. In other words, China wants to be more like Germany or Japan with their large high-quality, high-tech and high-complexity manufacturing output instead of deindustrializing, financializing and outsourcing like the United States and Britain.

With China likely reaching the human development and gdp per capita levels of some southern european countries by 2035, and very possibly matching western/northern european countries in those terms by 2049, it has been confirmed that China will have thus completed the Primary Stage of Socialism and will ascend to the intermediate stage by 2049:

From the primary stage of socialism to the intermediate, and then the advanced stage, China is following a development process of constant evolution and constant strengthening. Currently in the “second half” of the primary stage of socialism, China has already developed important economic features that are usually found in an advanced economic entity, for example, innovation-driven growth, post-industrialization, green manufacturing and green energy; while also facing the challenges of an aging population and sub-replacement fertility. Furthermore, it has achieved modernization of the service industry, and informatization and digitization. These features reflect a situation in which development factors are becoming increasingly dominant, as underdevelopment factors decline.

as well as:

It now appears that we will achieve our goal to complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2021, the year the Communist Party of China celebrates its centenary. By the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the PRC [2049], we will have achieved our goal of building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful.

After 2050, China will enter the intermediate stage of socialist development. The development theme will change from “common prosperity” to “common development,” with two main historical missions: (1) to turn China into a highly developed great modern socialist country (i.e. the third centenary goal) by 2078, the centenary of China’s reform and opening up; and (2) to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation by the end of the century.

China’s third centenary goal can be described as a shift from “achieving common development” to “becoming highly developed.” The overarching objective is to build China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful in all respects, so as to lay a solid foundation with higher standards to enable the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

STAGES OF SOCIALISM

The best way to summarize the stages according to the current theoredical line of the CPC and the interpretation of Professor Cheng Enfu:

0th Stage or Socialist Construction Period

• Founding of the PRC (1949) to the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the Boluan Fanzheng period (1977)
• Bloc of Four Classes, New Democracy
• People's Democratic Dictatorship with Proletarian Leadership
• Basic institutions of the PRC built
• Basic Industrialization, urbanization, and infrastructure development
• Eradication of severe deprivation, doubling of life expetancy and other achievements
• Officially, this period is part of the primary stage but it's generally talked about as being a separate era.

Primary Stage of Socialism

• Beginning of Reform and Opening Up (1978) until the 100th year of the founding of the PRC (2049)
  • Split into two sub-stages
    • 1978-2020 (Moderately Prosperous Society, eradication of absolute poverty)
    • 2021-2049 (Modern Prosperity, eradication of relative poverty and underdevelopment)
• Socialist Market Economy
  • Public Ownership in various forms primary; private ownership secondary.
  • Market-based distribution according to labor primary; according to capital secondary.
  • State-dominated Market Economy

Intermediate Stage of Socialism

• 100th year anniversary of the PRC until the 'end of the century'.
  • Split into two-sub-stages
    • 2050-2078 (Highly Developed, centenary of Reform and Opening Up)
    • 2079-2100* (Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation by the 'end of the century')
• Socialist Market Economy 2.0 (no official name yet)
  • Multiple forms of social ownership (state, coop, joint-stock); no private ownership
  • Multiple types of commodity distribution according to labor (similar to Stalin's elaboration)
  • State-dominated planned economy with secondary market adjustments
  • Although theorists have suggested leaping over the 'intermediate' stage and instead having a longer 'advanced stage' (theoredical developments are only set in stone once they have been voted on and approved in congresses and/or added to the party constitution)

Advanced/Final Stage of Socialism before Communism

• 2100*-???
  • No official speculation about the exact year but before the end of this century
• Fully Socialist Economy
  • Single Public Ownership by entire society
  • Product-based distribution according to labor (overcoming/abolition of the commodity form)
  • Completely Planned Economy

Communism

• Single public ownership by entire society
• Product-based distribution accoriding to need primary (distributon according to labor for new products in shorter supply)
• Completely Planned Economy

Hope this post helps clear up any doubts in regards to the current positions and theoredical discussions of the CPC.

u/Revnow2 - originally from r/GenZhou
When the USSR existed, western leftists complained that their stances on long hair, rock music, etc was evidence of their totailtarian, authoritarian nature, now that China has loosened up those restrictions and allowed for more individual expression, western leftists are calling China "state capitalism" What gives?

u/Bravo_Sierra232 - originally from r/GenZhou

u/Akasto_ - originally from r/GenZhou
Some claim that the DPRK is a racist ethnostate based on a statistic given by 'The World Factbook' (produced by the CIA) that 99.998% of the population is ethnically Korean. Whilst this source does seem laughable, I would still like to know how you would respond to such an assertion.

u/Irrelevant-Lizard - originally from r/GenZhou

u/AllHeilWilson - originally from r/GenZhou
I am soon participating in a local seminar discussing whether China is a socialist country or a newly emerging imperialist power. I expect Neo-trotskyist presence to be extremely strong. Their main argument is (predicted to be) as follows:

