This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
Oh Hi, I did not see you there, I was just celebrating the Day of the Foundation of the Republic for the DPRK. Sense you are here you might as well stick around and join us for this time honored tradition of our group, the weekly discussion thread.
• Matrix homeserver and space
◦ Theory discussion group on Matrix
• Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive, libgen
Okay I mean this sincerely, do you guys actually like the DPRK in its current form?
I’m not an expert, but while the original DPRK sounds like it was socialist and democratic, the current state ticks all the boxes for fascism right?
According to Wikipedia Fascism is “characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”
Firstly, Kim Jong Un is the supreme leader, so that ticks the dictator box, but more importantly it looks like Juche in its currently practiced form has become dynastic, requiring the supreme leader to be in the family of Kim Il Sung. So doesn’t that make the DPRK more of a monarchy than democracy?
There is definitely forcible suppression of opposition, and the point mentioned above is a “belief in natural social hierarchy.” Furthermore, the ideas of Juche are by their very nature of individualism a proponent of nationalism.
I get that “the subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation.” Is not necessarily a bad thing and that is the belief of communism right? Like the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. So we can give that one a pass.
However, apart from that one item on the list, the rest of this seems like pure fascism. Hyper-militarized ethnostates fueled by nationalism and run by dictators are fascist regimes.
So my question is: why do some of you seem to support this?
I do mean that sincerely. I’m not an expert in this, so I really just want to know if I’m missing something or if people in this community are actually fine supporting fascism so long as it has a few socialist/communist ideas thrown in.
Personally it does feel kind of weird to do the latter. Like would you support a serial killer like Jefferey Dahmer just because you want to support gay people?
Perhaps that example is a little extreme but given the emphasis on nuclear weapons I found in my brief look into the ideologies of the DRPK, it could be just as extreme as that analogy.
Edit 1: Alright congratulations, you all have made me aware that my current understanding is limited and biased. Also rereading this comment made me realize it really does come off very pointedly and agressive so sorry about that and thank you to everyone who responded without being condescending.
Anyway if I’ve learned anything it’s that definitions are very important when using political terms and it is much more useful to describe specific elements rather than use umbrella terms with differing connotations.
I knew words had differing definitions, but I was not aware of how extreme the discrepancies between terms as they are defined by dictionaries and defined by Marxist-Leninists could be.
While I can’t say you’ve reversed my opinion, you’ve all made me realize I lack enough information to hold any meaningful opinion on this topic at all.
Anyway, the solution to ignorance is learning, so assuming I have time between school and work this week, I’ll be trying to read through the articles and watch the videos you’ve linked.
Also, I’ve downloaded “The State and Revolution” and I’ll try to read it on the train over the next week.
Maybe by the next one of these weekly discussions I’ll have some informed questions to ask lol
Edit 2: I am very surprised at how much I’m enjoying State and Revolution. I have ADHD that makes reading kind of daunting. But after getting about a third of the way through this book, I realized I was missing interesting things because I was having difficulty deciphering some complex sentences. So, because of how much I really want to learn everything in this text, I started over and am now highlighting and writing notes about basically every sentence lol
It was only during my first read, after I got to the part in like section 2 I think? I’ll get to it again eventually, but when he was talking about the police and military it finally clicked in my head that like holy shit the state really is just built to protect class and it really is impossible for the state to get rid of class because it is class. That’s when I started asking my own questions and shortly afterwards decided to restart.
Anyway, none of this really has anything to do with my original question, but as mentioned in my previous edit, that question was kind of nonsense.
I also wanted to say that I definitely get the emphasis on definitions here. This morning I realized the term “socialized medicine” kinda has jack shit to do with socialism defined by Marx and Lenin. This made me realize basically nothing I’ve ever heard called socialism was really socialism in any capacity. This discrepancy is exactly what Lenin describes with revolutionary thought being distorted to become innocuous to the state and used to “console” and pacify the working class. Shifts in definition are exactly how that happens.
For what it’s worth, the next time I hear someone refer to higher taxes or welfare programs as socialism, I will start a discussion about what socialism is.
Forgive me for not being as clear and consice as I could otherwise be, It is early and I am quiet tiered and am I an expert on the DPRK, however I would like to point a few things out here.
