It's time to anti GFW too

[ghost]

Although GFW is still a current national policy, I believe that with the development of the times, its drawbacks are becoming more and more obvious, and the trend of harms outweighing benefits is also becoming more and more obvious, even seriously affecting scientific research and open source.

GFW, Open Source & Socialism

Chinese Version: https://fltb.github.io/2023/07/06/zh-cn/oss-and-gfw/

OS (Open Source) has been planned for the 14th Five Year Plan, but I am still not optimistic about the future of domestic OS communities. Without mentioning any other obstacles, I will make an example of the cancer in the "room" specifically, which is GFW.

This article is divided into two parts to explain. One part is to recount the crimes of policies represented by GFW and clarify how they hinder community development. The other part starts from the operating mode of OS communities, combines socialist theory, explains the intentions of existing policies, and attempts to explain the reasons behind them and propose some bold solutions.

The main purpose of the article is to attract valuable insights. If there are any shortcomings, please point them out and improve them.

How GFW harms the OS community

As of now, the penetration rate of computers in Celestial Empire is still relatively low, which means there are inherent shortcomings, after all, it is impossible to doing develop with mobile phones. And due to the general lack of computer literacy among the general public, it can be seen from the discussions on "internet addiction (网瘾)" and "anti addiction (防沉迷)" (Translator’s note: They are not good things). These need to be further demonstrated. However, these factors involve a wide range, let's set aside and focus on how existing policies directly hinder the development of domestic OS communities. These difficulties, unlike those ahead, are purely man-made and can be removed within one day.

Now, I will refer to the paradigm provided in the How to be a good corporate citizen when participating in an OS project Chapter in [Participating in OS Communities](https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/open-source-guides/participating-in-open-source-communities) to point out how GFW hinders people from joining the OS community.

You can refer to the link above for the original page. I highlighted the key points of this article in bold.

If there is an underlying theme for this guide and for OS in general, it’s that every project is different. Every time you join an OS project, you’ll need to spend some time orienting yourself to the project and learning how it works.

For organizations participating in an OS project, each employee will need to go through this learning process for each project they participate in. Here are a few things that can help you get started off on the right foot.

• Join the community. Each community will have slightly different ways of participating and different channels. Read the documentation to find out about the community and join the key communication channels. These channels may include mailing lists, forums, IRC, Slack, bug trackers, source code repositories, and more.
• Lurk first. After you’ve joined the community, spend a significant amount of time lurking and reading the archives to soak up the culture before you start contributing. You’ll want to understand the norms and expectations of this community before you participate. The more time you spend reading and listening, the more likely it is that your first contribution will be well received.
• Understand the governance. Read the documentation or website sections about project governance and leadership before contributing. You’ll want to understand how decisions are made within the project and who makes the decisions for various types of contributions.
• Start small. Tackle a simple bug or documentation fix to start. It will be easier to learn the process and correct mistakes on a small contribution that isn’t critical to your organization’s needs. Make your mistakes on small and less significant contributions as you work up to the more complex contributions that your organization needs.

Now that your organization has figured out how to make those first small contributions, you’ll need to build on those contributions to begin making larger contributions and having a bigger impact in the project.

• Build relationships at events. Relationships on a personal and organizational level are an important aspect of participating in an open source community. One of the best ways to build lasting relationships with other project members is by attending events. There is nothing quite like meeting someone in person to help understand them as a human being on the other side of their email address or online handle. These events have a varied mix of people from project leaders and passionate users of the product to direct participation from many of the organizations through sponsorships, booths, and demos to show how the organization contributes. Most of these events would not be possible without financial support from sponsoring organizations that allow us to get together and learn from each other while helping to achieve the goals of the project.
• Include the community early and often. Some organizations make the mistake of developing big chunks of code in house and then dumping them into the open source project, which is almost never seen as a positive way to engage with the community. The reality is that open source projects can be complex, and what seems like an obvious change might have far reaching side effects in other parts of the project. Any significant change is likely to require some community discussion before it moves to implementation to make sure that there are no side effects and that the solution is aligned with the broader goals for the project. While you discuss it with the community, it can help to focus on the problem, rather than a specific solution, before you invest too much time in the creation of a body of code.
• Contribute upstream. This refers to the practice of sending any changes you make to an open source project back to the original maintainers for inclusion into an upcoming release of the software. If your organization is new to open source, you may need to spend some time educating your employees about the importance of upstreaming contributions. In some cases, people may think it will be easier to do a quick and dirty patch to get something working in your infrastructure and not bother with cleaning it up and going through the process of getting it accepted into the upstream project.

