I’ve already explained what class is, the nature of socialist society, and given you ample resources on how the DPRK was formed, its democratic processes, and the context of the Korean War and liberation from Japan. I’ve also summarized a good deal of this for you in the thread linked, and you’re now acting like I didn’t at all do that and that my points are based purely on “pinky-swears.” Again, it’s dishonest framing, the third time in a row. From the meme to your response to my comment and this response, you’ve been misframing my point over and over again.
As for your support for decolonization and an end to sanctions, that’s good! Just not sure what you actually mean by not supporting someone but actually you do support them. I suppose simply saying the words “I support X” doesn’t mean anything by itself, it matters how you organize and what you do in concrete terms, but you made it clear that you don’t support the DPRK and are happy strawmanning those who do.
The only real resource on democracy you provided is the Roland Boer book, which looks interesting, and which I got a copy of and intend to read. However, a committee-based democracy with a ban on antagonistic propaganda does not sound promising.
See, this is the problem again. The form of socialist society that exists in Korea is one that was formed through direct practice and based on Korea’s existing situation. It’s what works for them, regardless of whether or not you approve of the “model.” You’re saying it isn’t “promising,” more gesturing to potentials of misconduct that you percieve based on your own comparison to the ideal, perfect, impossible version of socialism that exists purely in imagination.
The problem rests on your belief that you know better than the millions of people in the DPRK over the last century how to run their country, without doing the study to see how and why their structures were formed. For example, the Democratic Front is an integral part to their socialist democracy, and this has heritage in liberation from colonialism by Japan. The various councils and committees have heritage in the culture formed in Korea and were solidified into a state.
Then, you go and strawman people and misrepresent them. Though you maintain a polite tone, your actual actions speak against that, and thus you aren’t acting in a comradely way like you first seemed to be. It’s frustrating.
The problem rests on your belief that you know better than the millions of people in the DPRK
That’s only true if you assume the government is actually a representation of the will of the people of the DPRK. How am I supposed to know whether that’s true other than by evaluating the quality of their democratic system?
Though you maintain a polite tone, your actual actions speak against that
That’s only true if you assume the government is actually a representation of the will of the people of the DPRK
Everything you’re baselessly insinuation only makes sense if you assume a priori that it isn’t. This is just you inverting your uninformed position and assuming it must be ours too.
The government does not exist outside of class society, but within it. The classes in power in the DPRK are the working classes, there is extremely minimal private property and that private property is largely foreign owned. The structures in place were put there by the organized working classes. When you erase class analysis, or diverge from it by inventing new classes that don’t actually fit how we understand class, you run into problems.
As for actions you’ve taken that are upsetting, I already explained in earlier comments the regular strawmanning and misframing you’ve done of my position, and the positions of others.
The classes in power in the DPRK are the working classes
Whether this is true is really what I’m trying to determine, and currently skeptical of. I guess it may be difficult to prove or disprove. It sounds like you think the class identity of the administration is enough to say so, but I could be wrong. I don’t see that as sufficient.
regular strawmanning and misframing
I may have misrepresented your or others’ perspectives, but if so it was not intentional.
I’ve explained class and how there isn’t some separate class in the DPRK. The landlords were appropriated from, same as the bourgeoisie. The working classes control the state, and have the same class interests as the people outside of the state apparatus. So far your only point against it is an unsupported “potential,” which is the same metaphysical error made by Bordiga and the “Left” communists.
Do you mean (1) that the collective will of the working class directs the behavior of the state, or (2) that managers of the state are members of the working class?
However, a committee-based democracy with a ban on antagonistic propaganda does not sound promising.
Comrade Bordiga limits himself to upholding a cautious position on all the questions raised by the Left. He doesn’t say: the International poses and resolves such and such a question in this way, but the Left will instead pose and resolve it this other way. He instead says: the way the International poses and resolves problems doesn’t convince me; I fear they might slip into opportunism; there are insufficient guarantees against this; etc. His position, then, is one of permanent suspicion and doubt. In this way the position of the “Left” is purely negative: they express reservations without specifying them in a concrete form, and above all without indicating in concrete form their own point of view and their solutions. They end up spreading doubt and distrust without offering anything constructive.
Do you have any real reason to believe that other than the equivalent of a pinky-swear from the government?
I generally support that for all countries
I’ve already explained what class is, the nature of socialist society, and given you ample resources on how the DPRK was formed, its democratic processes, and the context of the Korean War and liberation from Japan. I’ve also summarized a good deal of this for you in the thread linked, and you’re now acting like I didn’t at all do that and that my points are based purely on “pinky-swears.” Again, it’s dishonest framing, the third time in a row. From the meme to your response to my comment and this response, you’ve been misframing my point over and over again.
As for your support for decolonization and an end to sanctions, that’s good! Just not sure what you actually mean by not supporting someone but actually you do support them. I suppose simply saying the words “I support X” doesn’t mean anything by itself, it matters how you organize and what you do in concrete terms, but you made it clear that you don’t support the DPRK and are happy strawmanning those who do.
The only real resource on democracy you provided is the Roland Boer book, which looks interesting, and which I got a copy of and intend to read. However, a committee-based democracy with a ban on antagonistic propaganda does not sound promising.
See, this is the problem again. The form of socialist society that exists in Korea is one that was formed through direct practice and based on Korea’s existing situation. It’s what works for them, regardless of whether or not you approve of the “model.” You’re saying it isn’t “promising,” more gesturing to potentials of misconduct that you percieve based on your own comparison to the ideal, perfect, impossible version of socialism that exists purely in imagination.
The problem rests on your belief that you know better than the millions of people in the DPRK over the last century how to run their country, without doing the study to see how and why their structures were formed. For example, the Democratic Front is an integral part to their socialist democracy, and this has heritage in liberation from colonialism by Japan. The various councils and committees have heritage in the culture formed in Korea and were solidified into a state.
Then, you go and strawman people and misrepresent them. Though you maintain a polite tone, your actual actions speak against that, and thus you aren’t acting in a comradely way like you first seemed to be. It’s frustrating.
That’s only true if you assume the government is actually a representation of the will of the people of the DPRK. How am I supposed to know whether that’s true other than by evaluating the quality of their democratic system?
What actions have I taken that are upsetting?
Everything you’re baselessly insinuation only makes sense if you assume a priori that it isn’t. This is just you inverting your uninformed position and assuming it must be ours too.
I’m open to the idea that is is, but all the evidence I’ve seen this far indicates that it isn’t, and no one has given evidence that it is
The government does not exist outside of class society, but within it. The classes in power in the DPRK are the working classes, there is extremely minimal private property and that private property is largely foreign owned. The structures in place were put there by the organized working classes. When you erase class analysis, or diverge from it by inventing new classes that don’t actually fit how we understand class, you run into problems.
As for actions you’ve taken that are upsetting, I already explained in earlier comments the regular strawmanning and misframing you’ve done of my position, and the positions of others.
Whether this is true is really what I’m trying to determine, and currently skeptical of. I guess it may be difficult to prove or disprove. It sounds like you think the class identity of the administration is enough to say so, but I could be wrong. I don’t see that as sufficient.
I may have misrepresented your or others’ perspectives, but if so it was not intentional.
I’ve explained class and how there isn’t some separate class in the DPRK. The landlords were appropriated from, same as the bourgeoisie. The working classes control the state, and have the same class interests as the people outside of the state apparatus. So far your only point against it is an unsupported “potential,” which is the same metaphysical error made by Bordiga and the “Left” communists.
Do you mean (1) that the collective will of the working class directs the behavior of the state, or (2) that managers of the state are members of the working class?