Recent news of statistical development has captured the effectivity of Pan-Asiatic governance in terms of expanding the reaches of democracy. The workers are now in control of their own production, emancipated by our Party's policies. We have, undoubtedly, baffled the world. We; evolutionary successors of Trotskyism, grounded in Marxist-Leninism, guided by Xi Jinping Thought and a thousand other varieties of thinking, in accordance to Maoist teachings that a thousand ideas must contend-- have struck doubt. Some, even those self-proclaimed 'Leftists' have called our Federation 'capitalist in nature', or have accused our national fathers of being 'Orwellian' megalomaniacs faking a World Census.
Of course, the idea of Socialism being naturally incompatible with democracy is not in any way, an old idea; so let's get historical claims out of the way first. Let’s consider the Soviet form of Democracy in 1936 versus the Western form. At the time, Britain had an unelected House of Lords (still does), while Canada had, and continues to have, an unelected Senate. Of 500 million inhabitants of the British Empire, only 70 million, or 1/7th, lived in political democracies. South Africa denied suffrage to its black population. In Canada and Australia, aboriginal people were not allowed to vote. India had no political democracy at all, and was governed by the British civil service. The United States denied civil rights to its black citizens, who lived in a state of oppression. In contrast, suffrage in the USSR was universal, hardly the tyranny by comparison with the West that Stone and Kuznick would have us believe it was.
The various peoples of the U.S.S.R were unified. Starvation and illiteracy were unknown throughout the country. Agriculture was completely collectivized and extremely productive. Preventive health care was the finest in the world, and medical treatment of exceptionally high quality was available free to all citizens. Education at all levels was free. More books were published in the U.S.S.R than in any other country. There was no unemployment, and there still isn't any. For all these miracles, can we truly say it is inherent to some subordinate-based racial or cultural aspect as others will point out? No. Of course not. The secret lies in a political system that challenges itself to make up for its past mistakes: the People's Democracy, or, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The truth is, the People's Democracy is less radical than Western media poses it to be. Philosophy has evolved significantly over centuries, however, Western philosophy has largely dominated our thinking. Logic and analytical thinking are not the only instruments to derive truth from facts. Dialectical thinking is an ancient but highly relevant mode of thinking that is employed to seek truth when analytical thinking fails. It neither produces a 'society of laziness and starvation' nor forces its workers into labor. It seeks to use Democracy to determine felt solutions, converse to incomprehensible theories which now comprise the Soviet and European thermidor, as well as the age-old Capitalist West.
The objective of analytical thinking is to render a statement as true or false. Such thinking ignores both context and historical materialism of an event. To put this into context, let us ask ourselves a timeless and boundless question. Is the Pan-Asiatic States authoritarian? Technically, yes. That in itself is analytical thinking, based on only isolated demonstrations.
Dialectical thinking, on the other hand, helps us to synthesize two opposite but equally true statements by examining the context and the historical totality of the event in question. Radical analysts would perceive a world where a coconut- being both hairy and capable of producing milk, logically speaking in their own light, as mammalian as a cow would be; the attribution of certain principles to that of which it should not be applied to. Under dialectical thinking, we tell you that the question aforementioned is nonsensical, and should not have been asked in the first place.
As we say as well, that socialist states are more democratic than capitalist states is equally true as the statement that socialist states are authoritarian. In dialectical thinking, when a question has two equally true but opposite answers, we seek to change the question itself. For political society as a whole it is no longer of individual liberty that we seek but of individual security. With the right to education, healthcare, housing, and jobs, life in socialist states is far more secure than life in capitalist states where poverty, hunger, homelessness, healthcare costs, house rent, and unemployment are rising rapidly and severely incapacitating the working class. As Stalin had said,
“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home, and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.”
In dialectical thinking, the meaning of words is interpreted differently. The “dictatorship” of the proletariat in Marxist theory does not mean a ruthless, soulless dictatorship of an all-powerful dictator who exploits the people for personal gain but instead the dictatorship of a State that represents the working class, instead of the ruling class, and which exercises authority only to keep counter-revolutions by the ruling class in check, or to fight off external aggression, as it works to remove economic class distinctions in society. The dictatorship is literally, that of the people dictating the political system-- not the political system dictating the people. Such a truth would be ironic even, considering that dictators; American, Japanese, and Soviet have all been toppled throughout the 20th Century, by the people of Asia.
It is this dictatorship of the proletariat that has enabled the Pan-Asiatic States to build a society that is far healthier, happier, more optimistic, and secure than capitalist societies. If that is your definition of a dictatorship, then perhaps all nations should strive to be one.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:27 am
