Nekoqingist Bolshevism

Nekoqingist Bolshevism is an economically far-left, culturally center, civically Authoritarian ideology. In short it is a Marxist Leninist, Culturally Variable and Nationalist Ideology that favours a Marxist-Leninist model of economy, with a Market Socialist model being built inside it.

Economics:
In terms of economy, it views that both State Socialism and Right Wing Liberal Capitalist economics can never work, and despite views on state socialism is the lesser evil compared to right wing capitalism, it views that it will not bring prosperity, and will forever remain as a poor and underdeveloped country, like China under Mao, and the regime of the DPRK. It orders the nationalization of major corporations and industries like water, electricity, etc, while some small businesses like gyms, bookshops will remain privatized, as those businesses are legitimate and do not use exploitation as a mean to earn profit, with that said, Economic regulations will be strict to prevent exploitation.

The government also takes corporate crimes and exploitation very seriously and all companies and corporations found doing that will have all their assets in the country nationalized and their operations suspended, and possibly an execution of the heads of those corporations. Public goods like water, electricity, healthcare, education, housing, land, etc. is viewed as a fundamental human right, and not a tool for businessmen to use greed and to earn profit off.

I also oppose the profit motive, as it just guides the economy forward with an evil motive that is profits and greed. An economy should be built to serve the people and benefit the people, not for businessmen to earn and profit off from. An example of the evils of the profit motive is Leopold II, who committed horrendous crimes in the Congo just because he profitted off it. I support a more worker co-op based economy as they truly work for the people, like the Vietnamese Socialist-Oriented Market Economy model.

State Socialism:
Despite the fact that I believe State Socialism can be filled with inefficiency, which is a severe problem in many planned economies, like Maoist China, but I think that State Socialism is an excellent way to develop and industrialize a country. The USSR under Lenin and Stalin's State Socialist directions had turned it from a hellhole falling 200 years back into an industrialized power, same for the DPRK, which developed better than South Korea during the 50's and 60's. My main problem behind State Socialism is that it cannot be a continuous system to follow, hence why I support a transition to Market Socialism later, like how the GDR and Hungary charted it's path.

Even if you have to remain under the State Socialism, to avoid inefficiency, the only way to run an efficient planned economy is have experts run the country, for example, the failures of Maoist China wouldn't have happened if Zhou Enlai (more of a political and economic expert compared to that of Mao) were in power instead of Mao.

Corporations:
I support trust busting laws and I want to impose extremely heavy regulations on corporations if they want to operate in the country. Corporate Usury will be severely punished, and all their property nationalized by the state, since Corporations that disregard human lives and do exploitation do not deserve a place on earth. In a truly free market under my society, there will not be extremely huge companies, and if it kills off beneficial competition, it will be dissolved into smaller worker co-operates or worker-owned businesses.

The Welfare State:
I generally support a welfare state that provides for everyone their basic needs. However, there are conditions that I'd like to put out that Welfare and Pension programs only apply to those that need help, or are unable to work. Those that are able to work but chose not to do not deserve to benefit from the welfare programs. I will also help students with poor backgrounds to give them the right to education, for example.

Taxation:
I support a progressive tax, depending on the individual's income and so one. As such, only the working population will be taxed by the government based off their income level. For people with very low income, they are excused from taxation. Tax Fraud can be punished relatively heavily with even heavier taxes, or even imprisonment. The tax money gained by the government shall be allocated to improving infrastructure, education, and invest in the country. I also support a "Social Parasite Tax" as shown in Belarus and Stalinist USSR, taxing those who laze off government welfare and being useless eaters.

Trade:
I oppose free trade and complete autarky. Trade is a good way for our country to create stable and beneficial relationships with the rest of the world and also a good way to export our products out and to improve our economy. With that said, I also oppose the idea of "Free Trade" since Free Trade almost practically forces the country's economy to be dependant on another country. An example of this is the EU, where many countries become economic slaves of Germany and France as a result of the free trade. Free Trade is another codename for economic Imperialism. The kind of trade I support is beneficial trade with some forms of tariffs on foreign goods to protect the interests of local producers, since our people comes first, after all.