For individual developers, GFW has these crimes:

• Increasing the difficulty of getting started with OS development
• Obstructing communication between domestic and international OS communities (in terms of participating in the community and contributing upstream)
• Obstructing communication between the OS community and ordinary users

Development

Anyone who has used the package manager all knows the power of GFW, turtle network speed when using pypi and timeout when using nmp, iykyk. Because Jsdelivr is being blocked, we needs to host its library by ourselves, lead to wasting server bandwidth; Because accessing GitHub is unstable，we need to find a bunch of mirror sites… I can continue to make a long list. For beginners, without guidance, it may take several days to build a usable development environment (Translator’s note: Just like the first time I faced to Python's pypi). How many beginners fall in front of Baidu's advertising and CSDN's plagiarism chain when facing development problems? And for the same question, international beginners may have already searched for answers on Stackoverflow on Google, and it took less than half an hour from the problem to resolution.

This problem can be said to be caused solely by GFW. The fresh blood from the community has been sucked away by GFW.

Communication

If the previous problem can be solved through various legal methods, what about communication with the community? Nowadays, except for IRC, self-created forum, email, and Github Issues, other communication methods with developers, such as Telegram, Discord, Reddit, Matrix, or Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, cannot be used. The former is basically limited to formal discussions about the software itself. That is to say, we can only obtain the source code and binary files of the software. We can only provide advice on the software itself and cannot personally interact with developers, engage in deeper communication with them, and integrate into the OS culture. Therefore, we cannot know how to develop, what to develop, and cannot affects the direction of the project. We can only become bystanders. Even Github has been banned, which has already affected the software development itself. There will no one who doesn't know that the mirror sites can't Pull Requests and Issues, right?

As for the issue of contributing to upstream, if we adhere to the above approach, there is no need to discuss it at all. I am also curious about how to provide code that can be accepted by upstream without understanding culture or development direction.

As for relying solely on domestic (relative Celestial Empire) OS communities for development, what should we rely on? CSDN(Copy Steal pay-Download Notwork. Translator’s note: Its original spelling was "CelestialEmpire Software Developer Network". The above statement is a mockery of the style and some scandals of "becoming famous in one battle" of the platform and its users.), Gitee (Translator’s note: A platform shaped like GitHub) and QQ? Whoever has confidence, let him do it. Even if there are some interesting projects, they also cannot be promoted to the world, the domestic demand is also not strong enough to support high-quality OS software. So don't talk about development, either rely on subsidies to feed yourself, or simply die.

If you want to "overcome" such difficulties, the only way is to climb over the GFW, but:

Article 6: The computer information network directly connects to international networks and must use the international entrance and exit channels provided by the National Public Telecommunication Network of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.

No unit or individual shall establish or use other channels for international networking on their own.

---

Extracted from the Provisional Regulations of Celestial Empire on the Administration of International Networking of Computer Information Networks (《天朝计算机信息网络国际联网管理暂行规定》)

An ordinary programmer who wants to engage in OS in Celestial Empire must violate laws, which is the strictest verdict on Empire’s OS. However, some people - onlookers who do not know the truth, self-deceiving developers - still believe that the current situation is "reasonable and necessary", which is also absurd.

Propaganda

The above are all about developers, and there are also for common users. The software must have users, and the development of the community must have new users. Our GFW has mercilessly cut the chain. Take the basic software download for example. Our community has many excellent projects, such as Ventoy, an OS tool for making bootable USB drives. It only puts a Github Release on the English interface, but in zh-cn interface：

• GitHub Releases
• Gitee Releases
• Nanjing University & Shandong University Mirror Sites
• Three net disks download method

If this is not a "gift" from GFW, then what it is? What if we switch to other software that can only be downloaded through Github Releases? The latter is actually the norm in the community. Given the current situation of the domestic community, when users contact the "OS community", they must contact the international OS community. We cannot require ordinary domestic users to master the skills to access GitHub. Since ordinary users cannot even download OS software, how can they expect to understand and support OS? You said Gitee？Gitee has no future because it currently lacks support from the international community, and the Celestial OS community is not enough to support it (if you think it's incorrect, it's recommended to practice it yourself). In a few years, it will completely become an ordinary Git hosting website, lose its "community" nature, and enter a state where even mirror sites are inferior. (Mirror sites at least relative integrity and immediacy, does Gitee have?).