First Wikipedia as a source has a big issue, wikipedia has a know bias in it, as it tends to be more libertarian in nature, and whenever you use a source you need to keep this in mind. As you used it as a source for fascism, this bias becomes only larger in nature, Fascism is an extention of capitalism and usually occurs when it starts to feel threatened, and the definition you gave for example of one of its omissions excludes any mention of capitalism. the second definitional issue is that yours is so full of terms that are meaningless, or used almost exclusively aganst "enemy" nations that I would not trust that to be a foundational definition. when I dug farther into your deffinition, it comes from the American Heritage Dictionary, that is assicated with the nationalistic magazine American Heritage, with the deffintion you gave I could make an argument that basicaly any nation with a military meets the criteria.
To respond to your first point, I have done a breif search and I have failed to find any source that is not directly tied to the CIA or linking back to a CIA source that indicated any dictitorial power. The only 3 offical government roles I have found listed for him are Chairman of the Party, while not technicaly governmental does allow for wight of influence, the head of state, and the head of the Korean People's Army. As far as I can tell this is the extent to which his power runs, and if I understand the DPRK government it would be in error to call him the head of government because he is not the prime ministor nor holds that power. Second as for his being related to the founder, I would like to point out a few things, first this is under vote of the people if the people, it would be wierd if there was a prohabition of someone running because of who their parents are, let alone it feels patronistic at best to inform the people of the DPRK who they should elect as their leader. Second the DPRK has only had 3 heads of state to date, and while you are right it does warent investigation as to why all 3 are from the same family, 3 does not a monarchy make, nor does the rule of monarchical sucsession follow in any way but that they happen to be from the same family.
Agian, for your second claim, outside of CIA backed sources or sorces relying on them I have failed to see any "supression of minorities" while second you then take this and jump to belife in a higherarchy, I am not agian the most well versed in Juche but there is no belief in a higherarchy in any of the ducuments over it I have seen, and this feels like a leap. Agian there are elections that happen regularyly iin the DPRK
the subordiation to national intrests, I would not phrase it like that, but given your not raising that point into contention I do not see much use focusing on it.
The militarization, that you bring up, comes from 1 their nation being devided down the middle, 2 the US destroying I think it was 80% of them during the Koran war, that may I point out has yet to conclude, we are just sitting in a long armistice, and 3 the documented and observed history of the US seaking out and trying to destroy every socialist project that has ever existed, this is farther evidenced, especialy to them with the sanctions that got levied aganst them, these being the harshest in the world, coming at the time they would have needed the most help to rebuild from the atrocities caused by the United States. Nuclear wepons are seen as a way to ensure the US would not invade directly and is seen as some breathing room, and given the language the US uses around the DPRK this is justified.
This comunity both has a no facist policy and that policy is strictly enforced.
also follow up the DPRK is the last country, as far as I am aware that is still command socialism, and not market socialism and I commend them for that
Where would you suggest I go to learn about those terms and their differences?
I can give you the breif diffrence. in a command socialist economy everything is run through state planning and there are no market forces that push the economy around, while Market Socialist economies are run as socialist economies with market forces.
That’s mercantilism right? Except with democratic representatives setting prices rather than a monarchy. Doesn’t that get arbitrarily complex as new kinds of things are made? Why do you think it is better than “outsourcing” that work to a market?
Not really no, I think the thing you are missing is the key point of Socialism that seperates it, that is the workers own the means of production, now usualy this is done by the state, however the state under Socialism is run by the workers and for the workers, in essence it is owned by the workers.
The thing with the market is that it is incredibly inefficient, yes with market socialism you can plan it to an extent but it is less able to adapt to the plan, and more importantly it is unable to meet the needs of the workers. If I plan an economy, I can set needed staple goods at a large loss, and make up for that with luxury goods or with exports to Capitalist nations. In a planned economy the workers, through the state has FAR more of the ability to run its own affairs.
We can see this effectivness in capitalism, I cannot remember the company, I want to say it was Sears who decided to make their internal devisions run through a market system and it immediately started to fail, however we see Walmart, Target, Amazon, essentaly every big company internally plans there company, because it is SIGNIFICANTLY more effecent.
https://en.prolewiki.org
in my humble opinion, an experence, showing liberals prolewiki links does not help the conversation, I have found its use is usualy greater when talking into marxists, specificaly on marxist topics explicitly
I've had the opposite experience outside of this website. Liberals on here are just especially gross.
However, hihi seems to be a perfectly reasonable person. Here's to actually learning.
Ha well you’ve never met me!
(Fact check: This still might not help conversation because I’m definitely just bad at conversation anyway lol, also hearing myself called a liberal just reminds me of conversations back in my hometown or with my grandparents lol)
Edit/Update: I suppose it hasn’t helped with conversation but I’d like to say I am using the wiki to define terms as I read them in State and Revolution, so that I understand the text as it was most likely intended, hopefully avoiding the misunderstanding that plagued me in this comment section lol
Thank you for your response.