Land:
The common person should have a place to stay, and the people should have a piece of land for themselves. It is a fundamental human right in the state. Rent can be comparable to theft, and I will be as harsh on landlords like how Maoist China was against them. Being a landlord isn't a real job. Housing should be subsidised and provided by the state, but as for living conditions, it is fully up to the worker cooperatives to improve the housing conditions there.

Wealth:
He views that wealth disparity is a severe problem in all societies and must be combatted in all ways, and therefore, rich people and powerful companies, regardless of how much they did, shall pay their fair share of tax and they would be specifically taxed more so in return, the poor could enjoy the money that the rich has. Tax evasion will be fined with even more tax and the Rich who got their money through illegitimate forms will have every last inch of their wealth be confiscated by the state.

However, I think that millionaires should exist, provided if they earnt their money through hard work, pay their fair share of taxes, and work for the benefit of society and the country as a whole. Billionaires however, shouldn't exist as most if not all of them are exploitative, and even so, wealth accumulation is bad. Imo, a wealth cap of around 700M Chinese Yuan (approximately 104M USD) will do, and billionaires will have their money redistributed to the poor, or used to provide for public and merit goods.

Regarding Democracy:
The Ideology firmly believes that the Western concepts of Liberal Democracy is utter nonsense and easily corruptible, and although supports it, views Western Democracy as either weak, corruptible, incompatible with Asian values or (mostly) seen as an imperialist, Western parasite used to corrupt Asia and should be wiped out by the people, instead, the ideology's democracy comes from the Leninist principle of Democratic Centralism and People's Democracy, while at the same time accepts the Maoist Ideal of New Democracy to be 'ideal', purging Western Democracy, instead implementing a Democratic System based on the conditions of the country that is implemented.

Even so, the Democratic system should be set on Asian Values as well as principles of Socialism. The principle in Chinese culture that "Social Security is Greater than Personal Freedoms" as well as the frowning on greed and the concept of 'freedom', both of which are seen as degenerate and corrupt ideals that had brought upon nothing but suffering to the world. A true Democratic system shouldn't be of representative democracy and liberal democracy with parties who only share liberal values bickering and shitting on one another getting nothing done while the average person is losing hope (and those that truly want to change don't get a chance to stand in elections) a true democratic system should be something similar to a United Front of parties following a central ideology guiding the country forward to work for the common good of the people, as seen in the PRC, DPRK, and DDR.

Democratic Centralism and Vanguardism:
Many libertarian viewpoints of Vanguardism about how the left isn't one party is true, despite the fact that I think that the Communist Party should lead the country with a firm hand, I believe that there shouldn't be just a single Vanguard Party alone, but rather a coalition led by the Vanguard Party, with all it's parties binded together to follow one central principle. This is known as Democratic Centralism, and this is the system I support. All parties registered in the state should be a part of this united coalition as seen in many Marxist-Leninist states, like the United Front in China, the National Front in the German Democratic Republic and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland in the DPRK. with all the Leftist Parties that participated in the revolution binded together, this way they have a strong party to lead it (the Vanguard Party, which is the Communist Party), while having all of the socialists swearing allegiance to the central ideology.

To elaborate more on my stance on Vanguardism, I see it as necessary since Socialist countries and movements have constantly been targeted by Borgeoise Imperialists and Fascists alike, and without a strong party to protect the United Left and the Popular Front, it won't last long, and can be easily crushed by the Imperialist forces. Indeed, the Left shouldn't consist of just one single party, which is why I take my model from the GDR's Popular Front, which even Democratic Socialists are included. Provided that they serve the country and the people and do not engage in liberal pluralism, they can serve inside the Popular Front. To conclude, Vanguardism is something to be used to defend the country and the entire movement as a whole from Imperialism.