In this situation, the OS software that ordinary users can access, except for a few projects that reach the average level, may only be the policy-based OS software of various domestic manufacturers of different sizes. For the quality of these software, if they do not quickly disappear from public view, I will collect some representative project detailed critiques when I have time.These types of projects generally have the following characteristics: non-core technologies, weak or no communities, developed for subsidies or media. They mostly give up after a few Releases.

Summary

Since the connection between the legitimate OS community and ordinary users has been severed, and since individual developers need to overcome numerous difficulties in joining the community, let's not talk about developing industries. Let's talk about how to develop new people and survive first. Perhaps companies that receive subsidies and advertising fees will like the current situation, because in a weak community, they can rely on this information gap to carry out a little bit of secondary development on the basis of OS software, and then earn money with peace of mind under the big label of "self-research". Regardless of the motives behind GFW, they have ultimately contributed to the fact that they are selling the future of domestic OS software at a low price and putting it in the pockets of some people.

The true intention of existing policies

What the Hell the OS is?

To delve into the issue of this policy, one must first start with the OS operating mode. OS is a practice of public ownership of the means of production, it of course is socialist. Many people are influenced by various liberalisms and are afraid to face to socialism, or simply confuse the forces behind GFW with socialism. And some 'socialists' are indifferent to the epoch-making movements that are taking place in the history of public ownership. As a so-called Socialist Programmer, I have decided to express my own thoughts on this issue here.

The following text refer to the description of OS in [What is OS](https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source).

Open source software is software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance.

"Source code" is the part of software that most computer users don't ever see; it's the code computer programmers can manipulate to change how a piece of software—a "program" or "application"—works. Programmers who have access to a computer program's source code can improve that program by adding features to it or fixing parts that don't always work correctly.

Some software has source code that only the person, team, or organization who created it—and maintains exclusive control over it—can modify. People call this kind of software "proprietary" or "closed source" software.

Only the original authors of proprietary software can legally copy, inspect, and alter that software. And in order to use proprietary software, computer users must agree (usually by signing a license displayed the first time they run this software) that they will not do anything with the software that the software's authors have not expressly permitted. Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop are examples of proprietary software.

Open source software is different. Its authors make its source code available to others who would like to view that code, copy it, learn from it, alter it, or share it. LibreOffice and the GNU Image Manipulation Program are examples of open source software.

As they do with proprietary software, users must accept the terms of a license when they use open source software—but the legal terms of open source licenses differ dramatically from those of proprietary licenses.

Open source licenses affect the way people can use, study, modify, and distribute software. In general, open source licenses grant computer users permission to use open source software for any purpose they wish. Some open source licenses—what some people call "copyleft" licenses—stipulate that anyone who releases a modified open source program must also release the source code for that program alongside it. Moreover, some open source licenses stipulate that anyone who alters and shares a program with others must also share that program's source code without charging a licensing fee for it.

By design, open source software licenses promote collaboration and sharing because they permit other people to make modifications to source code and incorporate those changes into their own projects. They encourage computer programmers to access, view, and modify open source software whenever they like, as long as they let others do the same when they share their work.

In general, OS is a concept opposite to proprietary. OS software can be shared, used and modified arbitrarily then released, without legal risks.

This is an exposition of "OS Software" that obscures the principle of "Free Software". These principles get more exact description from 'What is Free Software?' section of [The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement](https://www.gnu.org/):

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Here, we see a system of public ownership. Here, software can no longer be privately owned and used to dominate others. But before explaining this principle, we should first explain how a typical private ownership system works.

In the [Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/), there is a paragraph like:

The workers can create nothing without nature, without the sensuous external world. It is the material in which his labor realizes itself, in which it is active and from which, and by means of which, it produces.

But just as nature provides labor with the means of life, in the sense of labor cannot live without objects on which to exercise itself, so also it provides the means of life in the narrower sense, namely the means of physical subsistence of the worker.