Out of curiousity could you provide sources that you count as being backed by the CIA and evidence that the CIA is in fact backing that misinformation?
I have a somewhat macabre interest in all the misinformation and coup stuff the US does. Like the coup over bananas? Fascinating
As for using Wikipedia as a source and the definition of fascism, I used Wikipedia because I assumed that definition was the most widespread. Words have the meaning we give them, so If we don’t have the same definitions in mind then the term fascism isn’t useful in our discussion.
However, I do appreciate that you still adressed each part of the definition I used since those items are still negative traits whether they fall into the definition of fascism or not.
Also, good point, I guess lots of the countries I can think of with extensive militaries kind of fit that definition.
Where would you suggest I go for less CIA-biased information on the governmental structure and history of DPRK?
Sorry for my delay in your responce, I have been away from my computer.
In this context the 2 root sources for every or almost every claim on the DPRK starts from one of 2 places Radio Free Asia, and DPRK Defectors. I am going to start with RFA because the other will be a little more nuanced. With Radio Free Asia please see provided links coming from the Wilson Center, New York Times, and Declassified FOIAed documents from the CIA
As for DPRK Defectors, we have 3 issues here, the first one is the most obvious, this is a self selecting group that is far more likely than a standard population to harbor a grudge aganst the DPRK than would be a standard individual. There is a town in Brazil called Confederados who spreads similar things about the US, how it is Authoritarian and it stole there property ect ect, and while we could belive it at face value, if we look at who started it, people from the CSA who where mad there slaves where taken away we start to see context for a picture, weather you belive that it is a full lie, or if you belive it is a distortion of the facts based on their perception is up to you. We can also add into this issue 2 and 3 that come in conjunction, the DPRyK due to the repercutions of the still ongoing war, and the unprecidented sanctions imposed at the insistence of the United States, is cash poorer than the ROK, aswell as the economies are set up completly difrent, the DPRK is a command socialism, and that has kept them alive throughout the sanctions, while the ROK is a hyper Capitalistic Market economy on the imperal periphery being suported in no small part by the United States. This leaves defectors from the DPRK to be in a world of hurt, not to mention that the ROK routeenly deprives them of their right to return under international law, although some do get back. This leaves them both destitue and at the whim of either the ROK or USA, both having vested intrests in making the DPRK look worse than it is. If you look at the most popular defectors, like Yeonmi Park is a CIA asset, aswell as her story has changed wildly, and every time she tells it it only gets more outlandish. I would not call either of these, nor sources citing exclusivly these reliably by any strech of the imagination.
While yes language works by words carying meaning that is interchangable, and deffinitions are suposed to be descriptive not prescriptive, however not even deffinitions are without some source of bias, and it is important to look at where the deffinition is origionaly pulled from, and depending on the word where it comes from. The deffinition you provides boils down to "Scarry Athoritiarianism" and because athoritiarianism is already a badly defined term that can be applied to what ever enemy you have your deffinition does the same. Dictator, Militarism and Autocracy are all words that in common useage have become scarry words but loosely defined, Social Higherarchy does not apply in the strictest sense to the DPRK, however family dinamics, or willingness to follow laws could be construed as a social higherachy if I was working in bad or mixed faith. and Subordination of Individual Interests to those of the collective is just how society functions, at some level in any society I have to give up individual rights for that of the group.
I would say a better definition, even as just a working definition of Fascism, is the 8 points listed out by Luis Britto Garcia and published by the National Autonomous University of Mexico being as follows 1) Fascism is the absolute complicity between big capital and the State 2) Fascism denies the class struggle, but it is the armed arm of capital in it 3) Fascism summons the masses, but it is elitist 4)Fascism is racist 5) Fascism and capitalism have abhorrent faces that need masks 6) Fascism is blessed: Some religious groups typically support fascist movements, providing their blessing. 7)Fascism is misogynistic 8)Fascism is anti-intellectual, Each of these points have an expansion similar to point 6 but I did not feel like any of them were explicitly needed, howver this covers both its social and economic aspects and is an easy to test mechanism.
As for CIA safe places, I do not have a list of them, I can say are garenteed to not be CIA, and lots of what I would normaly use for quick refrence that are, are probably far to Marxist bent for it to be useful to propose, so what I do is I will over rabit whole each and every source I am given.