Party Discipline:
One of the greatest dangers to a Vanguard party is factionalism, and as seen in what happened in the CPC during the late 70's to the early 80's saw a lot of infighting and factionalism. That is not how a people's party should look like. What a party should have is mantain firm party discipline. Factionalism can be tolerated but keep it to a minimum degree to not divide the Vanguard party. Party members who cannot mantain party discipline by following the party line, upholding the party's ideology and programs and keeping it's objectives (like serving the people and whatnot) at the first priority are proven to be unfit to be in the People's Party that leads the people, thus have to be expelled, practising Democratic Centralism.

Self-Criticism and Dissent:
In Marxism-Leninism, I believe in the principle of Self-Criticism. Under a mass worker's party leading the worker's state, unlike what you'll see in liberal democracies that embrace the so called "liberal pluralism", where the elites, billionaires and the borgeoise of the nation are the de facto leaders of the country. Plus, under liberal democracies, all sorts of different parties will only work for their individual agenda rather than for the greater good of the nation. I do not support all that. In theis case, the Vanguard party is not the simple political party in liberal pluralism, but rather, the party is the people, the state is lead by the vanguard party consisting of all workers and people. To improve on party policies, workers will submit criticsims and suggestionsto the worker's party, consisting full of workers themselves. However, despite having this kind of system, we cannot afford to allow the Borgeoise and Capitalist systems to still remain in the nation, therefore liberalism, capitalism, interventionism, trotskyism and such, will be repressed.

The Revisionist Question:
What revisionism means in the Marxist sense is deviation from the initial principles, or deviation from the basic principles of Marxism Leninism. Examples of these are Nikita Khrushchev, who abandoned the DOTP concept of Marxism-Leninism and made the USSR social imperialist and couping Malenkov, this caused a chain effect along with Brezhnev's stagnation, corruption, and imperialism and it all ended with Gorbachev finally nailing the final straw. Revisionism should be fought against at all costs. But, I think it's fine to create your own variant of Marxism-Leninism and apply it according to the material conditions of the country while being inside the Marxist-Leninist framework, like Honecker in East Germany for example adapted Marxism Leninism to his country's conditions, that's fine, that isn't revisionism but rather Scientific Socialism. I'm fine with Marxism Leninism being developed by other individuals, but stay firm to the core principals of it. Revisionists are like humans who still call themselves human beings by betraying morals and ethics that humans have that other species don't.

Marxist End Goal:
There are a lot of misconceptions about the end goal of Marxism being a "Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless" society, when in reality it isn't just that one sentence. Marxism is a lot more complicated than just "Stateless, Classless and Moneyless" Society, which is anarchism and that is very clearly a failed ideology. What Marxism advocates for the the destruction of the neoliberal capitalist status quo, as his entire work is actually a critique of the era he's in. What us Socialists want isn't a utopian society, but rather a removal of the current status quo.

Revolution or Reform?
Revolution in general is the way. Socialism is revolutionary, and in Capitalist countries, reform simply will not work as it merely gives short-term benefits to the people and workers only to get overthrown by another borgeoise under the sham 'liberal democracy', plus, reforming a capitalist society doesn't work, the existence of social democracy being corrupted by liberals and the capitalist class is an example to prevent people from making true change. Examples are like how people like Bernie, Corbyn and the JCP cannot take power.

Case against Electorialism:
Similar to the above, and as I said, a Capitalist society is irredeemable. No matter how much sugarcoating is put onto a capitalist society, and no matter how much welfare is put in and how strong trade unions are, the national borgeoise can simply reverse them easily, and even then, in some Welfare Capitalist societies like in the Nordic Countries, the benefits it's people enjoy cannot be successful if it weren't from them leeching from the resources of Third Way Imperialism. Plus, even if electorialism succeeds, true socialism cannot be achieved through working with the capitalist system. For as long as the borgeoise class and the capitalist system still exists, Socialism could be overturned. To secure the idea of Socialism, every capitalist system has to be razed down, and a Socialist system has to be built new. Examples of these are Allende, Palme, Katayama, and such, who tried to work with the system but in the end had everything they had done completely reversed. Hence, a true Socialist party cannot resolve to working with the Electorial Systems in capitalist liberal "democracies", as the liberal democratic system will destroy any attempt to establish true people's control.

