by /u/flesh_eating_turtle

I went into an intense analysis as to how the USSR allowed revisionists after Stalin to seep into its party here. They were the first communist party to successfully overthrow a capitalist government. How could they structure a political party that gave prominence to revisionist policies and move away from Stalinism?

When explaining the four cardinal principle of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (SWCC), Mr. You described the massive amount of resources China dedicated to learn why the Soviet Union fell. The overwhelming conclusion these experts came to was because of the de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.

But how can a political structure allow such revisionism to take hold? The focus of this question is not aimed at the correct problem of ideological compromise. A breakdown of ideology is not halted or obstructed by political bodies, but rather through ideological party discipline.

Mao Tse-Tung brilliantly illustrated this danger:

After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that:

a) The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the "paradise" they have been deprived of.

b) New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere.

c) Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and the pervasive, corrupting influence of the petty bourgeoisie.

d) The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist society are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists’ threat of armed intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration.

The constant threat of bourgeois elements does not end at a victorious revolution. It is ongoing, evolving, and malleable. Despite the critiques against Deng, his economic reforms not only led to the prosperous China we know today, but SAVED the CPC from corruption. The Four Cardinal Principles were created by Deng and are the four issues for which debate was not allowed within China:

1. The principle of upholding the socialist path

2. The principle of upholding the people's democratic dictatorship

3. The principle of upholding the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC)

4. The principle of upholding Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism–Leninism

To my knowledge, the USSR never had such ideological commitment. Although this is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, I can never imagine evolving capitalism to socialism to communism without a party even having these already imbedded in their political structures and party ideology.

But we can see what happens when a party lacks ideological discipline:

In announcing the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, the revisionist Khrushchov clique base themselves mainly on the argument that antagonistic classes have been eliminated and that class struggle no longer exists...

Ever since Khrushchov seized the leadership of the Soviet Party and state, he has pushed through a whole series of revisionist policies which have greatly hastened the growth of the forces of capitalism and again sharpened the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and the struggle between the roads of socialism and capitalism in the Soviet Union.

The USSR was the target of some of the most horrendous espionage and guerrilla tactics from the West. At the time Yeltsin got elected, it was basically a CIA-ran election.

In short, we must remember that socialism is a transition. Proper focus and discipline cannot falter while bourgeois elements fester in new forms. The beauty of Marxism and what SWCC has shown is that our ideology is just as adaptable to survive and thrive so long as we remain committed to that road.

by /u/flesh_eating_turtle

Introduction

Most people (including many who call themselves socialists) have a very deceptive impression of Mao Zedong. They tend to rely on bourgeois myths and fictions as their only sources of information about him, and they thus lack a proper understanding of his immense achievements (which are ignored), as well as his flaws (which are exaggerated and mischaracterized).

Because Mao's ideology continues to be the driving force behind the most active and revolutionary sector of the international communist movement (as demonstrated by the Naxalites in India, the NPA in the Philippines, and many others), it is important that we have a correct understanding of Maoist policies, and the immense gains they made for the Chinese people.

General Overview of Living Standards

Our primary source in this section will be an in-depth study conducted by Amartya Sen, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, and fellow of Trinity College at Cambridge University. Sen was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work comparing living standards in the People's Republic of China (particularly during the Maoist period) to those in India:

• Harvard University | Perspectives on the Economic and Human Development of India and China

The results of the study can be summarized by the following remark, in which Sen discusses China's decidedly superior achievements, and attributes them directly to the socialist ideology of the Maoist period:

Because of its radical commitment to the elimination of poverty and to improving living conditions - a commitment in which Maoist as well as Marxist ideas and ideals played an important part - China did achieve many things that the Indian leadership failed to press for and pursue with any vigor. The elimination of widespread hunger, illiteracy, and ill health falls solidly in this category. When state action operates in the right direction, the results can be quite remarkable, as is illustrated by the social achievements of the pre-reform [Maoist] period.

Another important comment summarizing the findings of the study is as follows:

We argue, in particular, that the accomplishments relating to education, healthcare, land reforms, and social change in the pre-reform [Maoist] period made significantly positive contributions to the achievements of the post-reform period. This is so not only in terms of their role in sustained high life expectancy and related achievements, but also in providing firm support for economic expansion based on market reforms.

Sen states here that the Maoist period saw enormous increases in quality of life for the Chinese people, as well as important economic developments, without which the economic expansion following the 1979 market reforms most likely could not have taken place.

Sen notes that during the Maoist period, a "remarkable reduction in chronic undernourishment took place," attributing this to the socialist policies implemented by Mao's government:

The casual processes through which the reduction of undernourishment was achieved involved extensive state action including redistributive policies, nutritional support, and of course health care (since undernourishment is frequently caused by parasitic diseases and other illnesses).

Sen focuses more attention on the remarkable advances in healthcare during the Maoist period:

China's achievements in the field of health during the pre-reform period include a dramatic reduction of infant and child mortality and a remarkable expansion of longevity.

It is also noted that China's life expectancy approximately doubled during the Maoist period, from approx. 35 years in 1949, to 68 years in 1981 (when Dengist reforms began to take effect). This is further elaborated on in the next source.

On the issue of education, Sen notes that the huge improvements (including dramatic increases in literacy) can be attributed primary to the pre-reform Maoist period:

China's breakthrough in the field of elementary education had already taken place before the process of economic reform was initiated at the end of the seventies. Census data indicate, for instance, that literacy rates in 1982 for the 15-19 age group were already as high as 96 percent for males and 85 percent for females.

Let us examine the issue of public health in more detail.

Further Research on Public Health and Life Expectancy

Another excellent source on public health in Maoist China comes from the journal Population Studies, in a study conducted by researchers from Stanford University and the National Bureau for Economic Research:

• Population Studies | An Exploration of China's Mortality Decline Under Mao: A Provincial Analysis, 1950-1980

One important comment is as follows

China's growth in life expectancy at birth from 35–40 years in 1949 to 65.5 years in 1980 is among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history.

This alone goes to show the massive benefits attained by the socialist policies under Mao Zedong. More important information is provided in the study, dealing with hospital and medical resources:

Physician and hospital supply grew dramatically under Mao due to a variety of factors (including increases in government financing, the introduction of social insurance for urban public employees, and the launch of China's Rural Cooperative Medical System in the mid-1950's). Rural Cooperative Medical Schemes (CMS) were vigorously promoted and became widespread in the late 1960's as part of the Cultural Revolution.

The study confirms Sen's analysis of education:

China made large strides in primary and secondary education under Mao.

It also quotes other research which found that the rapid gains in Chinese healthcare can be attributed to the specific socialist policies implemented:

China's mortality decline between 1953 and 1957, which resembles that of the US between 1900 and 1930, was “primarily due to the unique social organisation of Chinese public health practices.”