1. Chinese revolution is not a proletarian revolution, but a national liberation movement led by the non-comprador, national bourgeoisie (Their evidence is that Mao emphasized the Chinese people and his theory of the people's state outlined in "On the People's Democracy" contains ideas of bourgeois nationalism)
2. Citing Isabella Weber's "How China avoided Shock Therapy", that China supposedly appropriated surplus value from the country-side, exploiting the peasantry and thereby supporting state capitalism under Mao's rule
3. China is not a socialist country, but a state capitalist one (Whatever that means)
4. Repression of sexual/ethnic minorities (the "Uyghur Genocide"...)
5. Export oriented strategy underscores China's subservience to the global neocolonial system (Its participation in UN peacekeeping campaigns are attempts at extending its military arm to enforce value transfer into China (!)
6. China's Belt and Road initiative as an expression of its desire to export finance capital abroad
7. Exploitation of the domestic working class

To be clear, they already understand that US and western imperialism is the leading force of imperialism in the world today. They support the DPRK (whilst denouncing it as a state capitalist country) against US aggression.

Their theoretical line is somewhat similar to the Socialist Worker's Party in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist/_Workers/Party/(UK)

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/52023/Chinas+champions+of+state+capitalism

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/49999/Imperialist+rivalries+heighten+the+crisis

Please help me out here. They are very sectarian and will bite at anyone who dares to deviate even slightly from their theoretical line. The dominance of their theoretical line will be detrimental for the local movement here. Please provide me with some evidence against their claims. Concrete data (e.g. -- calculation of value transfer from Africa to China etc) is always welcome.

u/AverageUnique - originally from r/GenZhou
They all use pretty much the same system (except maybe DPRK). What makes the USA want to trade with the latter countries but not when it comes to Cuba or DRPK? Thanks in advance

edit: meant embargo instead of sanctions

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

u/RaPiiD38 - originally from r/GenZhou
I am so disillusioned with the absolute state of Western politics. I don't know where to begin, I feel like I'm living in 'They Live'. The constant hypocrisy, the constant slope towards AuthRight. Qanon bullshit everywhere, people becoming increasingly confident of increasingly stupid positions.

My entire family are in a completely different world.

I know I should try to fight for socialism in my own country but I really think the Western mind is beyond help at this point, I've felt this way for a long time actually. I'm ML/Dengist.

I'm thinking I want to save for the next 2 years and learn Chinese and find a job in China even if it's just a translation job, I also have 3D modelling skills, my job prospects here are pretty shit anyway.

Is this doable? How do Chinese people feel about this? Good idea? I would even join PLA if I could.

u/geathdripsisonline - originally from r/GenZhou
I mean, more people like our dearly-beloved Adrian Zenz, and other "whistleblowers" who consistently change their story on China and NK. I'd like to memorize their names. If there's already such a post, I apologize for the re-ask.

u/parwa - originally from r/GenZhou
I know this is more of a Dengist sub than a Maoist one, but I was hoping I could find some insight here as it's a book I've seen praised across many leftist tendencies. I read through some sections of it recently (mostly skipped over the historical stuff because I knew about most of it already) and while I went in with an open mind I'm really torn on it. I'm mostly just unsure of what the conclusion is. If revolution must be led by the colonized, where does that leave everyone else that wants a revolution? Are descendants of settlers supposed to just sit back and wait? Besides, just in terms of pure numbers isn't that nearly impossible? From my understanding you need mass support to pull off a successful revolution, not just a fraction of the population. I don't want to just write it off as an op as I've seen many others do, because it has some good points, yet I can't help but think it might be. It seems like both a great way to get people of color to distrust white leftists and refuse to organize with them, and to get white leftists to refrain from organizing in fear of speaking over the colonized. I also feel like it kinda fails to take manufactured consent into account. What are your thoughts on it?

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou

u/communistafterhours - originally from r/GenZhou
On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat A Prophetic Letter to Luigi Fabbri

London, July 30, 1919 Dearest Fabbri,[1]

(...) It seems to me that we are in perfect agreement on the matters with which you are currently so preoccupied, to wit, the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

By my reckoning, on this score the opinion of anarchists cannot be called into question, and in fact, well before the Bolshevik revolution, it never was queried by anyone. Anarchy means no government, and thus, all the more emphatically, no dictatorship, meaning an absolute government, uncontrolled and without constitutional restraints. But whenever the Bolshevik revolution broke out, it appears that our friends may have confused what constitutes a revolution against an existing government with what was implied by a new government which had just dominated the revolution in order to apply the brakes to it and steer it in the direction of its party political purposes. And so our friends have all but declared themselves Bolsheviks.

Now, the Bolsheviks are merely marxists who have remained honest, conscientious marxists, unlike their teachers and models, the likes of Guesde, Plekhanov, Hyndman, Scheidemann, Noske, etc.,[2] whose fate you know. We respect their sincerity, we admire their energy, but, just as we have never seen eye to eye with them in theoretical matters, so we could not align ourselves with them when they make the transition from theory to practice.

