What do/did article 35 and article 125 of the 1982 PRC and 1936 USSR constitution actually do?
What do/did article 35 and article 125 of the 1982 PRC and 1936 USSR constitution actually do?
Chapter 2 article 35: Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.
ARTICLE 125: In conformity with the interests of the toilers, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: — (a) Freedom of speech; (b) Freedom of the Press ; (c) Freedom of assembly and of holding mass meetings; (d) Freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
I'm not going to sit here and be like "urmagod china ussr is a 1984 dictatorism" but I do just want to know what this actually means. For instance, both countries engaged in very obvious censorship and banning of materials. I'm not saying these actions were right or wrong, but just (at least on the face of it) contradictory to the previously stated articles. Presumably there have been court cases in both of these countries that actually helps outline what they mean.
This isn't to say Bourgeois countries follow freedom of speech either (I will leave proving this as an exercise to the reader. And by exercise I mean a slow walk to the other side of the room), but I think my main question is why include them so broadly, or at all really, if they [at least from what I remember] haven't really been enforced
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.