Note that China achieved in four years what the United States took thirty years to accomplish, due to their differing systems (i.e. socialism vs. capitalism). The study also confirms the immense success of Maoist vaccination programs:

Systematic efforts to vaccinate the population against polio, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, and cholera were rapid and reputedly successful (China nearly eradicated smallpox within the span of only three years, with the last documented cases occurring in Tibet and Yunnan in 1960).

Additional citations for the claims in the above quotes are provided in the original study.

Analysis of the Great Chinese Famine - Comparison to Capitalist India

In analyzing this topic, we may look to another work by Amartya Sen, his book Hunger and Public Action, written with John Dreze:

• Harvard University | Hunger and Public Action

Sen and Dreze point out that, while the Chinese famine was devastating, it pales in comparison to the ordinary mortality rates which occur under capitalism in an otherwise comparable nation like India:

...it is important to note that despite the gigantic size of excess mortality in the Chinese famine, the extra mortality in India from regular deprivation in normal times vastly overshadows the former. Comparing India’s death rate of 12 per thousand with China’s of 7 per thousand, and applying that difference to the Indian population of 781 million in 1986, we get an estimate of excess normal mortality in India of 3.9 million per year. This implies that every eight years or so more people die in India because of its higher regular death rate than died in China in the gigantic famine of 1958 – 61. India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame.

This comes out to more than 100 million excess deaths in India alone from 1947 (when India become independent) to 1980. As Paul Heideman put it, writing in Jacobin:

In other words, though India experienced no concentrated period of starvation which can be easily identified and hung around the neck of a particular ideology, its ordinary conditions for the latter half of the twentieth century, in which an extraordinarily unequal distribution of land obtained, created an excess mortality that, over the long term, dwarfed that of the worst famine of the century.

This demonstrates the effects that capitalism has on a developing nation. This is all the more shocking when compared to the immense gains made in the People's Republic of China, described in the earlier sections of this discussion.

Conclusion

The People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong made enormous strides in living standards, dramatically bettering the lives of hundreds of millions of people. While the bourgeois establishment continues to misrepresent and distort the legacy of Mao Zedong, he remains an inspirational figure to the billions of people around the world who have benefited, either directly (via the improvements mentioned above) or indirectly (via his influence on global revolutionary movements), from his work.

(1/2) by /u/flesh_eating_turtle

- Introduction -

Hello comrades. I recently added a section on the Ukrainian famine to the Soviet masterpost, and I decided to post in separately here so that people can see it.

- The Ukrainian Famine -

Let us address perhaps the most infamous of anti-Stalin myths, the allegation that Stalin deliberately caused the 1931-1933 famine to starve Ukrainians. This idea has been consistently rejected by the most esteemed scholars on the topic. The following quotes are compiled in an article from the Village Voice, cited below.

Alexander Dallin of Stanford University writes:

There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians... that would be totally out of keeping with what we know -- it makes no sense.

Moshe Lewin (perhaps the most esteemed 20th century scholar of Soviet history) stated:

This is crap, rubbish... I am an anti-Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology.

Lynne Viola of the University of Toronto writes:

I absolutely reject it... Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?

Mark Tauger, Professor of History at West Virginia University (reviewing work by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W. Davies) has this to say:

Popular media and most historians for decades have described the great famine that struck most of the USSR in the early 1930s as “man-made,” very often even a “genocide” that Stalin perpetrated intentionally against Ukrainians and sometimes other national groups to destroy them as nations... This perspective, however, is wrong. The famine that took place was not limited to Ukraine or even to rural areas of the USSR, it was not fundamentally or exclusively man-made, and it was far from the intention of Stalin and others in the Soviet leadership to create such as disaster. A small but growing literature relying on new archival documents and a critical approach to other sources has shown the flaws in the “genocide” or “intentionalist” interpretation of the famine and has developed an alternative interpretation.

More recent research has discovered natural causes for the Ukrainian famine. Tauger notes:

...the USSR experienced an unusual environmental disaster in 1932: extremely wet and humid weather that gave rise to severe plant disease infestations, especially rust. Ukraine had double or triple the normal rainfall in 1932. Both the weather conditions and the rust spread from Eastern Europe, as plant pathologists at the time documented. Soviet plant pathologists in particular estimated that rust and other fungal diseases reduced the potential harvest in 1932 by almost nine million tons, which is the largest documented harvest loss from any single cause in Soviet history.

Thus, we can see that the Ukrainian famine was not intentional, and should not be attributed to Stalin or the socialist policies he implemented.

(1/3) by /u/Entire_Cover

The inevitable question is whether or not there really existed, during Yezhov’s tenure, a subversive underground in the Soviet Union with "an undiscovered Trotskyist center...which had to be found and liquidated," in the words of a former Assistant People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs Ya. S. Agronov, who received direct instructions from Yezhov. One of the first difficulties in answering this is that the "center," as Agronov put it, that Yezhov was seeking is alternately described by other NKVD officials who were involved in these manhunts. For example, G. E. Prokofiev, a Deputy Peoples’ Commissar of Internal Affairs (like Agronov, another NKVD official), said the investigation Yezhov was conducting was directed "towards the discovery of underground revolutionary formations" and perhaps "of all the organizational links of the Trotskyists and the Zinovievists and to the discovery of terrorist groups." Prokofiev’s description of the targets of the Yezhovshchina is clearly more general and nebulous: it includes a search for saboteurs or provocateurs only peripherally connected to Trotsky and his close agents. The diversity of the descriptions of the objects of Yezhov’s dragnet has only served to confuse and to play into the hands of those who seek to prove Yezhov was a villain, demented, pathological, or vice-ridden from the beginning. His own statement, quoted earlier, on Civil War confederates posing as loyal Communists after their defeat ca. 1921, who thereafter entered the state, Party, and security apparatuses - especially in rural areas far from Moscow’s scrutinizing eyes - as being his target is the clearest, most accurate, and most productive avenue of approach, especially in view of the statistical confirmation this has received. Having been a member of the "class of 1921" is the common thread that links all the varied descriptions of Yezhov’s targets, from "wrecker" to Old Bolshevik, from "Zinovievist" to "Menshevizing idealist," from Japanese to German spy, descriptions that differed to conform to the context of the instructions containing them - many times ad hoc - that Yezhov and other police authorities issued. In the Great Terror, Yezhov was veritably continuing the Civil War because the Whites had only appeared to surrender: they had never really conceded, nor had they really given up the assistance they had received during the actual Civil War hostilities from the new-born Bolshevik regime’s foreign enemies, especially Germany, Japan, and Great Britain. (Recall, again, the above analogy with the American Civil War and what may be called the mock-surrender of the war-weary Confederates.)

