I’ll have to read more about Korean Nationalism. As to poverty, you make fair points. As to universal conscription, I object to it in all circumstances regardless of wartime vs peace, as it is literally slavery. Other countries doing it doesn’t make it better.
As to Democracy, I am confused by the claim
the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels
When the source later says
All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front…the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA.
I fail to see the “direct election” in this process. It seems like a committee that theoretically takes into consideration debate and opinion but which then makes a unilateral nomination, who runs unopposed. Am I missing something?
I fail to see the “direct election” in this process. It seems like a committee that theoretically takes into consideration debate and opinion but which then makes a unilateral nomination, who runs unopposed. Am I missing something?
By direct election, what’s meant is that all levels of government, from the local, to national level, are elected directly by the people.
Contrast this with it’s neighbor China, where local level positions are directly elected, but by the time you get to the national level, positions are elected, indirectly, by the directly elected representatives from the lower levels. The DPRK doesn’t have that same sort of insulation at the national level.
Candidates, meanwhile, are decided through mass meetings. This is a very loose comparison, but imagine something roughly akin to the caucus system in some USAmerican primary elections. But instead of boiling it down to two candidates, it gets boiled down to one. The final vote where you cast your ballot is essentially a ratification vote of that ‘primary’ process, where you vote “yes” or “no”, but that doesn’t mean the process which preceded it wasn’t competitive.
Again, universal conscription cannot be removed from its necessary context: the DPRK is under constant threat. It isn’t literally slavery, it’s a policy that has important context, and isn’t done for profit but to satisfy the justified need for security and deterrence.
As for direct democracy, the DPRK has approval based voting. Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a “yes/no” basis. Elections are not treated like political theater, there’s a comprehensive candidate selection system in the Democratic Front, with direct elections from bottom to top at the approval level. I recommend reading more from the linked book, the snippet I showed is just a tiny portion.
How would you define slavery? Do you see it as only applicable in the context of commodity production?
Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a “yes/no” basis
I may look more into the book. Curious if you know of any data on how common it is for candidates to lose an election once nominated?
I have to say, even the Yes/No voting is done properly, the lack of an open primary or similar seems to preclude the idea of “direct elections”.
Slavery is largely forced labor to achieve economic ends, universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies, or how doctors and other educated fields are sent to rural and underdeveloped areas in socialist systems upon graduating. There isn’t a class of exploiters and exploited, it’s the proletariat organizing itself in self-defense during the passive phase of an active war. Calling it slavery equates it to slavery in the Statesian south, where slave owners brutally exploited a class of slaves. The reason I bring up other countries is to show that this isn’t simply a policy preference, but something decided upon because of its practical necessity in real, existing conditions.
As for stats on those who lose elections, I don’t have any. I wouldn’t imagine it would be a high number given that it’s essentially an approval round for candidates, rather than their first exposure.
universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies
I recognize the difference you are making, but this seems like huge a stretch. Children’s lack of knowledge requires some degree of restriction on autonomy at least to a certain age, in the interest of preparing them for life. Personally I think school mandates are excessive in most countries, but it is still very different from a mandatory activity for adults. Moreover, the military represents a far greater risk of personal harm. As to the idea that it is self-organizing, the degree to which that is true rests heavily on the democracy question.
In an ideal world, no country would even have a reason to have universal conscription. We do not live in an ideal world, though, we live in the era of dying imperialism, where the US Empire could lash out at any moment. In these circumstances, the decision to implement universal conscription is entitely rational. Further, I am not purely speaking of children, but also full adults getting their medical degrees and having to give back to the system by going to the areas most in need for a time.
As for democracy, the book I linked is the best source I’ve found.
Further, I am not purely speaking of children, but also full adults getting their medical degrees and having to give back to the system by going to the areas most in need for a time.
I definitely oppose that. It might just be a difference in values.
You may oppose it, but you also likely do not live in a socialist country. Understanding why socialist countries have the policies they do requires understanding their situations. For example, in Cuba, sending doctors to the rural areas helped provide medical access to people who never had it before. These programs are not at all comparable to slavery, but are pro-social policies decided within a class, not imposed by one class onto the rest.
I can’t imagine why you oppose that. In fact, I think it should be mandatory in all countries. If your education is paid for by the state of the proletariat, then you HAVE to pay back to society.
I think this might be one of those individualistic vs collectivist moral thing.
In my country, if the state pays for your education, then you’re mandated to do service for a few years to the underprivileged sections of society. Because it was THEIR money that paid for your education. I would never vote for anyone trying to change this.
All of us owe a debt to society because our lives are made possible by it. All of us owe something to our fellow humans.
I think this might be one of those individualistic vs collectivist moral thing.
I do have individualistic values, in the Marxist sense. I oppose a society oriented around the individual, but I do value individuality and the encouragement/development of it.
All of us owe a debt to society because our lives are made possible by it.
