19
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)
GenZhou
1031 readers
3 users here now
GenZhou is GenZedong without the shitposts
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space (shared with GenZedong). See this thread for more information.
Rules:
- This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
- No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
- No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
- No dogmatism/idealism
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
- Shitposts will be removed (please post them to /c/GenZedong or elsewhere instead)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Specifically look at the wording of 'In conformity with the interests of the toilers, and in order to strengthen the socialist system...' in the soviet version. Working class speech is protected, working class media is protected, the ability of hte working class to gather is protected, etc. Anti working class perversions of these things are the issue. Someone trying to own media privately to peddle anti communism and/or to personally profit is a problem. Someone trying to gather with the goal of organizing a counter revolution is a problem. Really its the same shit liberal states do but the opposite, where they are more than happy to prohibit proletarian speech and working class demonstrations. Socialist states however never felt the urge to dress it up in nice words and were pretty straight up about it.
At least this is all the concept and the goal. This isnt to say there have been 0 mistakes ever, or that it worked as intended all the time, this is just the general idea behind these things.
To add to it. Socialist states live up to the actual human ideal of being transparent.
Westoids tend to assume that states lie because "thats what states do" just that socialist states dont need to lie as their interests converge with the interests of the people, mostly.
Therefore, when socialist states proclaim freedom of speech, you of course are not allowed to make a case for child r*** for example because it is horrific.
Only westoids used to this kind of perverse thinking have this twisted idea of "freedom of speech" where you can literally kill someone with your words and be chill about it.
Liberalist brainworms.
And because of that transparency, it actually has lead to, among other things, significantly better media literacy. In the west people take the news headlines at face value because we have free press, so therefore whatever you read is probably true. In reality, its just as obscured, censored, and biased towards the bourgeoisie as socialist state owned media is to their state. However in such societies, people know that going into it and therefore think more critically about what they read. Where in the west we see people believing every little thing they see on facebook, people in socialist states are more incentivized to go out and actually educate themselves because they are under no illusions of an infallible free press.
Both systems are equally as repressive (granted towards different parts of society), yet the outcome is fairly different.
I mostly agree. "Equally repressive" does read very bothsideist though. One state is repressive against 99% of their population, deadly so against anyone left of center. The other state is repressive against a tiny minority of fascists and a couple of otherwise state/socialism opposed people, mostly. That is a hugely different thing.
I suppose 'capacity for repression' is a better way to say it. That was supposed to be more demonstrative of the nature of media in class struggle (and how it doesnt change no matter who controls it) instead of calling socialist systems repressive