In June of 1936, Stalin interrupted Yezhov at a Central Committee Plenum with what has come to be known as "Stalin’s inaudible remark." Stalin complained to Yezhov about his having expelled too many Party members:

Yezhov: "Comrades, as a result of the verification of party documents, we expelled more than 200,000 members of the party."

Stalin: [Interrupting:] Very many." [Stalin was criticizing Yezhov.]

Yezhov: "Yes, very many. I will speak about this..."

Stalin: "[Interrupting again:] If we expelled 30,000 [inaudible remark], and 600 former Trotskyists and Zinovievists it would be a bigger victory."

At a time during which he enjoyed the full trust of Stalin, Yezhov debated him for nearly two years on the need for a severe repression or liquidation of his predecessor NKVD head, Genrikh G. Yagoda. In the fall of 1936, at the height of the Yezhovshchina, Stalin observed that the NKVD was about four years behind in uncovering the oppositionist underground. The blame for this was laid at Yagoda’s door, his non-feasance suspected of being due to complicity with counter-revolutionaries. Yagoda was suspected of being not a mere bungler, but an at best passive conspirator who consciously "looked the other way" to protect the old, enduring, resistant former White Guard that had once sought to defeat the Soviet system right out in the open.

That Yagoda was indeed at the critical center of such a network is borne out by detailed studies that pertain to the NKVD’s predecessor and successor organizations, such as The Soviet Secret Police, the Uses of Terror by Borys Lewytzkyj (Boris Levitsky), Soviet Secret Police by Simon Wolin and Robert Slusser, and Beria, Stalin’s First Lieutenant by Amy Knight. From these and other sources, the most reasonable extra-paradigmatic construction of events is as follows:

There existed a domestic underground counter-revolutionary network with strong foreign connections seeking the overthrow of the USSR. Yagoda was its (possibly passive) internal functional center. This network had a lineage that can be traced back to early counter-revolutionary factions (some even socialist) that had been assisted by foreign spy-rings, as documented by the CheKa for the earliest years of the Soviet State. Trotsky and other notable exiles were involved. The patience of this underground was uncommon (for the West). Yezhov was keener than Stalin in perceiving the threat this underground posed, and wanted to put his foot in a "revolving door" of tolerance for saboteurs that, in many cases, Stalin just kept allowing to turn. This was due to Yezhov’s unique background, and to brain-aging on Stalin’s part (to be described in what follows). Yezhov’s rock-ribbed efforts failed to reach the key personages in this underground. This underground finally prevailed at the time of the curtailment and reduction of the NKVD when the new NKGB ("KGB") was formed, which backed Khrushchev. Khrushchev did not believe in Communism and began the dismantling of the Soviet system. Khrushchev’s efforts culminated with Gorbachev and finally Yeltsen: Bolshevism was destroyed. It is known that Yagoda and the OGPU (the Soviet Union’s State Political Administration, which had been reorganized from the Bolshevik’s original, multi-party secret police or CheKa) were opposed to peasant collectivization. Stalin was aware of this, resulting in personal friction between him and Yagoda right up to Yagoda’s very end when Stalin once threatened to "punch him in the kisser." In July of 1934, the OGPU was abolished and its functions transferred to the all new NKVD or Peoples’ Commissariat of Internal Affairs, which, unknown to most, existed from the start. (Dzerzhinsky was, at one time, head of both the multi-party CheKa and the exclusively Bolshevik NKVD. At one point the NKVD was suspicious of - and opposed to - the CheKa.) In May of 1934, Yagoda was appointed the new organization’s head. It is frequently and glibly stated that the NKVD was the successor organization of the OGPU, and that the better known KGB was the successor of the NKVD. Neither is correct. When the NKVD was formed, a central core of former agents of OGPU reappeared as functionaries in the NKVD’s Main Administration of State Security: the GUGB. In February of 1941, a separate agency called the NKGB (later KGB) was formed from this same core of people from the GUGB. The KGB, or Committee of State Security (as it existed after Khrushchev empowered it), resembled the American CIA, FBI, and Secret Intelligence Service all rolled into one, involving itself in intelligence, counter-intelligence, and internal security. In this, it was unusual for its time and unlike its incorrectly nominated "parent" organizations: the CheKa, OGPU, and NKVD. The NKVD became the MVD, an "authority" not even a faint shadow of the old NKVD.

In September of 1953, six months after Stalin’s death, two months after the arrest of the staunch Stalinist Beria (Yezhov’s successor as NKVD chief), Khrushchev began to consolidate his power. He replaced the Old Bolshevik Malenkov, who had been First Party Secretary, and stripped the NKVD of most of the economic sections that had been under its control - ending the system established by Lenin and Dzerzhinsky. Khrushchev turned these economic functions over to other agencies. Suffering the same fate as Beria, but with less publicity involving less well known personalities, many old NKVD agents were executed - or forced to flee abroad. The NKVD was reduced to the MVD, a mere "traffic cop" operation by comparison. When the dust settled, the KGB had extraordinary powers, both internally and in foreign affairs, consisting of the same old GUGB core from the former OGPU. (Consult Bibliography for NKVD-INFO. See Felix Dzerzhinsky by A. Tishkov for information about the NKVD and other NK’s ["Narkomats" or People’s Commissariats], which were organizations regulating the Soviet economy.)

(1/3) by /u/bayarea415

It’s been a pretty overwhelming week on Reddit. Despite Chinese investment on the site, we can see the censorship Redditors were decrying hit full force on here. But all sarcasm aside, I think it’s time to approach the allegations and sensationalism surrounding China again to at least cast some doubt against these ridiculous claims. After doing some more research on the topics that have been popping up on Reddit, I would like to, once again address the major misinformation Western propaganda is promoting.

With that said, I want to first address the basic logical aspect and fallacies I notice a majority of these pieces and arguments hit on. Before even diving into the specific allegations Western media is portraying, we must recognize the following:

1.) Testimonies from "witnesses" are usually an unreliable source for their truth.

I first started to notice this claim when studying North Korean defectors, and how many not only end up embellish the truth, but outright lie. It is no surprise that many North Korean defectors inaccurately describe prison conditions, living standards, and absurd laws that they must abide by.. Additionally, many have become more skeptical because of the inconsistent nature these defectors do tell their story, when reiterating their tales about North Korea. It’s been later discovered that most of these stories are pressued by the South Korean government, really doing some shady shit to keep these narratives alive, threatening family members and others. That last link is a great documentary not only debunking the lies surrounding from the DPRK, but also showing the immense pressure they are under to push these faulty narratives. Along with the fame and fortune some of these defectors obtain, these “witnesses” are truly unreliable sources for the truth. As a side note, some of these North Defactor stories end in tragedy thanks to capitalism..