Trade Unions:
I personally don't think that Trade Unions can be the very base of a Socialist revolution, as, for the first point, they don't advocate enough. They merely advocate for better conditions, while not fighting against the dirty conditions that their employers tend to use, and they rarely form co-operatives. Another problem I have with Unions is that they also tend to focus on the individual workplace instead of the common industry of the country, so even if they manage to free themselves from capitalist exploitation, many others working in the same industry might be exploited too, and rarely build socialism. Worse, Trade unions may be used as a tool for Welfare Capitalists and Social Democrats to delay and stop the socialist revolution and prevent the proletariat from taking power in order to preserve the system. They may be a force of good compared to other capitalists, but right now I don't think they can be the backbone of a socialist revolution, and with social democrats, welfare capitalists, and such, they can be very easily corrupted.

Who shall be the ones leading the revolution?
In the process of a revolution, or a pre-socialist society, I believe that there should be a revolutionary vanguard of class-conscious, well-educated workers leading the united left, and the people, under the guidance of the mass party, consisting of the proletariat and the masses, install revolutionary values into the masses, making them class conscious, for that they can realise the evil of Capitalism and the current status quo. Plus, I'm not in favour of decentral planning of a revolution, as we all know how poorly-planned revolutions (or mass spontaneous unplanned actions in a revolution went), therefore, there needs to be the group of class-conscious, well-educated workers to plan and guide the masses towards a successful people's revolution to overthrow the national borgeoise.

Who shall be the ones leading the Worker's State?
I believe in a strong, powerful control of the revolutionary party of the Left, with the masses, the proletariat, the farmer, and the common person all being a part of the Worker's Party, for that all people in the country can be represented in the Worker's State. However, the top decisions have to be democratically decided by the well-educated, most able, and the most class-conscious workers in the Worker's Party, and whatever action they make, through firm party discipline and zero tolerance to factionalism, has to be collectively carried out by the People of the nation. That is known as Democratic Centralism. So, in a sense, with liberal pluralism eliminated, and the worker's state now embraces true democracy, rather than the borgeoise democracy full of nonsensical party politics and ideological bickering, this kind of democracy helps with meaningful progress to help the country develop. For improvements of policy, in Marxism-Leninism, I will adopt self-criticism for any policies (that have some failures) to minimize it's flaws and maximize it's positive effects.

Environmental Policy:
Preserving the environment is indeed important, but I view that having better living standards and having the country to be industrialized to be more important than the environment, so in countries that are still poor or in need of development, Industrialism will take priority, even so, companies that do harm to the environment will be penalized for doing so. In developed countries, as they are already industrialized, they should work to transfer to greener sources of energy and reduce carbon emissions. It will take time, but it still has to be done.

Social Axis:
The social axis is mainly based on Hu Jintao's Eight Honors and Eight Shames to serve as a kind of "Socialist Guiding Model" for a moral society. However so, the social policy I follow depends on region and material conditions. Politics are more than just a 1 dimensional line, it is a science that has to be adapted to the conditions of the certain country.

以热爱祖国为荣　以危害祖国为耻 以服务人民为荣　以背离人民为耻 以崇尚科学为荣　以愚昧无知为耻 以辛勤劳动为荣　以好逸恶劳为耻 以团结互助为荣　以损人利己为耻 以诚实守信为荣　以见利忘义为耻 以遵纪守法为荣　以违法乱纪为耻 以艰苦奋斗为荣　以骄奢淫逸为耻

Honor to those who love the motherland, and shame on those who harm the motherland. Honor to those who serve the people, and shame on those who betray the people. Honor to those who quest for science, and shame on those who refuse to be educated. Honor to those who are hardworking, and shame on those who indulge in comfort and hate work. Honor to those who help each other, and shame on those who seek gains at the expense of others. Honor to those who are trustworthy, and shame on those who trade integrity for profits. Honor to those who abide by law and discipline, and shame on those who break laws and discipline. Honor to those who uphold plain living and hard struggle, and shame on those who wallow in extravagance and pleasures.