I find the concept of debt problematic, especially one that is not taken by choice. As to serving the state in return for education, that’s more of a gray area if you still have the option to not accept the education.
Thanks.
I’ll have to read more about Korean Nationalism. As to poverty, you make fair points. As to universal conscription, I object to it in all circumstances regardless of wartime vs peace, as it is literally slavery. Other countries doing it doesn’t make it better.
As to Democracy, I am confused by the claim
When the source later says
I fail to see the “direct election” in this process. It seems like a committee that theoretically takes into consideration debate and opinion but which then makes a unilateral nomination, who runs unopposed. Am I missing something?
By direct election, what’s meant is that all levels of government, from the local, to national level, are elected directly by the people.
Contrast this with it’s neighbor China, where local level positions are directly elected, but by the time you get to the national level, positions are elected, indirectly, by the directly elected representatives from the lower levels. The DPRK doesn’t have that same sort of insulation at the national level.
Candidates, meanwhile, are decided through mass meetings. This is a very loose comparison, but imagine something roughly akin to the caucus system in some USAmerican primary elections. But instead of boiling it down to two candidates, it gets boiled down to one. The final vote where you cast your ballot is essentially a ratification vote of that ‘primary’ process, where you vote “yes” or “no”, but that doesn’t mean the process which preceded it wasn’t competitive.
Again, universal conscription cannot be removed from its necessary context: the DPRK is under constant threat. It isn’t literally slavery, it’s a policy that has important context, and isn’t done for profit but to satisfy the justified need for security and deterrence.
As for direct democracy, the DPRK has approval based voting. Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a “yes/no” basis. Elections are not treated like political theater, there’s a comprehensive candidate selection system in the Democratic Front, with direct elections from bottom to top at the approval level. I recommend reading more from the linked book, the snippet I showed is just a tiny portion.
How would you define slavery? Do you see it as only applicable in the context of commodity production?
I may look more into the book. Curious if you know of any data on how common it is for candidates to lose an election once nominated? I have to say, even the Yes/No voting is done properly, the lack of an open primary or similar seems to preclude the idea of “direct elections”.
Slavery is largely forced labor to achieve economic ends, universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies, or how doctors and other educated fields are sent to rural and underdeveloped areas in socialist systems upon graduating. There isn’t a class of exploiters and exploited, it’s the proletariat organizing itself in self-defense during the passive phase of an active war. Calling it slavery equates it to slavery in the Statesian south, where slave owners brutally exploited a class of slaves. The reason I bring up other countries is to show that this isn’t simply a policy preference, but something decided upon because of its practical necessity in real, existing conditions.
As for stats on those who lose elections, I don’t have any. I wouldn’t imagine it would be a high number given that it’s essentially an approval round for candidates, rather than their first exposure.
I recognize the difference you are making, but this seems like huge a stretch. Children’s lack of knowledge requires some degree of restriction on autonomy at least to a certain age, in the interest of preparing them for life. Personally I think school mandates are excessive in most countries, but it is still very different from a mandatory activity for adults. Moreover, the military represents a far greater risk of personal harm. As to the idea that it is self-organizing, the degree to which that is true rests heavily on the democracy question.
In an ideal world, no country would even have a reason to have universal conscription. We do not live in an ideal world, though, we live in the era of dying imperialism, where the US Empire could lash out at any moment. In these circumstances, the decision to implement universal conscription is entitely rational. Further, I am not purely speaking of children, but also full adults getting their medical degrees and having to give back to the system by going to the areas most in need for a time.
As for democracy, the book I linked is the best source I’ve found.
I definitely oppose that. It might just be a difference in values.
You may oppose it, but you also likely do not live in a socialist country. Understanding why socialist countries have the policies they do requires understanding their situations. For example, in Cuba, sending doctors to the rural areas helped provide medical access to people who never had it before. These programs are not at all comparable to slavery, but are pro-social policies decided within a class, not imposed by one class onto the rest.
I actually live in a country that claims to be socialist, but I’m not sure they have gone very far to earn that label.
AFAIK no one is forced to become a doctor in Cuba
I can’t imagine why you oppose that. In fact, I think it should be mandatory in all countries. If your education is paid for by the state of the proletariat, then you HAVE to pay back to society.
I think this might be one of those individualistic vs collectivist moral thing.
In my country, if the state pays for your education, then you’re mandated to do service for a few years to the underprivileged sections of society. Because it was THEIR money that paid for your education. I would never vote for anyone trying to change this.
All of us owe a debt to society because our lives are made possible by it. All of us owe something to our fellow humans.
I do have individualistic values, in the Marxist sense. I oppose a society oriented around the individual, but I do value individuality and the encouragement/development of it.
I find the concept of debt problematic, especially one that is not taken by choice. As to serving the state in return for education, that’s more of a gray area if you still have the option to not accept the education.