In US court, witnesses are only one aspect of evidence, not the only aspect. Opposing parties can even attack their credibility using their background, work, funding, etc. Whenever one sees a report that soley relies on the testimony of witnesses, whether they be doctors, or people of a certain religion, always be skeptical. Widespread horrendous behavior definitely needs more proof than mere superstition and witnesses that may be bias.

2.) Western media and NGOs should not be a credible source for information because of their use of unreliable sources, leaps in logic, and sensationalism if it is not coupled with legitimate unbias sources.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; North Korea's belief in unicorns, strict haircuts, and unbelievable ability to bring back people from the dead; Venezuela bullshit; and many many tidbits about Muslim groups in the Middle East (stunning how all of the sudden they care about the Muslims in China now). Idk how many times Western media and NGOs have shot themselves in the foot making these ridiculous claims concerning other non-Western countries. There are some that report with primary sources, but some articles are far and few in-between.

This CNN article is probably the epitome of Western sensationalism, leaps of logic, and Western pandering. It’s about the China prison transfer. Despite stating:

CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of this video or the date it was shot. Chinese Foreign Ministry officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the video. In a statement to CNN on October 4, authorities in Xinjiang said that "cracking down on crimes in accordance with law is the common practice of all countries. Xinjiang's crackdown on crimes has never been linked to ethnicities or religions," the statement added. "Transporting inmates by judicial authorities (is related) to normal judicial activities."

They go on to say:

The YouTube account which uploaded the video described it as demonstrating the "long-term suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Chinese government in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region."

They go on about Western intelligences, reporting from witnesses, and NGOs confirming it was fill of Uygurs (all of which we lopsidedly given their narratives to be true, even with the fallacies described above).

Specifically with Western NGOs, there has been countless documentaries on how most are being funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which obtains its funds from the state department and CIA. Most NGO being funded by NED spout against governments in order to destabilize them, with one former CIA official stating “they do what we use to do in the 1950s. You don’t have to look far when it comes to this either (see Venezuela and NED’s funding of the opposition party). So obvious biases and sensationalism should not be supported through these sources.

3.) Reddit, and other media platforms have an unholy amount of Western bias

Western, white, males between the ages of 18-34 overwhelming make up the visits of the site. 70% male, over 60% from the US, Canada, and UK, and between 55%-90% between the ages of 18-49 (18-29 making 55%). This creates a cultural bias on news with different cultures, countries, and governments. Take reddit’s opinions with a grain of salt, even if it has hundreds of thousands of upvotes.

(1/2) by /u/bayarea415

I am a user that loves sources (as seen from my two Venezuela megathreads). We can all sniff out propaganda pieces sure, but to believe in Western narratives over others is Eurocentric at best, and maliciously imperialistic at worst. To dismiss these sources out right and not see the presented truth to what is going on is negligent and willfully ignorant. There are many primary sources, photos, and truth to these that should not be dismissed outright, and I hope we all can recognize the US’s agenda (trade war, anti-communist, cold war rhetoric) and their narratives against China.

Recently, there has been an absurd amount of praise for the Hong Kong protests that promote Western imperialism, orientalism, and eurocentrism around their “freedoms.” When, in reality, these protests are about an extradition law over a murdered pregnant woman:

[The extradition bill cane about when a man from Hong Kong killed his pregnant girlfriend while in holiday in Taiwan. He fled back to Hong Kong. Taiwan asked for him to be extradited, but Hong Kong did not have an extradition treaty with Taiwan, so the administration in Hong Kong proposed a bill that would allow Taiwan, the PRC, and Macau to request extradition, which the judiciary in Hong Kong can then approve. There were 49 crimes that were to be included in the bill that would allow extradition requests. Some of these were financial crimes, and the Bourgeoisie in Hong Kong shit themselves because they are often in breach of PRC law, but protected by Hong Kong's independence as a Special Administrative Region. This bill is completely reasonable, and any fears of the PRC taking over or of the extradition of 'political' criminals is unfounded. Right now I fear that the US is encouraging the organizers to keep protesting in order to provoke the administration in Hong Kong to crack down on them, so that they can blame China and keep up their propaganda narrative that 'CHINA BAD!']( https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/c1nxga/opinions_on_hong_kong_protests/ered9wl/)

More on this here

So is this not a pretty gruesome case to rally a massive protest behind? Not for the West. As u/parenti_shotgun puts it:

The US is trying to leverage the only advantages it has right now: military supremacy, and a media monopoly, to demonize and try to start a new cold war with China. Chinas life expectancy even recently surpassed the USs, they hoodwinked western capital into dismantling production in their home countries, and now are the primary consumer goods producer for the whole world, and they have a renewable energy roadmap that puts the US to shame. Meanwhile the US has left the Paris climate agreements and a climate change denier has the presidency.

We need to be more vigilant than ever of this rash of anti-china stories, and not take all these stories at face value.

Some of the links below get into chinas slower, steadier road towards socialism, the contradictions and struggles involved, and how they managed to survive in a neoliberal sea when other socialist countries were overthrown it the 90s.

China in general:

• Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?

• How does China’s political system work?

• The Long Game and Its Contradictions

• China’s Democracy

• “Washington is actually far more corrupt than Beijing. If you want to get something done in Washington, you do what you do in Jakarta: just slip some money to the right people.”

• The west views China as one big sweatshop, but the actual working hours aren't much more than anywhere else. The average for a migrant worker (most vulnerable to exploitation as they are traveling from the countryside) is 8.8 hours, little under an hour more than a typical working day. Labor strikes are rarely suppressed, there are many exemples of workers on strikegetting the support of the PRC.The Chinese state rules in favor of the workers

• Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison?

• Wages themselves are also forced to rise in the private sector by the CPC (+16% every years, +400% since 1980) who force the capitalists to accept the presence of CPC chapters who represent the interest of the workers, increasing workers control even in the capitalist parts of the economy.

• The workplace safety standards of China are better than in the capitalist countries of the West like in Australia who have an higher rate of work related death despite having a GDP per capita 3-5 times higher.

-More debunking China's Western narrative sources here

~~Credit Scores~~ Social Credit Score

• China’s Social Credit System, and how it isn't actually Black Mirror and how you should stop using facile pop cultural references to demonize countries you haven't bothered to understand.

• The complex truth about China’s Social Credit system

What about the Uyghurs?

• No, the UN did not report China has ‘massive internment camps’ for Uighur Muslims

• US fuels terrorism in China: “1 million Uyghurs never verified”

• China’s Xinjiang Problem – Made in USA

• The Truth About China’s Uyghur Problem

• Religious freedoms in China explained

• A Pakistani Diplomat given full access to “re-education camps” and this is what she found

• EU rejects China offer of Xinjiang tour

• If China Is Anti-Islam, Why Are These Chinese Muslims Enjoying a Faith Revival?