As for the topic that is at hand the 2 videos I would recomend on this is the haircut video and Loyal citizens of Pyongyang in Soul. I will admit the second video has a much bigger and more obvious bend to it, however I do think it is quite good
Well said.
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
Wikipedia isn't necessarily always bad; it's just that as Marxists have to examine the bias, reasoning and the "why" of a certain author writing a book, who funded the book and who's using the book, media or whatever example as a source. A lot of liberals misunderstand the sheer level of cold-war era disinformation and fear-mongering that is waged constantly by the ruling class. Communist parties are "banned" under the Communist Control Act of the 1950s. While technically not active, it could be easily invoked at any moment and exists as a sole reminder of how brutal the suppression of our very freedoms was during the Red Scare.
With that precedent alone; we also understand both our domestic AND our foreign intelligence agencies had vested interests in suppressing dissent or "volatile revolutionary ideals" during the cold war. That much is obvious. Declassified documents and even Wikipedia itself documents "Operation Gladio" and the litany of other clandestine acts they committed against foreign nations or against activists at home in COINTELPRO.
Do you think they just stopped? They just brushed their hands in the 90s, kicked back and retired off selling crack/cocaine? A lot of our opponents criticize us for using "CIA" or other organizations such as the Heritage Foundation (which, if you dig enough, as Comrade Pup Ivy showed, has literal CIA connections) to blow off Western media or sources; when in reality it is them who is completely denying the reality of information warfare. Truly, you see the consequences of that.
As for sources you can use, Grayzone is good. Browse the news comm on Hexbear and a few more will pop up from time to time.
Although the way that you are posing this enquiry sounds very inflammatory — suggesting that somebody is supporting fascism is a very serious accusation — I am going to assume good faith for now.
The first and most obvious problem is that you have a deeply misinformed perception of the DPRK. For a more reasonable and realistic view, see here. (You’ll also find more explanatory content through lurking that board.)
The next issue is that Wikipedia, being dominated by neoliberals, offers an oversimplified definition of fascism. Fascism was the means by which the bourgeoisie strengthened and protected capitalism from its own contradictions. Nobody appointed Kim with that goal in mind. You should take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, because while it can be useful for starting research, it is unsafe as an endpoint.
I’m sorry that my inquiry sounds inflammatory. I tend to lack tact with words and much of what I say comes off aggressively because I’m bad at finding a non aggressive way to say it. Thank you for putting up with me lol
Also thank you for providing a source for me to look into for more information.
As for Wikipedia defining fascism, terms hold the definitions we give them. Communication is based on shared definitions of terms. If I refer to an animal as a cat you are likely thinking of the same animal I was referring to.
I use Wikipedia as a source for definitions because its widespread use means that the definitions listed in it are ones held by wide audiences. So using Wikipedia means I’m more likely to use terms in the same way others use them.
However it looks like your definition of fascism differs from my own and that of the majority. Until we share definitions the use of the word fascism will only hinder our communication.
I’ll check the sources you linked when I have time between classes, but would you mind defining fascism in your own words?
Also, while our definitions of fascism may differ, I do still hold the specific items listed in the definition (dictatorship, nationalism, hyper militarism, etc.) as negative qualities for a society/government. Regardless of whether those fall under the definition of fascism, they do not seem like traits found in a good system of government. What do you think about those traits specifically?
Edit: Just here to note how my perspective has changed. Yeah those “specific” traits I mentioned are, in fact, not specific. Like in my first comment I’ve realized using terms like “Nationalism” obscures my reasoning even from myself. What did I mean by Nationalism? What do I think counts as hyper-militarism? Even if I were to narrow those down to very specific, concrete traits, do I even know enough about the DPRK to know if I those apply?
That is a very infantile view of things, none country exists in a vacuum. There is a reason why the DPRK is a heavily militarized society, and that is easily understood by looking at its last 100 years of history. Korea is a country that was colonized by Japan, fought for decades against the Japanese fascists only to be replaced with American fascists after WW2, whom to this day still occupy Korea. These americans also waged a criminal war slaughtering 20% of the population and destroying 80% of the infrastructure of Korea. Do you understand why they need a military? Don't forget that the US has not left Korea, they have a military base in the middle of Seoul and dictate goverment policy in the country, they also make invasion drills every single year.
The DPRK has a legit reason to be proud of their nation, they have been fighting for national liberation for a long time against all odds. Kim Il Sung is a national hero that fought against both japanese and american occupation very succesfully. Their nationalism is not based on conquering and slaughtering other people like in the West but on national liberation.