But perhaps the truth is simply this: our pro-Bolshevik friends take the expression “dictatorship of the proletariat” to mean simply the revolutionary action of the workers in taking possession of the land and the instruments of labor, and trying to build a society and organize a way of life in which there will be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the producers.

Thus construed, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would be the effective power of all workers trying to bring down capitalist society and would thus turn into Anarchy as soon as resistance from reactionaries would have ceased and no one can any longer seek to compel the masses by violence to obey and work for him. In which case, the discrepancy between us would be nothing more than a question of semantics. Dictatorship of the proletariat would signify the dictatorship of everybody, which is to say, it would be a dictatorship no longer, just as government by everybody is no longer a government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word.

But the real supporters of “dictatorship of the proletariat” do not take that line, as they are making quite plain in Russia. Of course, the proletariat has a hand in this, just as the people has a part to play in democratic regimes, that is to say, to conceal the reality of things. In reality, what we have is the dictatorship of one party, or rather, of one party’s leaders: a genuine dictatorship, with its decrees, its penal sanctions, its henchmen and, above all, its armed forces which are at present also deployed in the defense of the revolution against its external enemies, but which will tomorrow be used to impose the dictators’ will upon the workers, to apply a brake on revolution, to consolidate the new interests in the process of emerging and protect a new privileged class against the masses.

General Bonaparte was another one who helped defend the French Revolution against the European reaction, but in defending it, he strangled the life out of it. Lenin, Trotsky and their comrades are assuredly sincere revolutionaries (...) and they will not be turning traitors-but they are preparing the governmental structures which those who will come after them will utilize to exploit the Revolution and do it to death. They will be the first victims of their methods and I am afraid that the Revolution will go under with them.

History repeats itself: mutatis mutandis, it was Robespierre’s dictatorship that brought Robespierre to the guillotine and paved the way for Napoleon.

Such are my general thoughts on affairs in Russia. As for detailed news we have had, it i s as yet too varied and too contradictory to merit risking an opinion. It may be, too, that lots of things that strike us as bad are the products of that situation, and, in Russia’s particular circumstances, there was no option but to do what they have done. We would do better to wait, especially as anything we will say cannot have any influence upon the course of events in Russia and might be misinterpreted in Italy and appear to echo the reaction’s partisan calumnies.

u/albanian-bolsheviki - originally from r/GenZhou

u/3corneredtreehopp3r - originally from r/GenZhou
A bit of an odd question, but something that keeps popping in my head that I can’t shake. Hoping to get some other opinions.

Before COVID, I had started a marxist reading group to try to work through Capital together. I didn’t know any marxists/communists at the time, so everyone that came was a total stranger responding to posters I had put up in a few places.

In general it was a great experience with a surprisingly good turnout, although after a few months attendance dropped off quite a bit. I think the text was a little dense for a beginner group, probably should have started with something easier. Honestly I made a lot of mistakes that I wouldn’t repeat if I were to do it again.

In any event, eventually it was just me and one other guy, who set off alarms for me after a while.

He was white and in his mid-thirties. Pretty easy conversationalist. He had an older copy of Capital V1 that he brought with him that looked like it had been read a lot. Like maybe 10-20 times. But he had a somewhat odd understanding of certain passages and would ask the group for their opinion on what x,y, or z thing meant. He would readily agree with whatever the consensus was, never really argued his points.

He claimed to be a member of PSL, and he might have actually been one, I’m not sure. But the nearest PSL organization is about a 2 hour drive or train ride away. He claimed he would make the trip every weekend, and spend time down there doing whatever just hanging out in the big city. Maybe that’s normal for some people, but I’ve never personally met anyone who does that unless they’re in a long-distance relationship. It didn’t sound like he went there to meet anyone, he claimed he just wandered around on his own.

But there’s another odd thing. He had a bunch of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition with him one day, and offered it to me saying he couldn’t use it. It was a whole grocery bag full of boxes of shells.. several hundred rounds. It felt like a very weird thing to offer someone out of the blue.

When it was just the two of us and nobody else was coming anymore, I was still trying to have a discussion to work through the book one or two chapters at a time. But then after a couple meetings of that he said he would rather just hang out, drink beer, and talk casually—and that it was going to take too long to get through the book. And then he said that he thought the key to Revolution was to try to get people to stop working at their jobs. Like start taking 3-day weekends, then 4-day weekends, etc. I told him that sounded like a utopian anarchist plan and that it didn’t really make sense to me.

That was the last time I talked to him because he just gave me the heebie jeebies and he obviously wasn’t going to be much help getting through the book.

But what do you think? On a scale of 90-100%, how likely is it that there’s a file on me in the Hoover building? And secondly, how are you supposed to organize and not be infiltrated?

u/SWNerd2188 - originally from r/GenZhou