• More sources debunking this here

(1/2)

Taken from a question I was asked.

Anonymous asked: Opinions on the crimes of USSR?

Sorry for the late response. This took me a while to make, as you’ll soon be able to tell.

The majority of them have been drastically exaggerated and overstated in western media and the education system. Nevertheless, there were some genuine wrongdoings which i do not wish to defend.

There follows a more detailed explanation (sources are listed at the bottom):

Holodomor

There are three questions to ask and answer when discussing the holodomor:

1. Did it happen?

Yes. Very few people, if any at all, deny that a famine did occur in the years 1932-33 in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and parts of Russia and the Caucasus. The location of the famine is relevant for question two.

2. Was it intentional?

The traditional line of reasoning goes that the famine was planned and implemented because the Soviet Government wanted to eliminate a potential Ukrainian independence movement. There are several flaws in this line of reasoning, which I will now explain:

https://78.media.tumblr.com/88b8d71b82187c6e7b07424233c19254/tumblr_inline_p511mtlnQS1u8wcv4_1280.jpg

Location - the famine was not limited to Ukraine. As stated before, it affected Kazakhstan and parts of Russia and the Caucasus. It even affected parts of Turkey and Bulgaria (this fact in itself calls into question how a famine supposedly made by the Soviet Government could have affected territories outside their control?). But it goes further than that, the region most affected by the famine was not Ukraine, but Kazakhstan. Further still, the most severely affected regions within Ukraine itself were parts with a significant Russian minority, and thus the least likely to support a Ukrainian independence movement. Ukrainian nationalism was strongest in the far west of the country, but it was the far east which was most affected. If the Soviet Government were trying to target Ukrainian nationalists, they certainly did a bad job of it.^^[1]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/6371af5ae297077451fdf18f527aaf71/tumblr_inline_p511nkXzMR1u8wcv4_1280.gif

Government action in response to the famine - World War 1 and the Russian Civil War had destroyed most industry in the country. Thus, the Soviet Government had been exporting grain in order to fund industrialisation programs. The reason they exported grain rather than their plentiful stocks of gold or metal was because the Soviet Union had been prevented from exporting these things via embargoes. In 1925, a gold blockade was implemented where western powers refused to trade gold for industrial supplies. More embargoes were put in place until, in the early 30’s, western powers demanded that the Soviet Union pay for all equipment in grain. In 1930, the USSR exported 4,846,024 tons of grain. In 1931, the number increased to 5,182,835 tons. However, in 1932 there was a sharp drop in exports of grain, with only 1,819,114 tons being exported. They also began importing more grain. In 1932, 907,000 tons were imported ^^[1][2]. In addition to reducing grain exports and increasing imports, in 1933 the Soviet government set up political departments to help peasants in agricultural work, as well as providing grain aid to the afflicted areas. This relief worked, and the harvest in 1933 was much better than in previous years ^^[3].

Correspondence between the Ukrainian and Russian governments - letters sent between Stanislav Kosior (head of the Communist Party of Ukraine) and Joseph Stalin indicate a lack of clear and honest communication on Kosior’s part - which was responsible for the initial lack of response to the famine - as well as Stalin’s urgency to take action. The letters read as follows^^[1]:

Stalin:

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within it’s reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine

Kosior:

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the pary line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about faming in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give is the oppportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Stalin immediately responded:

Comrade Kosior! You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation in villages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU, what are the doing? Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party about taken measures?

3. Was it caused by government policy?

Environmental causes - no doubt, environmental factors played a large role in the famine - there was drought in some areas, too much rain in others, attacks of rust and smut (fungal diseases), and infestations of insects and mice ^^[3].

History - Collectivisation of agriculture was largely completed in the USSR by 1932.^^[3] Before collectivisation, the USSR & Russian Empire had famines every 10–13 years ^^[4], and there had been severe famines in 1918, 1920, 1924 and 1928-29. After collectivisation had been implemented, there were only two major famines in the rest of the USSR’s existence (i.e. 59 years). One of these was the 1932-33 famine, and the other occured just after World War 2 as a result of the destruction caused by the Nazi invasion. Judging by this inforamtion, collectivisation did likely not cause the famine, rather the aforementioned environmental causes did.

Gulags

Previously estimated figures of the number of prisoners in the USSR were drastically over-estimated. During the 1980s, Robert Conquest alleged that in 1939 there were 25-30 million prisoners in the Soviet Union. More modern evidence shows that the number of prisoners in 1939 was actually 2.5 million (2.4% of the adult population), and only 454,000 of thosen were political prisoners. This is 3 million less than the number of prisoners in the United States in 1996, which was 5.5 million (2.8% of the adult population).^^[5]

The brutality and death rates in gulags has also been overstated. The death rate in gulags between 1930 and 1953 was 4%. This includes the World War 2 years. Excluding the World War 2 years, the death rate was 2.5%, which was lower than that of an average citizen in tsarist Russia in 1913. 1/3rd of inmates weren’t required to work, however for those who did work the maximum work week was 84 hours.^^[6]

Repression

Only 10% of arrests during Stalin’s rule were for political reasons. Police, secret police and national guardsmes made up only 0.2% of the population, compared to police alone making up 1% of the population in the USA, meaning the kind of mass repression described in western media & the education system would have been unfeasible.^^[6]

On the subject of democracy in the USSR, consider the following description by London Progressive Journal^^[7]:

The USSR’s written constitution places power firmly in the hands of the people, and indeed, representatives were regularly elected. The primary executive body of the USSR was the Supreme Council, which consisted of representatives from two committees: the Council of Nations and the Union Council. Representatives to each were elected for a 4 year term – for the Union Council, one representative for every constituency of 300,000, and for the Council of Nations: 25 representatives per Republic, 11 from each autonomous region, and one for each municipality for a specific nationality. The Supreme Council would then elect the government for the 4 year term (i.e. the Ministers) and the Chairman, also for a 4 year term. Committees were everywhere – school clubs, committees for social events, charity work, anything and everything. To be eligible to be elected Chairman, a candidate must have had experience governing at every level – local, municipal, and regional.

I'm about 95% sure he is from the posts I've seen but I haven't seen it confirmed.