The more the worker appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, through his labor, the more he deprives himself of the means of life in two respects: firstly, the sensuous external world becomes less and less an object belonging to his labor, a means of life of his labor; and, secondly, it becomes less and less a means of life in the immediate sense, a means for the physical subsistence of the worker.

Two facts are pointed out here:

• Only by relying on existing labor to survive
• Only by relying on existing labor to create new things (reproduction)

OS software, as a product of labor, although it cannot sustain personal survival, can be used to produce new products. One is to use development tools like GCC, and the other is to directly fork a software for secondary development. This prevents someone independent of developers and users from dominating the output of using the software.

Let's first analyze using a simplified scenario. Assuming that there is only VC++ compiler and currently owned by MS, monopolized, and charged skyrocketing copyright fees, then this situation will occur:

Ⅰ. Developers can only develop VC++ by entering companies.
Ⅱ. Developers can only use VC++ by entering the company or paying exorbitant copyright fees.

In case Ⅰ, because the copyright of this software belongs to the company, the more development is given to the company, the stronger the VC++, and the weaker the developers. Then the case Ⅱ situation will also strengthen, leading to the company's comprehensive control over the developers, so that individuals cannot develop the software if they leaving the company, and small teams need to hand over the majority of their profits to the company. Even if there are multiple proprietary software competing with each other, the situation will not be much better unless one of them actually adopts a similar approach to OS software. The existence of GCC in reality makes the above situation untenable.

The reason for using VC++ as a hypothesis is because MS's hostile attitude towards OS was deeply ingrained in people's hearts, so I chose it. I just pointed out the fact that OS makes it impossible for large companies to use monopolistic proprietary software as capital and control the software community for profit. In the OS order, individual labor is no longer used to oppose themselves, but rather to establish a public labor library that empowers developers rather than companies. The current development of software can be attributed to OS, so - just by the way - the claim that OS reduces the competitiveness of programmers is generally untenable.

What the hell they doing are?

Now some people are applying their "successful" experiences in other fields, imposing unnecessary rules on the domestic OS community, in an attempt to make OS develop according to their ideas. Typical policies include: ① Ban GitHub, ② Promote Gitee, ③ promote reviews (Translator's note: JUST AS DISGUSTING AS THE LITERARY INQUISITION) on Gitee, and provide subsidies for projects that appear to align with their ideas (all from various companies). The first two approaches undoubtedly limit individual developers, while the third approach encourages enterprises. In a sense, it also reflects the essential characteristics of socialism with Celestial characteristics (National).

Some people try to use the following reasons to defend the current policy:

• We need an OS platform that is "Domestically Produced", "Celestial", and "Ethnic" to prevent Western (or rather American) sanctions
• There are some "dangerous" content on Github and other prohibited platforms. (According to my observation, it's probably liberal and separatist nonsense, plus some boiling cult lunatics on top of the sky. It looks dull or even funny, and I don't understand why there's such a big reaction)

Next, I will refute each point.

Ethnic OS Platform?

They seem to want to establish a "Domestically Produced", "Celestial", and "Ethnic" OS platform and use it to kidnap developers. However, the OS platform itself cannot carry these attributes.

A pure OS platform's operation mode is to act as an intermediary between users and developers, developers and developers. At the time of release, the software is no longer privately owned by the author (although copyright is legally reserved, it cannot be used to restrict users) and has become a part of the public software library. So, the OS platform cannot replace the author to obtain such rights. Although Github is generally a commercial platform, it also includes an OS platform, so its OS platform also follows these rules.

Since OS software is public, then it cannot be ethnic at same time. Since OS software authors themselves cannot own the software itself, then platforms cannot obtain the rights that authors cannot obtain to use to oppose anyone, let alone the restrictions of the so-called "Ethnic" and "National" from the platforms. If - like many unfounded concerns - the US government embargoes on OS software, then the following situation will occur: the US government has violated their own copyright laws by claiming that they have the right to handle software that authors have relinquished their copyright, which is theoretically illegal for them; The US government cannot control the mirror sites of other countries, and in reality, they cannot prevent people in a certain country from using OS software developed by Americans. So, the US government is not as foolish as some people imagine. In its instigation of Github's embargo on some countries and regions, the only ones affected are private warehouses and other commercial purposes, [Some parts of the OS community have not been affected](https://docs.github.com/zh/site-policy/other-site-policies/github-and-trade-controls)：

GitHub is committed to continuing to offer free public repository services to developers with individual and organizational accounts in Syria, Crimea, and the separatist areas of Donetsk and Luhansk. This includes limited access to free services, such as public repositories for open source projects (and associated public Pages), public gists, and allotted free Action minutes, for personal communications only, and not for commercial purposes.