Identity Politics:
Identity Politics is something that I personally oppose, regardless on which extreme end it is. One side we have Baizuo Woketards obsessed with Black Trans Women and care more about intersectional bullshit rather than anything else, while on the other hand we have White Supremacists, Nazis, Ethno nationalists, and so on. A symbol of this is how America is now and the Baizuo left parties like the DSA do not serve the people at all. Both sides are the same shit, and they should be rooted out from the system as a whole.

The Progressive-Conservative Axis:
As stated before, Progressivism and Conservatism isn't just one line and one axis. It's way more complicated than that. In a way, I'm progressive and in other ways I'm conservative. I'd apply my progressive-conservative axis based on the conditions of each country, and even then, I'd progress on parts that truly require progress (in the case of Third World Countries, I'd have the material conditions of the country progress into improvement, like how Gaddafi, Sankara, etc. did), while being restrictive on parts like LGBT marriage, pride, and such, which I am particularly harsh against. So, you could say I'm progressive-conservative, like Teddy, Sun Yat Sen, and MLK.

Religion:
In terms of religion, it varies upon region, if it is a society where religion has little to almost no influence like in East Asia, religion will be completely separated from the government, and all officials of the government have to be either agnostic or atheist to take office. despite that, freedom of religion is guaranteed, and for new religions, they have to go through strict monitoring from the government, in case of insane cults like Falun Gong coming up. As for Insane cults or Doomsday Cults, they will be brutally and violently suppressed for terrorism. Regardless of religion, they have to swear loyalty to the government, be obliged to surveillance and national security laws and many more.

Even in countries where religion is prominent, it has to be separated from the government in fear of becoming a Saudi Arabia-like Theocracy. And all religions have to be tolerated, as long as it is legal and follows the regulations of the country.

Gender Identities/LGBTQ:
I'm generally fine with them provided if they keep it private and that they aren't flamboyant about such. I'll allow them to live their lives without being attacked by the state provided if they don't do the pride shit and force everyone to support their agenda, I however, am against gay marriage since I see that marriage is between a man and a woman and that children need to grow up with a father and a mother figure, then only they can be true people to society. As for transgenders, they should only be allowed to remain at their legal gender, and they will receive therapy to cure all these "gender dysphoria".

I however do not recognize this "non-binary" bullshit, as they are just something made by attention-seeking progtards who want to take advantage of the woke mob to build their own agenda, and it's existence is just plain nonsense. Regarding xenogenders and other kinds of bullshit, I strongly oppose them.

In conclusion, I support the de-criminalization of LGBT, but that's it. I will not implement laws to specifically protect them since I view them as no different than the common person and therefore shouldn't be specifically protected by the state, and I don't have a problem with them if they keep it private and not flamboyant. If they go further than that, I will not entertain them.

Sex, Porn, and such topics:
Sex work is not work, and porn should be restricted as much as possible. Since I view porn as an unnecessary evil that corrodes society and turns people who watch them into sex-addicted fucks and it objectifies women as tools for sex. If you support porn and sex work, you do not at all view women as human beings. As a supporter of women's rights and I view that equality between men and women to be a main part in the socialist revolution, I very much oppose porn and sex 'work'. It is in no way empowering and it just objectifies people. As I see it as a poison, I will put extensive censorship and monitoring on the net to take down every single porn site.

As for people who were forced into doing it because of human traffiking and poverty, I'd have an approach that attacks pimps, brothel owners, and those that engage in the prostitution business, while helping those victims of human traffiking just to be sex slaves escape. Again, to do this, I support a strong police force that shows zero mercy to criminals and extensive surveillance to fight crime in general, not just prostitution.