(1/2) (by /u/supercooper25)

Stalin wasn't a dictator, this is an outdated myth. Power was officially vested in the hands of various collective bodies of leadership such as the Supreme Soviet, the Presidium, the Sovnarkom, the Central Committee and the Politburo, all of which were elected, as was Stalin. He had no ability to individually make decisions and there are countless examples of him losing out to the majority if you look hard enough. I'll give you three examples:

1. Stalin attempted to resign from General Secretary four times, twice due to Lenin's testament, once due to a request from Kamenev and Zinoviev, and once due to deteriorating health, but the party didn't let him.
2. When Beria was appointed as head of the NKVD in 1939, Stalin objected to this and wanted Malenkov instead, but the Presidium outvoted him.
3. As the new Soviet constitution was being created throughout 1935 and 1936, Stalin pushed for contested multi-candidate elections, but the Central Committee feared that this would lead to communism being overthrown, thus it was never implemented. What's more, Russian historian Yuri Zhukov contends that had Stalin continued to push for these reforms as the Great Purge intensified, he would've been voted out, tried for treason and executed.

In fact, up until 1941, Stalin wasn't even the most powerful individual in the country. I refer you to this quote from Sidney Webb:

Sometimes it is asserted that, whereas the form may be otherwise, the fact is that, whilst the Communist Party controls the whole administration, the Party itself, and thus indirectly the whole state, is governed by the will of a single person, Josef Stalin. First let it be noted that, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and other modern dictators, Stalin is not invested by law with any authority over his fellow-citizens, and not even over the members of the Party to which he belongs. He has not even the extensive power which the Congress of the United States has temporarily conferred upon President Roosevelt, or that which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. So far as grade or dignity is concerned, Stalin is in no sense the highest official in the USSR, or even in the Communist Party. He is not, and has never been, President of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Union Congress of Soviets-a place long held by Sverdlov and now by Kalinin, who is commonly treated as the President of the USSR. He is not (as Lenin was) the President of the Sovnarkom of the RSFSR, the dominant member of the Federation or of the USSR itself, the place now held by Molotov, who may be taken to correspond to the Prime Minister of a parliamentary democracy. He is not even a People's Commissar, or member of the Cabinet, either of the USSR or of any of the constituent republics. Until 1934 he held no other office in the machinery of the constitution than that, since 1930 only, of membership (one among ten) of the Committee of Labour and Defence (STO). Even in the Communist Party, he is not the president of the Central Committee of the Party, who may be deemed the highest placed member; indeed, he is not even the president of the presidium of this Central Committee. He is, in fact, only the General Secretary of the Party, receiving his salary from the Party funds and holding his office by appointment by the Party Central Committee, and, as such, also a member (one among nine) of its most important subcommittee, the Politbureau.

All of that said and done, what IS true is that Stalin held a massive amount of influence over the party and the government, meaning that was de facto far more powerful than his official positions would suggest on paper. This DOES NOT mean that people were subordinate to Stalin due to fear of execution, what it means is that Stalin was an extremely well-respected ideological figurehead, and thus people trusted him and were more inclined to agree with him because of this. I refer you to this quote from H.G. Wells:

I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest, and to these qualities it is, and to nothing occult and sinister, that he owes his tremendous undisputed ascendancy in Russia. I had thought before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraid of him, but I realize that he owes his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him.

If I had to evaluate just how much individual power Stalin had, I'd say that during WWII, it was comparable to that of Winston Churchill, and actually considerably less than that of the United States President. I refer you to yet another quote from Sidney Webb:

Assuming that we accept the primary meaning of the term dictator, as it is defined in the The New English Dictionary — “a ruler or governor whose word is law; an absolute ruler of the state — and who authoritatively prescribes a course of action or dictates what is to be done” — Stalin is not a dictator. In May 1941 Stalin hitherto content to be a member of the Presidium, alarmed at the menace of a victorious German Army invading the Ukraine, took over, with the consent of the Presidium, the office a prime minister and Minister of defense, leaving Molotov as foreign Secretary; in exactly the same way, and for a similar reason–the world war–that Winston Churchill, with the consent of the house of Commons, became prime minister and Minister of defense with Chamberlain,…. Neither the prime minister of the British cabinet nor the presiding member of the Sovnarkom has anything like the autocratic power of the president of the USA, who not only selects his cabinet, subject merely to approval by a simple majority of the Senate, but is also commander in chief of the American Armed Forces and, under the Lend Lease act, is empowered to safeguard in one way or another, the arrival of munitions and food at the British ports. By declaring, in May 1941, a state of unlimited national emergency, President Roosevelt legally assumes a virtual dictatorship of the United States. He has power to takeover transport, to commandeer the radio for the purposes of propaganda, to control imports in all exchange transactions, to requisition ships and to suspend laws governing working hours, and most important of all, to decide on industrial priorities and, if necessary, to take over industrial plants.

Keep in mind that WWII was the very height of Stalin's powers, it was during this time that he simultaneously occupied five different leadership positions: general secretary of the party, chairman of the Sovnarkom, minister of defense, chairman of the State Defense Committee and chairman of the Stavka (military high-command). Although this made Stalin very powerful, he still could not make decisions on his own, and he was entirely accountable to the body that elected him in the first place, namely the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. For the rest of Stalin’s tenure however, he was nowhere near as powerful as that. Up until 1930, the premiership, the presidency and the Politburo were all controlled by members of the Right Opposition (Rykov, Kalinin, Bukharin, Tomsky etc), so Stalin didn’t get his way at all. From 1930-1941, Stalin got his way in the sense that his political programme was being carried out, but he himself didn’t hold the positions of power, rather his allies like Molotov did. What’s important to note here is that the Soviet political system functioned in much the same way that western democracies do. Stalin got his way not because he was a dictator, but because his programme was supported by a majority in the parliament, and by extension the masses (see the 1927 party referendum, Stalin absolutely trounced Trotsky in a direct vote between the two) All positions of leadership were elected by representative delegates, who in turn were elected from their local Soviets, i.e. worker councils, and the people directly in elections. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin didn't have the power to personally appoint anyone, all positions of leadership within the Communist Party were elected and ratified at the Party Congresses, attended by thousands of delegates representing millions of party members. What's more, even if we accept that Stalin had complete control over the Supreme Soviet (he didn't), we need to dispel the myth that the central government in Moscow had complete control over the country. Much like any western democracy, matters concerning union republics, autonomous oblasts, regions, municipalities and workplaces were handled by local governments, councils and trade unions, it is ridiculous to assert that Stalin had any influence over this.

(1/4) (by /u/flesh_eating_turtle)

Introduction

Throughout its 41 year existence, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) found itself constantly at the center of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall, set up to divide East Berlin from FRG-controlled West Berlin, quickly became the most famous symbol of the conflict. Despite this, most people (including most socialists) know relatively little about this nation; how its economy functioned, what kind of life did it give its people, etc. However, in the light of recent studies finding that 57% of East Germans feel that life was better under socialism (see sources below), many people have grown more curious about this particular country. As such, in this post we will go over various aspects of the GDR in detail.

All sources are listed at the bottom. I will indicate which source I am using whenever I quote from one.