I feel like OP is running on deeply flawed, fluffy, neoliberal definitions of terms like Nationalism and Dictatorship. Pretty sure State & Revolution alone clarifies that ALL states are dictatorships because they need to be in order to continue existing, so I guess I'll point them there first. Also, the nationalism practiced by the US is pretty different than the nationalism practiced by colonized nations who are trying to expel occupiers and build a state that they actually control.
Btw OP how exactly is Hyper Militarism different than regular ol' militarism? What is the cutoff point? Is it % of GDP spent on the military? Or is it just when you drive scary tanks around in public? The US empire via it's shell organization NATO is forcing it's member states to spend billions more on "defense" as we speak to prop up the MIC and drive the motor of global imperialism. Given that, wtf does "militarism" even mean?
The US and it's citizens have no leg at all to stand on complaining about other countries military conduct. The US lets it's allies maim kill and rape civilians when they're not doing it themselves. What makes you think that brutality against innocents would be a political dealbreaker for them? They're always fine with it as long as it's just the cost of doing business.
Hyper militarism is when country i don't like has an army.
I'm not even joking, libs vision of "miltarism" is purely based on how visible the military is. Watch any trash "news" segment on NK and they ALWAYS cut to footage of tanks driving around and military parades. It was the same with Russia in the cold war. And the kicker is that the US flies jets over stadiums and has cop parades and shit and is culturally obsessed with it's military so it makes even less sense.
There is definitely some truth to this statement. While trying to think of examples I realized I definitely was just thinking of examples I’ve seen. I will say though, the US definitely does still count as hypermilitarized in my mind and in the minds of most if not all the (non-conservative) people I know, so I think you might be exaggerating the double standard a bit
Damn the theme for this comment chain really is that you all use esoteric definitions of terms haha
I’ll try to read State and Revolution (that’s the one by Lenin right? I think I already had it on my list)
As for hypermilitarism, I think ingraining military prowess into the national ideology would count. Tying national identity to military dominance does not seem healthy for a society. Furthermore, bragging about one’s military prowess also seems unhealthy for a society and pointedly against international peace / cooperation.
The definitions of militarism I think of when I hear the word are typically “Glorification of military,” “Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.” And “The view that military strength, efficiency and values should dominate the country's public policy choices and take precedence over other interests.”
Personally the definition: “The policy of maintaining a large military force, even in peacetime” falls more on the “hypermilitarism” side of things in my mind. However, I do understand that desire in countries that have been colonized and repeatedly attacked.
Anyway the DPRK seems to fit all those definitions and from what I’ve read (don’t worry I’m reading more) those definitions are ingrained in the ideology of Juche.
Also my questions don’t involve the US at all. The US is a clear example of militarism and definitely takes the cake as the most hypermilitarized country. That being said, the US hypermilitarism arises from the prevalent corruption in it, whereas the militarism of DPRK is a foundational element of Juche. <- this is not to say the US is better in any way, only to illustrate that what I dislike is not specifically that the DPRK is hyper militarized but that its founding principles require it to be and that seems flawed.
Regardless, trying to say something is good because another thing is worse is a fallacy. I’m not interested in American corruption I’m interested in opinions on elements I view as flaws in the ideology of the DPRK.
I also realize that you are probably used to dealing with trolls being antagonistic on purpose, but I really am just trying to learn.
None of us are deliberately being antagonistic or trolls. The others who have already tried to help you were far nicer than I'm willing to be.
You said earlier in your comments that you weren't as careful with your words as you'd like to be. I think you have a long road to recovery ahead of you in that sense. If you're going to deliberately enter a space populated by marxist leninists than it would probably be a good idea to do a little bit of homework and make sure that the actual terms and language you're using are based in reality with clear definitions ie. marxist leninist.
Second point: you claim to want to somehow totally disentangle the United States of America from this conversation...about North Korea. Do you understand why it's a little strange to only want to talk about one without the other? Other commenters have already pointed out to you that it was they who destroyed their country, infrastructure, and way of life. It's really just silly (and honestly a little bit suspicious) that you want to "analyze" NK "fascism" without talking about the American fascism that resulted in their state existing at all. That isn't analysis. It's just a weird thought experiment where you rank a nation in isolation based on stats like it's a fighting game character or something.
Also why aren't you interested in what you call "American corruption"? What you're describing is American imperialism which is responsible for the vast array of crises that afflict all of us right now in the modern day. It is the biggest contradiction of our times. If you're not interested in it that's fine but you can go splash in the political kiddy pool on .world or reddit or something.