Gun Ownership:
This may come off as a surprise but I support Gun Ownership with certain exceptions. For one thing that with the ownership of guns, people are able to defend themselves from criminals, or imperialist invaders, and it will be easy to fight off imperialists trying to invade the homeland.

Despite supporting gun ownership, I have a few requirements and checks for the person if they want to own a gun, namely they have to be above the age of 21, absolutely no criminal record (even the slightest criminal record will not allow you to own a gun), no mental disorders, and all have to receive a background check. Even so, all guns require a tracker, and a code for each of them, in case shootings or crimes occur.

Individualism and Hedonism as a Threat:
Individualism is something that disconnects a person from wider society, and from other people, and in general is a philosophy of selfishness. Individualism is Egoism-lite. The principle is frequently used as justification for bugs that want to destroy society in the name of "freedom of speech", or degenerates who think jerking off to children is "fun", these principles are poisonous and should be seen as a threat. I'm not for hive-mind collectivism, but Individualism should be countered. Hedonism is even worse, since it's more or less a justification for people to be an asshole and do absolutely unacceptable things in the name of "doing what they want" and "fun". People of these kinds are absolutely deplorable, selfish fucks. These principles should be seen as threats that destroy society and the nation.

Racial Discrimination:
Racial discrimination is publicly frowned upon, and propaganda will be spread to condemn the usage of racial discrimination. Doing racial discrimination will result in the loss of access to benefits like welfare and a good education. Racially-aggravated crimes will also be taken seriously, and the perpetrator will resort to public torture and beating by the police.

Regarding Police brutality because of race, the policeman (or any authority figure for that matter) will be completely removed from their position, not to be able to apply for jobs, and lose all benefits from the government.

Immigration:
I'm quite indifferent when it comes to Immigration, as I believe in a balanced solution. We should open our borders for people with legitimate reasons to enter, like students, or people looking for work to enter here, but we shouldn't let literally everyone in. For one thing, if they were to immigrate, or enter, for a matter of fact, require background checks of some sort. People with a criminal record are not allowed to enter.

As for refugees fleeing percecution or war, there's one thing that's for sure, I sympathise with their condition, but not everybody should be allowed in. Those that are allowed in should only be people with valuable skills, like doctors, scholars, and such, and even then, their backgrounds are very important, and not all will be allowed entry, since it may result in hatred as immigrants might take away jobs from the native population, causing racial hatred, xenophobia and such.

Jail System:
The principle of the jail system is based on the principle "a tooth for a tooth". Sentences depends on the harm and damage caused to the victim. If it ruins a life, it will be resort to life imprisonment and sometimes torture. If it is extremely heinous like child sexual assault, mass rape, massacre, serial killing, etc. These will be punishable by public execution, public shaming, and be made as an example of, to ensure that no one in the country ever does it again.

The usage of torture is also legalized in the police force, but not during interrogation. But it is legalized in prisons, as the government views criminals as "people that deserve every single loathing, and punishment from the world, and that's if you can call them 'people'."

Abortion:
Abortion is seen as a moral evil and very frowned upon in my ideal society. Many cases of aborting the baby is mainly due to irresponsible people who desire sex, and if you want to have sex and don't want the baby, take every bit of necessary measure possible and even then you're fully responsible for what happens in sex. However, in the case of mother's health and incest, the case is pardoned.

As for rape, although rape is a tragedy and a horrible thing to happen to anyone, an innocent soul should not be harmed for the sins of the rapist. A way to cure victims of rape is to raise the baby properly, viewed by the government.

Irresponsible abortion however, is seen as a crime more heinous than murder as it is done out of pure irresponsibility of the couple. With that, I support the repealing of Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that I think it is repealed at the worst time since social conditions in America for women aren't good.

Despite that, socioeconomic conditions are something that is needed to take into account when it comes to abortion. To reduce the amount of abortion, I'd take a few measures, like granting welfare and support to pregnant women and families with economic hardship, and help rape victims and those who were pregnant through it by giving them therapy. Moreover, to reduce the amount of abortion, I support more social programs so that people won't have to do it illegally, and as for rape, I'd make pepper spray for women widely available to protect themselves from rapists.