Historical Background and Starting Conditions (WWII and Pre-War Era)

World War II left Germany a shadow of its former self. Cities had been leveled, and the economy had been utterly devastated. East Germany in particular was at a serious disadvantage; it had always been far less industrialized than Western Germany, and as such, it had depended largely upon the West for its economic needs. According the US Federal Research Division's study of East Germany:

Before World War II, the area that later became East Germany was not well developed industrially. Because this area lacked raw materials, heavy industry was generally located in other parts of the German state. Compounding the problems for the newly created East German state in 1949 was the massive destruction during World War II of the industrial plant that had existed there and the subsequent Soviet dismantling and removal of factories and equipment that had survived the war. [...] During the interwar years, the territory that is now East Germany was profoundly dependent on external economic ties. In the mid-1930's, it shipped almost half of its total production to the other parts of Germany... This domestic trade featured sales of agricultural products; textiles; products of light industry, such as cameras, typewriters, and optical equipment; and purchases of industrial goods and equipment.

In other words, East Germany depended totally on the West for its heavy industrial needs, and paid for these needs by selling its agricultural and light industrial products. However, after the war, this balance between East and West was thrown off. According to the US Federal Research Division:

Major dislocations occurred after World War II, when Germany was divided into two sections, one part dominated by the Soviet Union, and the other by the Western Allies.

Because it could no longer rely on its former system of internal and external trading, the Soviet Zone of Occupation had to be restructured and made more self-sufficient through the construction of basic industry.

This was no small feat for the fledgling GDR, especially seeing as it received virtually no large-scale economic aid from the USSR (which was too busy rebuilding itself after WWII to worry about pumping money into East Germany). In addition, the GDR had to pay heavy reparations to the USSR for the damage caused during WWII. This acted as a major obstacle to development. According to The East German Economy, 1945-2010, published by the German Historical Institute, direct and indirect reparations paid by East Germany between 1946 and 1953 amounted to $14 billion in 1938 prices. Another statement on this is found in the US Federal Research Division's study:

The reorientation and restructuring of the East German economy would have been difficult in any case. The substantial reparations costs that the Soviet Union imposed on its occupied zone, and later on East Germany, made the process even more difficult. Payments continued into the early 1950's, ending only with the death of Stalin. According to Western estimates, these payments amounted to about 25 percent of total East German production through 1953.

This is in direct contrast to the West, which received large aid investments from the United States as part of the Marshall Plan, as well as lucrative trade relationships with the developed nations. Now, let us examine how the GDR developed in spite of these factors.

Economic Growth and Industrial Development

Despite all of the aforementioned significant disadvantages, the East German economy managed to overcome its difficulties and develop at an impressively rapid rate. This is especially true in terms of heavy industry. According to the US Federal Research Division:

During the 1950's, East Germany made significant economic progress, at least as indicated by the gross figures. By 1960 investment had grown by a factor of about 4.5, while gross industrial production had increased by a factor of about 2.9. Within that broad category of industrial production, the basic sectors, such as machinery and transport equipment, grew especially rapidly, while the consumer sectors such as textiles lagged behind.

Despite the priority given to heavy industry, consumption also increased steadily during this period:

Consumption grew significantly in the first years, although from a very low base, and showed respectable growth rates over the entire decade.

At the end of the 1950's, some analysts feared an economic crisis in the East, spurred by the "brain drain" from East to West; however, this did not occur, and the East German economy continued to grow impressively in the 1960's. The US Federal Research Division reports:

As the 1950's ended, pessimism about the future seemed rather appropriate. Surprisingly, however, after the construction of the Berlin Wall and several years of consolidation and realignment, East Germany entered a period of impressive economic growth that produced clear benefits for the people. For the years 1966-1970, GDP and national income grew at average annual rates of 6.3 and 5.2 percent, respectively. Simultaneously, investment grew at an average annual rate of 10.7 percent, retail trade at 4.6 percent, and real per capita income at 4.2 percent.

This growth continued on through the next decade:

As of 1970, growth rates in the various sectors of the economy did not differ greatly from those of a decade earlier... Production reached about 140 to 150 percent of the levels of a decade earlier... The growth rates in production resulted in substantial increases in personal consumption... throughout the 1970's the East German economy as a whole enjoyed relatively strong and stable growth. In 1971, First Secretary Honecker declared the "raising of the material and cultural living standard" of the population to be a "principal task" of the economy; private consumption grew at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent from 1971 to 1975 and 4.0 percent from 1976 to 1980... The 1976-1980 Five Year Plan achieved an average annual growth rate of 4.1 percent.

The 1980's saw some economic difficulties for the GDR as Western banks clamped down on credit for the East and the USSR reduced oil deliveries by ten percent. This led to a period of slow growth as the GDR rushed to step up exports; despite this, the economy did manage to pull through and deliver impressive growth results during this period (though it did fall short of the plan). The US Federal Research Division reports:

The 1981-1985 plan period proved to be a difficult time for the East German economy... However, by the end of the period the economy had chalked up a respectable overall performance, with an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent (the plan target had been 5.1 percent).

The overall impacts of the industrialization strategy of the GDR were extremely positive. As the US Federal Research Division reported in 1988:

Industry is the dominant sector of the East German economy, and is the principal basis for the relatively high standard of living. East Germany ranks among the world's top industrial nations, and in the Comecon it ranks second only to the Soviet Union.

Overall, the socialist system in the GDR managed to industrialize the nation at a rapid rate, enabling the country to sustain itself without constant infusions from the West. It did this despite numerous aforementioned disadvantages, a feat which should be celebrated.

Increases in Living Standards

The socialist system in the GDR did not only succeed in rapidly developing the nation; it also provided a steadily increasing quality of life for the people. The US Federal Research Division reports:

The East German standard of living has improved greatly since 1949 [when the GDR was established]. Most observers, both East and West, agree that in the 1980's East Germans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Eastern Europe. Major improvements occurred, especially after 1971, when the Honecker regime announced its commitment to fulfilling the "principal task" of the economy, which was defined as the enhancement of the material and cultural well-being of all citizens.

This focus on increasing quality of life for all citizens, rather than providing profit for the capitalist class, is a unique feature of the socialist system, which provided steadily improving living standards. The US Federal Research Division states:

Since the inception of the regime, the monthly earned income of the average East German has increased steadily in terms of effective purchasing power. According to the 1986 East German statistical yearbook, the average monthly income for workers in the socialized sector of the economy increased from 311 GDR marks in 1950 to 555 GDR marks in 1960, 755 GDR marks in 1970, and 1,130 GDR marks in 1985. Because most consumer prices had been stable during this time, the 1985 figure represented a better-than-threefold increase over the past thirty-five years.