You THINK that having clear definitions for these things is somehow salami-slicing but it is incredibly important. I understand that in your worldview (probably lib) Opinions are the most important thing in politics and it's all of our responsibility to tiptoe around each others individual definitions, but that's just not reality.
I'm really not interested in continuing to bicker about whatever it is you think militarism is but every description you've given of it applies to the US at at least some phase of it's history. Trying to ascribe some kind of rank to how "militaristic" a society is useless. Why not also rank nations based on how "attractive" they are while we're at it? It's the same type of immaterial mumbo jumbo based on colonial thinking.
I did not mean to imply you were being trolls. If that was unclear I am sorry. I also did not mean to imply that you were being deliberately antagonistic. I was trying to make you aware of the fact you were coming across to me that way. And that dealing with trolls would explain why you may naturally have responded in that way
You are correct, the others in this chain have been much less condescending. That’s why my reply about it was directed toward you.
Wikipedia fits both those requirements?
You are right that I should probably have researched the terms definitions that you would use, but I honestly did not know there were significant discrepancies in the definitions of these terms until this discussion.
As for your second point, I do not want to “totally disentangle the USA” from this discussion. I simply wanted to point out that your argument was fallacious. The wrongs of one entity do not justify the wrongs of another.
The reason I said my argument didn’t involve the US at all was that I’m not interested in comparison between North Korea and another country.
Analyzing one variable is also how science is done. I want to analyze specifically DRPK because that is what my question was about. If I ask why a flower is red and you start describing how it’s not as complicated as why a flower is blue, can you see why that isn’t helpful?
Bringing up how the US shaped the current state of NK is certainly relevant. Bringing up a genocide being funded by the US on the other side of the world with no connection to the DPRK is not.
Furthermore I am not here to “rank nations” though I will admit I definitely do need to reconsider the way I currently rank them and why. I was wondering what the justification was for supporting a nation with traits I viewed as negative and that fit my definition of fascism. If you do it because “the US is worse” then I guess I have my answer.
I guess I should have specified that I meant I’m not interested in that right now, as in that isn’t the topic I’m asking about right now.
This is what I meant by condescending and antagonistic.
Firstly I have never heard that expression before. Secondly, what? The whole thing I’ve been bringing up with definitions is incredibly important.
When I say “words have the meaning you give to them” I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter what definition you have, I’m saying the exact opposite. It is important that we have the same definitions of words if we are going to use those words to try and communicate with one another. I’m not sure how you misinterpreted that but I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear enough.
Again who gives a shit about that right now? I don’t care if the US were to blow up the moon, that has no bearing on whether or not the DRPK is militarized or why it is or isn’t a justified trait.
Bruh why are you obsessed with ranking nations? Did my comment really come off that way?
Also technically speaking, if we were to set common definitions of what militarization means and its degrees then we absolutely could rank nations like that and it would not be subjective like attractiveness. However that would require common definitions which we don’t have and it would also require us to desire to rank nations by militarism which in currently not interested in tho the US almost certainly does win that one lol
Anyway, sorry if my questions or response are pissing you off. You are right that I have a long way to go, but hey Plato said to never discourage anyone who makes progress no matter how slow right?
It's less that all your questions and responses are pissing me off, it's more that all of these things can be addressed if you did what I did which is to let go of all the political assumptions you once had and crack a book or two. It's not reasonable to expect randos on an ML matrix instance to do your homework for you. You invite at least a tiny bit of ridicule whenever you charge into a public space making bold claims, especially with something as politically charged as North Korea. Sometimes a little shame is useful to teach us to not repeat mistakes.
"It is important that we have the same definitions of words if we are going to use those words to try and communicate with one another. I’m not sure how you misinterpreted that but I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear enough."
You made yourself clear, your point is just nonsense. The definitions for these terms weren't pulled out of thin air, they were created with science and observation. What you're doing is akin to going into a medical community and trying to voice an opinion about miasmatism. Nobody is going to care very much because it's an obsolete idea without any clear definitions (because it's obsolete). But no, WE'RE the trolls for not entertaining your corny "theory" about how North Korea is kinda Problematic.
"Again who gives a shit about that right now?"