In this way, we can see that establishing an "autonomous and controllable" OS platform is nonsense. The OS platform itself is autonomous and controllable, and those with borders are not OS, but the commercial part of Github. As long as Github doesn't want to commit suicide in moral and doesn't want to follow the same path as Freenode, it must stand with the developers. As long as the US government does not want to give up its current advantages on the internet, it cannot take foolish actions as restrict OS. Of course, restricting the use of Github's commercial functions in certain regions is also a part of imperialist strategy, but it is not within the scope of this article. At least the OS community should not be embroiled in imperialist conflicts, as those who join cannot be called OS.

Dangerous remarks?

Some people sincerely try to make us believe that the current GFW is some kind of "Protective Umbrella". Let's isolate ourselves from some dangerous remarks to protect us. However, the "dangerous", "isolate" and "protect" in this sentence are all problematic and they cannot stand further exploration at all.

First, is "dangerous" a cult? This statement sounds like these forces only promote their panacea through the internet. In fact, this is not even the main way. Taking personal experience as an example, when I bought groceries at the vegetable market, I was able to get a 50 CNY RMB with cult content printed on it when gave change. Later, I'll took it to the bank. Just search online to understand their main activities. For example, in [What are the activities of cult organizations](https://www.cqcb.com/county/changshouqu/changshouquxinwen/2018-08-01/997213.html) there was mentioned (This kind of rhyme is quite fun):

暗中串联建立组织 (Secretly connecting and establishing organizations)
建立窝点制发资料 (Establish dens to produce and distribute materials)
为“讲真相”四处煽动 (Inciting people everyplace for "speak the truth")
制造谣言混淆视听 (Create rumors to confuse the public)
假借维权制造混乱 (Creating chaos by pretending to protect rights)
散布信息威胁骚扰 (Spreading information, threatening harassment)
大搞“三退”虚张声势 (Make a big fuss about "three withdraw" and bravado)
内外勾结充当走卒 (Collaborate internally and externally and be pawns)

It can be said that underground organizations are the real main means of these activities. Since the enemy is already internal, they should be eliminated internally. Isn't it **** to spread a useless measure to the OS community?

So, is liberal? Indeed, these people are also the main targets to attack. They realize that the fist is coming for them, but due to their lack of education, they can only repeat empty slogans such as "freedom," "democracy," "authoritarianism," and "suppressing thought" to defend themselves. These words are equivalent to nonsense, and they cannot produce a practical plan of action. What is the merit of such a scattered fake freedom that deserves such vigilance? Not to mention anything else, let's take the collapse of Hong Kong as an example. It is said that the participation of 2 million people in a city with a total population of 7 million cannot even process an "Anti-amendment movement". Isn't this a shame for liberals in a dominant position? How can we confront 'authoritarianism' without a central organization leading strong actions? By relying on parades and debates can only send yourself to prison and cannot obtain what one deserves. This simply explains that the liberals do not have the power imagined by stupinks, thereby resolving the legitimacy source of their imagined GFW.

Is separatist? In theory, they are also within the attack range. But think that these cosplay enthusiasts have the power to practice their claims is in fact at the same level as them. These people, like the liberals mentioned above, are just some repeaters, they simply can't use serious theories and practical forms to find excuses for their daydreaming of separation, not to mention any practical measures, so they can only attract things similar to stupinks.

If some ordinary people are attracted to the above whims, what can GFW do? Stulinks simply want to prove, but the official narrative is so failed that it can lost to lunatics and repeaters.

The above are only some basic viewpoints that can be further discussed when there is time. For this article with OS as its theme, it is sufficient to expand to the above level.

The True Intention & What Should We Do？

The forces hiding behind it have never given any explanation for their intentions, make various people who trust them to fill the streets with excuses, as if they can pretend to be dead and deceive others. And things were basically within their expectations.