(1/2) (by /u/flesh_eating_turtle)

"The worst enemy of humanity is capitalism... If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that the national states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated." - President Evo Morales

Introduction

Hello comrades. As we are all aware, Venezuela has dominated the headlines over the last couple of years, due to the economic and political crisis which has been plaguing that country. This has given a fresh heap of ammunition for liberals and reactionaries to hurl at us, claiming that "Venezuela proves that socialism doesn't work!" In response, we should take a look at a country which has pursued similar policies, with an explicitly socialist leader, which has seen immense success. I am referring of course to Bolivia, under President Evo Morales.

Before we begin, it should be noted that neither Venezuela or Bolivia are technically "socialist" in the Marxist sense of the term; neither have a dictatorship of the proletariat, nor has the economy been taken under complete public ownership. However, they are much more left-wing than most governments in the world today, and they do explicitly refer to themselves as socialist. They engage in nationalization, expansions of the social welfare systems, and anti-imperialist foreign policies (such as supporting the government of Cuba); all of these achievements, though we may regard them as insufficient for the building of socialism, should be appreciated.

As socialists, it is our duty to show solidarity with our comrades around the world, however they choose to go about building socialism. In addition, since Venezuela is currently the media's favorite example of "socialism", it seems only fair that we should use a similar nation in response. Now, let us analyze the situation in Bolivia.

Economic Achievements: Growth, Poverty Reduction, etc.

The economic policies of Evo Morales have focused on nationalization of various major companies, increases in labor rights and the social welfare system, and strong opposition to the IMF and World Bank. The Economist (a neoliberal publication if there ever was one) discussed some of Morales' policies in an article on the topic:

• The Economist | The Explosive Apex of Evo's Power

As the article states:

In his first term Mr. Morales imposed many controls on private business. Telecommunications and mines, as well as gas, were nationalized. Prices of gas and many foodstuffs were controlled, and food producers forced to sell in the local market rather than export. A new state-owned body distributes food at subsidized prices.

The article also states:

Mr. Morales's nationalization of oil and natural gas in 2006, together with higher prices for gas exports to Brazil, left his government awash with cash. He used this to expand welfare provision, including a non-contributory old-age pension and payments to mothers provided their children are at school and their babies are taken for health checks. The president has also handed out hundreds of free tractors.

These policies have led to the highest economic growth that Bolivia has seen in decades, and it is now the fastest growing economy in Latin America. This is demonstrated by a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

• CEPR | Bolivian Economy During Morales Administration

This report states that growth under Morales "has been higher than at any time in the last 30 years, averaging 4.9 percent annually since the current administration took office in 2006." The report also comments on some of the redistributive policies of the Morales government:

...the government has begun several programs targeted at the poorest Bolivians. These include payments to poor families to increase school enrollment; an expansion of public pensions to relive extreme poverty among the elderly; and most recently, payments for uninsured mothers to expand prenatal and post-natal care, to reduce infant and child mortality.

A more recent article from the Guardian, published after the 2014 Bolivian election, analyzes the significance of Bolivia's economic growth, and its effect on quality of life:

• The Guardian | Evo Morales has Proved Socialism Doesn't Damage Economies

The article states:

The benefits of such growth have been felt by the Bolivian people: under Morales, poverty has declined by 25% and extreme poverty has declined by 43%; social spending has increased by more than 45%; the real minimum wage has increased by 87.7%; and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean has praised Bolivia for being “one of the few countries that has reduced inequality”.

The article closes by commenting on Morales:

He has defied the conventional wisdom that says left-wing policies damage economic growth, that working-class people can’t run successful economies, and that politics can’t be transformative – and he’s done all of this in the face of enormous political pressure from the IMF, the international business community and the US government. In the success of Morales, important political lessons can be found – and perhaps we could all do with learning them.

Bolivia, with approx. 40% of the economy under some kind of state-ownership, closed 2018 with one of the highest growth rates in the world:

• teleSUR | Bolivia Closes 2018 Among the Highest Economic Growth Rates

As the article states:

The economic model followed by Bolivia is based on the Social Community Production, supported by a strong participation of the State in strategic sectors, which goes against the recommendations made by the IMF, which looks for the suppression of subsidies and the reduction of public investments. The Bolivian economy registered on average a growth of 4.9 percent in the period 2006-2017, where more than three million people left poverty. The GDP registered a growth of 4.2 percent last year, according to the 2017 Bolivian Economy Report.

Economic inequality (as measured by the GINI Index) has also drastically reduced under Morales (he was elected in 2006):

• World Bank | Bolivia GINI Index

All of this makes it clear that the economic policies of the Morales government have been extremely successful in growing the economy and drastically reducing poverty, all while combating neoliberalism and imperialism.

Social Reforms and Achievements

The Morales government has also succeeded in implementing very successful social reforms, particularly in the areas of education and racial issues.

Bolivia has succeeded in becoming only the third nation in Latin America (after Venezuela and Cuba) to be declared "free of illiteracy":

• teleSUR | UNESCO Declares Bolivia Free of Illiteracy

This was achieved via educational programs inspired by the Cuban model.

In addition, the Bolivian government has made great strides in fighting racism against the indigenous population of Bolivia (Morales himself is the first president of Bolivia from the indigenous population):

• teleSUR | UN Praises Bolvia for Progress in Fight Against Racism

As the article states:

The government of Bolivia has made "great progress" in the last ten years in its fight against institutional and structural racism and discrimination, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, announced Tuesday in an official statement.

The government has also sought to combat gender inequality and discrimination:

• teleSUR | Bolivian Government Outlines Measures to Curb Violence Against Women, Promote Equality

The Morales government has succeeded in making great strides in terms of various social issues in Bolivia.

Foreign Policy and Anti-Imperialism

The Morales government has consistently stood in solidarity with the Cuban and Venezuelan governments, and in opposition to neoliberal capitalism and US imperialism.

In 2005, Morales visited Cuba, receiving full honors from Fidel Castro. While there, he signed an agreement in which Cuba promised Bolivia aid in health and education, and Morales referred to Castro and Hugo Chavez as "the commanders of the forces for the liberation of the Americas and the world."

The government has sought to promote anti-imperialism, even opening an explicitly "anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist" military school for their officers:

• The Guardian | Bolivia Opens Anti-Imperialist Military School

As the article states:

“If the empire teaches domination of the world from its military schools, we will learn from this school to free ourselves from imperial oppression,” the country’s first indigenous president said at an inauguration ceremony on Wednesday.

“We want to build anti-colonial and anti-capitalist thinking with this school that binds the armed forces to social movements and counteracts the influence of the School of the Americas that always saw the indigenous as internal enemies,” he told a crowd that included the defense ministers of Venezuela and Nicaragua.