Propaganda:
Propaganda is characterized mainly to enhance the morale of the people in the country, as a means to help the people in the country have confidence in the government and work hard in programs. One main front of propaganda is propaganda that promotes national unity, economic output, and combating problems like poverty and pollution. While regarding foreign propaganda, the country should be marshalled up against the Western powers and propaganda will be frequently aiming for the absolute destruction of American Imperialism, Atlanticism and SJW degeneracy.

Sometimes, popular media (i.e Anime) will be used as a means to enhance national unity and enhance morale of the people in the country, and views mainly Eastern popular media as a weapon that could be used to destroy the Imperialist, Atlanticist Western World Order responsible for humanity's suffering and the spread of wokeism, which must be combatted.

West or East?
To put it simply, despite being a patriot to China and a staunch supporter of the CPC, I'm not standing with the East nor the West, since the East (despite being trillions of times better than NATO and the West), has it's fair share of shitty people and regimes and acts, namely the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia, the Sino-Vietnamese War and such, plus, some Pro-East regimes like Russia, Iran and Zimbabwe are horrible and do not deserve my support. So, I take a similar take to Fidel Castro, who hated Bloc Politics and trying to enhance the Third World and empower the NAM, like how Sukarno and Nkrumah did. I love my country and the Party, but what I'd prefer the CPC to do is take the path of Zhou Enlai to support the third world instead of promoting social imperialism during our revisionist years of Deng and Jiang.

However, if I had to pick in between the two, even if you kill me, I will still pick the East. Sure, the Warsaw Pact has done it's fair share of shitty things, but, one thing is for sure. They haven't vaporized entire countries for no reason unlike the Atlanticists. There is not a single reason to support NATO, which is objectively the modern day Axis Powers, not even sympathise or see them as a lesser evil. Even if your country hasn't been fucked by Atlanticoids and the West, some other country nearby probably has. Russia and China haven't caused the deaths of three million Iraqis because of a lie, have they, or the Vietnam War, one which the Americans had done one of the most horrifying crimes in humanity by slaughtering entire villages and murdered children, causing deaths and long term effects and lasted until today. 18-20 Million Indochinese people died because of the Neocucks. These are just two examples. Look at the 20% of Koreans killed by the Americans in the Korean War, the countless crimes they backed in Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, etc.

"but muh authoridarianism and my liberal universal values that everyone has to follow or get your entire country genocided!!!!!!" What other countries do is NONE of the Superpower's business. America is the single most genocidal country still around today, and the death toll that Neocucks have caused can easily exceed the ones caused by Nazi Germany. There is a clear greater evil here even if both sides are not good.

Alter-Globalization:
Although I oppose the idea of Economic Globalism, World Federation, Anationalism and such, I still believe that the world should work together and co-operate with each other. I take the model of Alt-Globalization as my ideal model regarding Globalism. Globalist organizations have been doing shady things like converting independent nations into neoliberal slaves and causing them to suffer, and Globetards are Imperialists with a human face, aiming to destroy any country independent from their agenda, as how they are currently starving the DPRK and stopping them from any possible development. The Nation comes before others.

Doctrine of Scientific Socialism:
As I said before in the previous section in the Revisionist Question one, Socialism is a science, not to blindly follow what Marx had said. Blindly following Marx's book will not get you anywhere. That's the different between all the "Ultra-Marxist" ideologies like Left Communism, compared to Marxism-Leninism, who treats the ideology of Marx like a science. Material Conditions completely define how a country should be ruled, and thus, Socialism should be applied to said country according to their specific conditions. That's how many regional ideologies came to place. Kim Il Sung, Castro, Sankara, Bac Ho, etc. are examples of people who adopted Socialism to their country's specific conditions, and they have seen some of history's biggest successes.