Idk man probably all the people whose lives are ruined or otherwise made worse by the United States. Everything that has been happening geopolitically for the past 5 years is basically people outside of the US realizing that the US doesn't care whether they live or die and choosing to move on to a different world order. And that's exactly why the US and US capitalism is so stressed out right now. They know that their empire is kaput and that we all see them for who they really are. Do you ever actually stop and think about the millions, tens of millions of lives that have been ruined by the US? Does it actually compute for you? Does it ever occur to you that there might be people on this very server whose lives have been directly affected by the US? Is it all just collateral damage to you? But no, I'M the bad guy for giving you some harsh truths about needing to do some reading and investigation for yourself before starting a long, exhaustive conversation with those who already have.
"I don’t care if the US were to blow up the moon, that has no bearing on whether or not the DRPK is militarized or why it is or isn’t a justified trait."
Weird thing to say. I would probably care quite a lot if the US destroyed the moon because we need it to live. Sort of like how the US military destroys the environment which we also need to live. At least 2 people here have already given you a perfectly fine reason why they're so "miltaristic" as you put it: their whole country has been a battlefront against the US before either of us were even born.
I really cannot stress this enough, your inability to talk about the state of the US empire and it's effects on the world is really not our problem. Imagine trying to talk about ancient Mediterranean politics and being like "well I don't WANT to talk about Rome, just cut them out of the picture and we can go from there." It doesn't matter what you want. The reality of empire is that it imposes itself on the rest of the world.
Trying to extricate the United States from what they did to North Korea IS hostile to many people here even if you don't care that it is. Learn about dialetical materialism and then come back here and tell me how effective it is to talk about the imperial periphery and somehow not talk about the imperial core. My top recommendation for learning the full context of North Korea warts and all is the podcast Blowback's season on the Korean war. This will give you a full sense of what the war actually was outside of wholesome MASH episodes, and how the US government has zero problem with genocide as long as they benefit. Then you will begin to understand why it's silly to try and evaluate NK without understanding what the US did to it first. And then when you're done that read State and Revolution. I don't really have much left to say to you because I can tell you're far more likely to just keep bickering here than actually taking in new information (they always do).
Prove me wrong though!
Alright, firstly, my original question was strictly about the opinions of people in this community and their reasoning behind them. This was the proper place to ask that question.
Second, instead of receiving answers to my question, I was made aware of my ignorance and my further comments were primarily asking questions to further my understanding of those responses and asking questions about where I could go to learn more myself.
You are correct that it isn’t reasonable for me to expect all of you to hold my hand and teach me everything. That is why I did try to ask questions more focused on where I could find the answers myself.
So were the ones in any dictionary ever. Now if you mean that the Marxist-Leninist definitions are more rigorously defined then you can assert that, but you can’t assert that other definitions are invalid or not based on “reality” only that they are less rigorously defined and do not share much overlap with your set of definitions.
You can even argue that more rigorous definitions are more useful for in depth discussion, and you’d be right, but that still doesn’t mean the other definitions are any less “real.”
As for the rest of your comment, it seems like you don’t understand what I mean by right now.
Imagine you were asking someone where you should go eat and they brought up a time they accidentally ate rotten food from their fridge. Does that help you decide where to eat? No. Does that mean that the story didn’t happen? No. Does it mean that the story isn’t important? No. But it isn’t important in the context of your decision on where to eat.
Imagine you were asked your friend what shade of red a flower was and instead of answering they decided to talk about what shade of blue a nearby one was. Is the shade of blue of that flower any less important and the shade of red of the one you’re looking at? No, but hearing about the shade of that flower doesn’t help you with your question. So it isn’t important right now.
That is what I’m trying to say with the moon example. Sure we’d all die, but that wouldn’t answer my question and while relevant to you and I, would not be relevant to the intended topic of discussion.
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Firstly *its. Second, yep you’re right because that is a problem that doesn’t exist.
It is presumptuous for you to assume I’m incapable of talking about the US or the atrocities committed by it. As it is presumptuous that you think I in any way support those actions or have no empathy for those affected by them.
I’m sorry you’re upset. Clearly I’ve struck a nerve and I do apologize for that.
I do not think you are a “bad guy” for telling me to do reading. You are correct on that front and I believe I said as much.
My criticism of your responses was strictly about how emotional and unhelpful some of it was.
This response is similar.
You seem so focused on belittling me or hating me for opinions you believe I have, that you don’t seem to be attempting to understand what I’m trying to say.
I’m sorry that you think I have no sympathy for others. I’m sorry saying anything that initially offended you.
I’m sorry that you automatically assume people do not care about what has happened and what is still happening to people around the world due to the imperialism and disregard of countries like the United States. Your compassion for others is admirable, and your distress over the perceived disregard for their suffering is also valid. But your hatred towards me is misguided.
I am not your enemy. I am not blind to the problems of the world and I am not silent about my distaste for the US’s role in those problems. However, considering I made that point in my last reply, it seems you are so set in your belief that I am your enemy that you will no longer listen to reason. I doubt there is any evidence I could give you, or words I could write that would change your mind, so instead I’ll end this with an apology.
I can imagine where you’re coming from. I can imagine where your feelings of anger and hatred and paranoia arise from. I can imagine the feelings of distrust you feel towards me and the feelings of wrath you have for anyone who you believe would defend the atrocities you’ve learned about.
It must suck feeling all of those feelings. It probably sucks worse feeling like you can’t share them openly because there is prejudice towards “tankies.” Finding a safe space on the internet for you to share those thoughts only to then have to deal with someone from the outside questioning those thoughts may feel like a violation.
I really am sorry that I have added to your negative feelings today. I hope you forget about this conversation quickly and can focus your mind on more positive thoughts, or at the very least, one less negative one.
Yeah, I'm not reading all of that. Just follow the links to the shows/books I already sent you or DNI. Here's an extra link for a site that aggregates reading material so you can get started if you want to learn. Blowback in particular is great. https://www.mlreadinghub.org/
You do make a good point. I do think it is reasonable to have a strong military or the desire for one if your country has been repeatedly attacked. Being proud of one’s country is also not necessarily a bad thing.
The military issue I have is that the prioritization of military is not strictly due to a reflexive urge but that military strength is a core concept of Juche. Military is not just prioritized out of need but is a core principle. There is no non-militarized Juche.
The issue with things I’d call “nationalism” is primarily when patriotism leads to antagonizing other countries or reducing the desire for international cooperation. The desire for self sufficiency that Juche dictates seemed to border on this. “Seemed” because this thread has made me aware of my ignorance and until I read more, I shouldn’t set or hold to any strong opinions
It isn't fascist. Because one of the prerequisites for fascism is capitalism.
Yeah, I should have realized that the term fascism would obviously have different definitions depending on the ideology of those using it. I also should have realized that in using an umbrella term like fascism or nationalism, I was obscuring the underlying reasons for my opinion.
And not just obscuring them from you all but from myself too. Had I put thought into the specifics of what I was writing, I probably wouldn’t have posted here at all because I would have realized how uncertain my own opinion was and how little I knew.
But, it’s not all bad. First, it’s good for me to make a fool of myself every once in a while because I definitely need to be humbled sometimes. Secondly, it is only because of the comments here that I started reading the stuff I’ve been telling myself I need to read for like years.
I started “The State and Revolution” today and I am enjoying it significantly more that I thought I would. Definitely is making me see things from a new perspective and also to just see things I never noticed before. Anyway it’s very entertaining because I like learning, and Lenin keeps answering the questions that I have about what he’s saying like as soon as I have them which is kind of neat
State and rev is such a good book
Yeah I now understand why real socialists hate what most people think is the left. Everything I’ve ever heard called socialism or socialist by anyone I know, left or right leaning, is focused entirely on economics. It’s always like begging the state to make the lives of the working class less horrible, whereas socialism—defined by Marx and Lenin—isn’t really much about economics at all, focusing on class and the “issue of the state.”
I only got about a third of the way through before I decided to reread from the beginning taking notes on every sentence, so I’ve still got a ways to go (especially since I have difficulty reading due to ADHD). But I really am surprised by how invested I am in this and how many new things I’m noticing in the world around me.
I realized this morning that even terms like “socialized medicine” seem to be exactly what Lenin is describing about how the ideals of revolutionaries are manipulated to entirely exclude their core values, to become palatable and innocuous. Nationalizing the cost of healthcare has nothing to do with the “issue of the state.” It doesn’t have anything to do with revolution or the dissolution of class. It’s just begging the state to make the situation of the working class less horrible.
And that’s the point. When most people think socialism they think about stuff like that (or at least I did and most of the people I know). They think about trying to tax the rich more or trying to get the state to fund more public services. They are placated by the illusion that actions like those will slowly but surely fix the issues that arise from class…
Anyway, I have yet to disagree with Lenin. And while I’m still hesitant to openly call myself a socialist before I learn more, I definitely will be defending that term. Like honestly I’m so ready for one of my liberal friends calls themselves a socialist so I can explain that nothing they do is really socialism lol
Its such a breath of fresh air to see somebody actually be here in good intentions, thank you