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
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