These reasons cannot be used as reasons for the ban of websites such as jsdelivr, npm, and pypi that are only used to download software libraries. It should be too difficult for them to come up with a reason for it. So here we need to invite a ghost to explain the reason behind it.

The current state of Celestial Empire can be said to be a powder keg. This can be reflected in the article Celestial Empire growth rate falters as youth unemployment rises, WSWS.

According to a recent report by Goldman Sachs, Celestial Empire’s youth urban unemployment is now roughly double the rate of 10 percent prior to COVID and this could well be an underestimate. This rate could rise rapidly in the coming months and with the start of the graduation season, during which a record 11.6 million young people will enter the labour force, it may jump by as much as 3-4 percentage points.

Last March, no doubt reflecting an official policy turn, an article published by the Communist Youth League attacked graduates for holding on to their aspirations and refusing to “tighten screws” in the factories, denounced their “negative” attitudes, and told them to “take off their suits and enter the factories and farmlands.” The statement produced an outcry of social media with one comment asking whether the author would “be willing to give up his current job to become a street cleaner or factory worker.”

One WeChat commenter wrote: “You should implement the labour law and address workers’ real concern.” This rumbling opposition has yet to take an overt political form. Fear of such a development will be uppermost in the minds of the ruling oligarchy headed by Xi Jinping as the developing reality in Celestial Empire comes into conflict with the dominant ideology that the restoration of capitalism represented the way forward for the working class and masses.

Under the pressure of class struggle, any "disharmonious" ideas will be seen as flames and strictly guarded against. The concept of an OS community, due to its public ownership nature and the organization that liberates developer productivity, can clearly be included in this type of ideology. When people in the OS community participate in community work, they are naturally influenced by this concept and naturally become "dangerous". CCP who sell dog meat on sheep's heads should be very familiar with this situation, as proposed in [Speech at anniversary of the People’s Paper](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1856/04/14.htm):

Steam, electricity, and the self-acting mule were revolutionists of a rather more dangerous character than even citizens Barbés, Raspail and Blanqui.

On this basis, no matter how "depoliticized" and "neutral" the people in the OS community are, under this big premise, it is obvious that they will not gain the trust of the CCP. They (Translator’s note: You should know who here talking about.) would rather believe that their followers - big and small enterprises - can support domestic OS software and reward their followers for their "loyalty". (However, some guys are still being f**ked, such as UnionTech)

Unfortunately, programmers seem to be very "tolerant". The "massive" condemnation of 996 (Translator’s note: working from 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week) actually exposed the weakness of this group: they did not strike. Because the income of "ten thousand" as a unit also brings the unique weakness of petty bourgeoisie, which melts the courage to face even the slightest risk of losing their job: [Why not join forces to strike and kill the 996 system](https://cnodejs.org/topic/5dcb943eece3813ad9ba80d0)。

The danger of controlling these people is clearly much greater than the risk of letting flames spread. As for the development of the OS community, it is not significant in maintaining their own rule. If they are willing to shout slogans and spend some money to "develop" OS recently, they are just under the pressure of imperialist confrontation. What does it matter to programmers? They just need to satisfy their fantasies. So, the current approach taken by CCP is definitely the most reasonable approach for themselves.

Since the current concept of OS communities have been regarded by the ruling class as a challenge to their own status due to class struggle pressure, then communities have no choice but to adopt a political approach in response. In a situation where the conflict has escalated to a conflict between the enemy and ourselves, if you cannot muster the strength to make the opponent submit, don't expect to receive any charity. In situations where this kind of movements are not able to start up, the most effective way is, of course, to overcome the influence of petty bourgeoisie ideology, participate in a wider range of organizations, unite all oppressed people, "completely 'without property' people… Act together with who are currently wealthy and educated individuals who stand opposite to the world, also the forces of the industrial proletariat. In fact, the latter is [already taking action on their own](https://maps.clb.org.hk), but lacks a unified organization to lead, it depends on whether there are capable individuals who can establish such an organization. What other demands cannot be considered when possessing such forces?

I am very aware of the limitations of my own level, so I asked a recognized expert IIyich to tell us [What Is To Be Done?](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm)

Finally, let's end with a familiar sentence:

Proletariats of all lands, unite!