Socialist Patriotism:
The Nation is a force that gives a sense of uniformity in society. A cause that binds the workers of the nation together, and therefore, loving the country and doing everything to protect it and everything it stands for should be a duty of the Party and the people. No matter how bad said country is (excluding illegitimate states like Israel and Taiwan), it is a duty for Socialists and the People of the Nation to protect it, while destroying their borgeoise government.

Rejection of Liberal "Human Rights" and embracing True "Human Rights":
"Human Rights" as proposed by the Liberal Globalists are an absolute farce. They are always chanting about all these individualistic bullshit that have nothing to do with improving the lives of people and country like "freedom of speech" and all those bullshit. Like, why does "free elections" matter when your entire family is starving? why does "freedom of speech" matter when you can't even have access to food and healthcare? All of those individualistic bullshit shouldn't be considered human rights, and even so, "freedom of speech" is a stepping stone to chaos.

Instead, I pursue a true "human rights" doctorine that should be upheld instead of the liberal, individualistic ones. It'll be what I call 'Rights of Humanity', similar to one proposed by Castro. Instead, I'll focus on the rights of humanity, like the accessibility to food, jobs, healthcare, housing and so on. That is what human rights should be. It's ridiculous that you have "free speech" while you are suffering from a terminal illness not having any medicine and starving because you have no food. Don't get me started on how genocidal, neocuck imperialists use "human rights" as an excuse to commit genocide and raze down entire countries.

Opposition to Interventionism:
I believe Interventionism in general is very unnecessary and it's another tool for imperialism. No cases of Intervention has been justified apart from the Liberation of Tibet. What other countries do and their policies are NONE of the superpower's business. "But muh authoritarianism!!!!!!" some countries are just simply not fit for the corrupted, individualistic model of liberal democracy. Just see how the Arab Spring turned out, and how most of Asia's "democracies" are either failed, filled with nonsensical party politics and bickering politicians (like Malaysia and 'Taiwan'), or turned to a dominant party state instead (like Japan and the Philippines), and those with a strong hand actually get more shit done.

The only cases where I support interventionism is when being against counter-imperialism, or against a genocidal enemy, slave state, or to unite the country. Otherwise, I oppose all other kinds of intervention, unless when said country is provoked, like the Pearl Harbor Attacks and the Khmer Rouge forces massacring Vietnamese villages. Interventionism has done more chaos and suffering than good, and what third-world countries do, do not at all require a superpower to write the rules for them. What gives them the right to do so, anyway?

Proletarian Internationalism and Socialism in One Country:
"Socialism in One Country means Capitalism in All countries" is outright false. Socialism in One Country is to put the nation at first, not isolate and lock it all down to the rest of the world. Socialism in One Country is to build up Socialism in their own country first, to create ourselves as a model socialist state, and care for the conditions and improving our own country first, providing a model. That's how the DPRK under Kim Il Sung did, so did Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Building a model for the world to follow.

After building a strong socialist model inside the country and finishing with the projects necessary to build our country up, I pursue Proletarian Internationalism. Note, that this doesn't mean Globalism or World Communism, nothing of that sort, I do not believe in forcing ideologies upon other countries unlike Trotskyites and Western Liberal Hawks, the entire concept of Proletarian Internationalism is solidarity with the peoples oppressed by imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism, as well as to support other fellow socialists in building their nationalist, socialist republic by the people, while not trampling on national sovereignty, which is a fatal mistake by the USSR. I pursue a policy similar to what Cuba did in terms of proletarian internationalism.

I'll stress again I do NOT advocate for globalism, since I strongly oppose an international world government and anti-nationalism. Proletarian Internationalism is similar to Alter-Globalization, as it truly respects national sovereignty and calls for the world to support each other's national liberation, and building socialism together as well as supporting each other in the fight against imperialism and capitalism.

Architecture:
Traditional Chinese, Traditional East Asian, and a mixture of  Stalinist Architecture

Art:
Anime and Manga, mixed with a bit of Russian Futurism and  Socialist Realism

Music:
Nationalist, Anime and Popular Culture Music, and  Communist

Relationships:
Ideologies: Regional Ideologies: Fictional Ideologies: Philosophy: