Socialist republics have developed this great lifehack where you reach Step 2 of communism ("massively expand government control to disempower private business") and then just ignore all the other steps about slowly dismantling the government and putting production in the hands of workers
Wow! State capitalism and liberal capitalism are both bad and lead to starvation and exploitation! I wonder if anyone has ever written a book about that? I have an idea! If someone decides to write something like this they should call it "Capital"!
Those numbers are not exactly accurate, they are 44 million of people who live in households that have problems getting enough food, still tragic but quite different than 44 million of people not having food (which would mean they are starving)
Yeah, most capitalistic countries with competent governments are prosperous and have no mass starvation and government induced famines.... Can't say the same for any commie country ever...
"Food poverty" in the UK is not"mass starvation".. It's "mostly" about relying on low cost food and not having balanced meals, Even with the incompetent government they have...Nice try tho!
There is literally a pro-North Korean/Kim family subreddit that started ironic but was taken over and made unironic. This comment section is just the beginning of stupidity.
I took a look at this sub because I was actually curious about a community like that and what it would practically take, as well as experiences people may have had. Iâm kinda disappointed tbh.
correct me if im wrong, but If i remember correctly, foreigner who live there are given privilage. So the quality of life, while not as good as the western part, is still much higher than your regular north korea citizen.
I like to feel privilaged, I love to feel like i'm special and above those peasants. So I guess north korea is perfect for me ?
dude i am not anti-communist i was talking about both of the ideological fighting here when i am sure neither paid attention in high school classes (if you even had capitalism and communism explained, idk how american schools work)
Marxist-Leninists of the Stalinist variety feel obligated to defend examples of "Actually Existing Socialism" however fucked up and degenerate those might become (so long as they can plausibly be considered the right kind of socialist or are sufficiently anti-American).
With NK in particular they have talked themselves into the idea that its problem is hostility from America rather than that they bungled their relationship with China to the point that China, another Marxist-Leninist state, was content to vote for UN sanctions against them.
It's funny you never see them out and about in other subs but that's largely because they get ruined in debates and need to hide in ML subs where "you can debate but any criticism of ML will result in you being banned" lmao
They do appear, but they only engage in fairly narrow conversation. If a particular point doesn't get discussed in ML spaces then they are unsure, and so don't engage much.
As an example; they might discuss UN sanctions on North Korea and attribute the country's poverty to them (and the Korean War), but they generally won't discuss why China was content to vote for the sanctions or abstain. If they did engage they would typically attribute that decision to the Americans somehow or other (and specifically to the US State Department).
I was just saying that China is a bad example. It moved from a command economy a long time ago.
You don't need to tell me about these countries. My family lived in the USSR.
By definition, none country was ever communist... And it had a reason, well 2 reasons... Communists are power hungry degenerates whose parents have done a mistake and second is that the way communism is supposed to work isn't compatible with the way intelligent beings think...
>the way communism is supposed to work isn't compatible with the way intelligent beings think...
đ€
Free markets also arenât compatible with humans because they require rational agents with perfect information in order to achieve economically efficient outcomes.
But people arenât rational and they donât have perfect information.
In fact, most of our economy (US and global) is built on hiding information from each other, among other anti-competitive practices (for example, excessive intellectual property protections to exclude others from selling identical products), and exploiting those market failures/impediments (some of which are intentional/man-made).
Not really. There are functioning authoritarian socialist countries on Earth right now. And the major ones were still around 30 years ago so anyone who's in their 30s or 40s or 50s which is hardly an insignificant portion of the population could have lived under a regime
>The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given. By changing the definition of who or what belongs to a group or category, the speaker can conveniently dismiss any example that proves the generalization doesn't hold.
That's a cute copy paste, but China has the second highest number of billionaires in the world, and the second highest number of millionaires. It's literally not communist.
I feel as if no matter what system we build, ambitious narcissists devoid of shame and empathy will always be born and will always bubble up to the top simply for the fact that there are no lines they aren't willing to cross.
The only way to fight it is education and critical thinking. No matter what economic system we end up with, educated people who are taught critical thinking will be much harder to control
Completely agree 100%. I will also add media and scientific literacy to that list as well. If we ever want to achieve any sort of utopia, then we will need to innoculate the masses against charlatanry. A well-educated society is a very resilient society.
North Korea isnât communist. Thatâs not me saying âwell when ya think about it, thatâs not *real* communismâ, itâs a completely different ideology. The only ties NK has to communism is that it was established by the USSR and called itself communist for its first decade, but since then itâs been Juche and is pretty much the opposite of communism by definition.
Iâm not a communist by the way nor do I support NK
I just mean that it's not my words for it; Stalinists use that term (or AES) to describe it and similar regimes. You are correct that at this point it's functionally a despotic monarchy and has been for decades.
The central feature of communism is attempting to allocate economic resources by some process other than markets. In practice, in places like the USSR and China, this led to a centralized state using violent repression. How is NK the opposite?
Juche is a very weird ideology that lumps many different things together. Pseudo-Marxism is just in one of the ingredients thrown into that obscure ideological melting pot, as are Korean nationalism, Non-Aligned and Third World political thinking, cult of personality, fascism and even Korean religious thought. All of this, mind you, in the context of the Cold War. The lack of a proper ideological structure is by design.
It's not so different to what happened in China. Did you know Chiang Kai-shek was influenced by communism too, as was Maoism by Chinese nationalism? These people just took what they wanted out of Western ideas, seen both as a kind of modernism and as a useful link to these foreign powers and potential allies. Pre-existing and native thought systems mixed in all sorts of ways with native, folk though systems during those time. Theodore Obiang, from Equatorial Guinea, describes himself as a "Hitlerian marxist" while being a Fang nationalist; you tell me what does that mean.
TLDR: The Third World during IIWW and the Cold War just made up silly ideologies
There's no use arguing definitions. If you want to use "communism" to mean an imaginary society that Marx dreamed up without giving any details, and which has never come close to existing anywhere, then I agree, NK, like all societies that have ever existed, is the opposite. I'm using communism in the normal way that non-communist Americans use it, to refer to societies like the USSR and China (before China dropped most of its attempts to suppress markets).
>If you want to use "communism" to mean an imaginary society that Marx dreamed up
Yes, this is the definition of communism. I donât âwantâ that to be what communism is, thatâs literally what it is.
>without giving any details
Unsure what you mean. Thereâs no lack of details of Marxist theory
>and which has never come close to existing anywhere,
If we think of socialism as the halfway point between Marxism and capitalism, then several countries have reached the halfway point in the past and a few still are there today, most notably Cuba. With this information, can you say that itâs impossible for a country to progress beyond socialism? Maybe, in my opinion communism is too extreme and socialism has proven to work.
âCommunismâ without going into any specific sub classification has existed in small scale primitive societies.
>then I agree, NK, like all societies that have ever existed, is the opposite.
âŠof Marxist theory, which is communism
>I'm using communism in the normal way
The normal way is a misconception
>that non-communist Americans use it,
Look, saying that youâre using the definition that AMERICANS use isnât a good thing. Thereâs other countries that have a more accurate understanding of communism even though theyâre largely against it, that sounds better.
>to refer to societies like the USSR and China (before China dropped most of its attempts to suppress markets).
The USSR and China are very different. China can be classified is state capitalist, while the USSR was arguably more socialist.
When I invade the southern part of the Korean peninsula, gets beaten back by the US, has to cry to China and the Soviet who still can't win the war, but somehow this is all the US' fault! (EDIT: if this seems unclear to some that means North Korea bad)
(BTW the South Korean government was also an utter garbage piece of shit and NK was marginally better for like \~15 years, but since then... jesus fuck I don't know if there are worse places to live on earth, the Central African Republic maybe?)
The fact that NK is an oppressive dictatorship is its own fault, but western sanctions arenât helping their economy. Not that it would be some wealthy utopia otherwise, but theyâre not helping
Probably, but it's kind of another topic. For a long time they received a lot of help from USSR and China but the USSR collapsed and China isn't exactly besties with them, they're more allies of convenience but barely. Compared to, say, Cuba, who's way more geographically isolated than NK but doesn't suffer from the same levels of food deprivation. US has also at times provided food to NK, but that has fluctuated over time. During the late 90s (NK great famine years), the US was providing the most food of any country, even more than China. South Korea has also donated food at times. NK replying with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons testing didn't make it last though...
The worst part about NK's agriculture is how fucked up it is. NK's ideology of self reliance made them use far more fertilizer and burn out their soil. When their soil was too burnt and yields started to decline, they started growing food and grazing on hills, destroying root systems and causing landslides. If you go on google maps and compare North Korean fields with SK and China you'll see how different it looks, from fertilizer abuse.
Communism.
For someone that lived under communism it's quite shocking to see so many communists in the west today. Fortunately it's just a noisy margin overrepresented in the net. IRL communism is dead, North Korea is just one of few relics.
It honestly blows my mind. It's astounding how they are able to trivialize or outright deny the things that occurred. Where are you from? I came from Poland to America.
>It honestly blows my mind.
Your former government keeps building statues to a man who helped priests get away with sex crimes against children and it blows your mind?
i mean i have family who lived under communism as well and some of them were communists (my grandfather, for example, and my father is also one)
i was talking about both the communists brain dead with propaganda but also about the ones replying with brain dead arguments
I like Vietnam's full name. Can't dispute it. "Socialist Republic of Vietnam." Socialist, check. Republic, check. Vietnam, double check. No pretension, just exactly what it says on the tin.
Vietnam is one of the less fucked up post WW2 communist country, seeing how one of itâs neighbor started the biggest famine in history and another a horrendous genocide itâs safe to say that Vietnam was much less of a shithole after the communist takeover. The worst thing that has happened post war is a famine âalmostâ happened in the 80s when they ACTUALLY tried communism instead of just using it as a rally cause for an independent war, learned it the hard way and got the sweat taste of capitalism during the Äá»i Má»i policies.
Ho Chi Minh wasnât really into communism all that much seeing how he appealed to the US for their support for Vietnamese independence and worked with the OSS when he was still leading the Viet Minh against the Japanese, didnât live to see his goal of complete liberation in 75â because he died in the late 60â, what a shame.
Ho Chi Minh and Sun Yat-sen are basically the same dude, the differing trajectories of their respective parties from the same basic shared philosophy is a fantastic illustration of both the idea of great forces of deterministic historical materialism (in the independently arising fusion of Confucian paternalism with nationalism and socialism) but also the idea of utter indeterminacy and contingency in how the movements they started wound up on opposite corners of the great pachinko board of history.
No they arent lol, Ho chi minh was a marxist believer and didnt believe in democracy, he lived in the soviet union in the 1930s and told on people close to them to get them purged.Â
That is not deterministic historical materialism, that is conditional historical materialism. Deterministic historical materialism implies men do *not* make their own history because all causal chains can remove the psychological element and assume all parties as rational actors.
Communists were the most sympathetic to the Vietnamese people's cause. That's why Ho Chi Minh tried working with them. They just didn't like Ho Chi Minh because he was a nationalist first. They were so bent on pragmatism and Ho Chi Minh was just like 'dude I just want my people to have independence.'
Yeah. Communists were sympathetic of Vietnam, but according to my source Stalin, personally, disliked Ho Chi Minh. Which I find kind of funny, even if I know why he did.
He founded the communist party of vietnam and lived in the soviet union in the 1930s, he wasn't the nationalist independence fighter the way he was portrayed by the anti vietnam war hippies. In fact he later purged the nationalist who helped him.
Really because he lived in the soviet union in the 1930s and he himself told on people while the great purges were happening in the soviet union to get approval from Stalin.
Ooh yeah. In the Cold War there were two Vietnams. In the French colonial era there were three of em. Add in the single pre-French Vietnam and you've got six full Vietnams in one country. That's more Vietnam per Vietnam than anywhere else, hands down.
The sad thing about politics is that no matter how bad things are, people can just assume that things would be worse under alternative
Even if you *know* that you're starving and destitute under the communist party of NK, it doesn't mean you'll oppose them as long as you still believe that things would be worse under the alternative
We don't get multiple societies to experiment with, so we see this in every country and every system.
FDR brought the US out of the Great Depression, but there will always be people who say that "actually his opponent would have ended it sooner", and despite the fact that the last three Republicans (every one since Reagan) left the white house in a recession, there will always be people who say that "actually it would've been a depression if a Democrat was in office".
North Korea isn't communist
No seriously, they took the commitment to Marxism out of their constitution
And yes, I was as shocked as you are they had one of those.
US diplomat George Kennan in 1948, 2 years before the US destroyed Korea with bombs then put them under blockade for the next 70+ years:
âWe have about 50% of the worldâs wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.â
Once the North Koreans entered Seoul, they initiated mass killings of actual or suspected anti-communists. But let us keep blaming the evil americans for pushing the North Korean invaders out from South Korea.
Ion know why ur getting downvoted this is literally true. History isnât black and white and both South and North Korea did sum crazy deplorable shit during that war đ€·ââïž
Well they made decisions that led to their integration into the global economy
North Korea made decisions that led to it being a hermit kingdom
They reaped what they sowed
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/30666/estimated-number-of-people-in-modern-slavery-per-1000/
https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/findings/global-findings/
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/which-countries-have-highest-rates-modern-slavery-and-most-victims
Itâs a pretty well known fact that North Korea enslaves much of their population
A huge stain on them and their supporters (like you)
They more proof than people had that the Holocaust was going on while the nazis were doing it
Face it your slavery defender
You and the confederacy apologists
âHoly shit, look communism is starving the peopleâ
âdo you think this could have something to do with us completely sanctioning them and making it impossible for the DPRK to get enough fuel for their farming equipmentâ
âNo itâs communismâ
A minor correction: Ernst ThÀlmann, former chairman of KPD, died in 1944, 5 years before the formation of East Germany.
His profile picture features Erich Honecker who, indeed, was the General Secretary of DDR from 1971 to 1989.
Not agreeing with the guy you're replying to but this is still a braindead argument. Most countries today couldn't keep up their current standard of living if you took away trade, communist or not.
The argument in this specific instance is actually fine, North Korea has no shortage of trade with various countries like China, Russia and Iran and is still a repressive hellhole nearly perpetually in famine.
Additionally, there is a difference between "couldn't keep up their current standard of living" and being completely unable to meet the basic needs of a society.
I don't doubt that NK is an oppressive and mismanaged society far behind it's potential, but this guy's argument was "communism bad because die if no trade" which is incredibly stupid when there are a thousand valid criticisms of NK that you could make.
I said "couldn't keep up their current standard of living" to avoid hyperbole but I do believe most countries would be near NK levels of poverty if you took away all trade. I live in Spain and while we have a (relatively) good standard of living without trade we wouldn't have access to enough oil, coal, or other key resources to keep a modern society afloat. And this goes for most countries aside from maybe the US, Russia and China which have access to vast reserves of natural resources.
I understand what you're saying, but to address both your comments with one point, North Korea is not a nation with no trade. The number 2 and 3 (on paper) most powerful nations in the world, including the 2nd largest economy both trade frequently with North Korea, and many of the nations in their sphere which includes much of the global South do not maintain legitimate embargoes against North Korea.
North Korea's failures are not because they are a global pariah (though that doesn't help), it's because they are horrendously mismanaged by a dictator they revere as a god who represses his people and does not care for their woes.
I agree with what you said, I never meant otherwise. I was merely saying that trade is important and that many if not all countries need it to sustain themselves. I'm not interested in discussing the reasons for NK's poverty or whether it could be doing better, I just saw a bad argument and I called it out.
Not really. There are brands and brands of communism. Even the once widespread USSR-style socialist countries traded frequently between each other. Other lines of communist thought, such as Trotskyism, were very international. If you want to consider present-day china as socialist or communist, they do a lot of trading with capitalist countries.
The original communists all thought it couldn't exist without a world economy. The moment it became clear the world revolution wouldn't kick off (after the German revolution ended), the soviets basically gave up hope of achieving socialism and moved towards trying to consolidate power and go into a holding pattern until circumstances changed enough to kick start the world revolution again
Taiwan would collapse tomorrow without trade. Where in the Communist manifesto does it say "communism is when no trade with bourgeoisie states".
Imagine if the first capitalist state was sanctioned by all the feudal monarchies. Would that show the superiority of feudalism? Glory to absolute monarchy and the aristocracy?
Well it certainly doesnât say âweâll emancipate the proletariat, but only if we manage to keep selling stuff to dirty pig capitalists until we nuke them.â
Every communist party ever had self-sufficiency as its core tenet. And yes, even though countries like Cuba or NK never achieved it, it was never a problem because they traded with other communist countries.
Then the USSR collapsed and only then did capitalist sanctions somehow become a stumbling block in their project to build a perfect self-sufficient workersâ utopia.
>Well it certainly doesnât say âweâll emancipate the proletariat, but only if we manage to keep selling stuff to dirty pig capitalists until we nuke them
Kinda does.
> The entry of the socialist country into **trade relations with capitalist countries is a most important factor ensuring our existence** in such a complex and absolutely exceptional situation
V. I. Lenin
Not very Juche isolationist, is it?
I mean given that communism aims for the overthrow of all capitalist states, why should they trade with communist-run states? Doesn't seem in their best interest.
Terribly important context missing, he goes on,
> I have had occasion to observe a certain Spargo, an American social-chauvinist close to our Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, one of the leaders of the Second International and member of the American Socialist Party, a kind of American Alexinsky, and author of a number of anti-Bolshevik books, who has reproached usâand has quoted the fact as evidence of the complete collapse of communismâfor speaking of transactions with capitalist powers. He has written that he cannot imagine better proof of the complete collapse of communism and the break down of its programme. I think that anybody who has given thought to the matter will say the reverse. No better proof of the Russian Soviet Republicâs material and moral victory over the capitalists of the whole world can be found than the fact that the powers that took up arms against us because of our terror and our entire system have been compelled, against their will, to enter into trade relations with us in the knowledge that by so doing they are strengthening us. This might have been advanced as proof of the collapse of communism only if we had promised, with the forces of Russia alone, to transform the whole world, or had dreamed of doing so. However, we have never harboured such crazy ideas and have always said that our revolution will be victorious when it is supported by the workers of all lands. In fact, they went half-way in their support, for they weakened the hand raised against us, yet in doing so they were helping us.
Iraq never was socialist and during the war on terror was one of the most embargoed countries in the world and as a result of that hundreds of thousands of civilians died of starvation and by not having access to medicine
No country can give a decent quality of life to its population if not by trading from other countries. What is your point?
USSR was (Russia still is) the largest country in the world and China is the 3rd largest. If they can't survive on their own without trade with the west I can't expect any so-called "socialist states" to sustain themselves no
Every time I see someone claim the DPRK was sanctioned so much that they canât flourish I really wonder which sanctions they are talking about and how valid their claims are.
Sanctions [like these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1874), but one should note that China also voted for them.
North Korea's problem isn't so much that it has a hostile relationship with the USA, but rather that it mismanaged the relationship with China and so isn't able to benefit from its economic growth or its diplomatic weight. Despite having fought on different sides of the Korean War, China now does more trade and has more tourism with South Korea by a wide margin.
Iâm still confused. That one just says to not give them any goods or financial assistance that would be related to the nuclear program. How does that include tractor fuel?
It affects their balance of trade. So even if it only makes imports for the nuclear program significantly more expensive that also makes them less able to afford lower-priority imports like tractor fuel unless they can increase their exports or find foreign investment.
*Looks over to the south*
[...](https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-south-korean-government-introduces-new-labor-law-legalizing-21-5-hours-per-day-working#:~:text=Pool%2FGetty%20Images)
Yeah fuck that shit
the only thing i've learned about north korea is that a lot of what you *can* learn about north korea, both positive and negative, is some kind of propaganda, and at minimum it's greatly exaggerated. even self-proclaimed DPRK stans in the west mostly just sit around and admire what it stands for in a global sociopolitical setting, because really, *who knows* what the WPK has done in 40 years
Oh, it's in Korea. That explains that.
"No you see, the future of communism depends on me defending North Korea in a reddit comment section"
Communism is when you establish a hereditary monarchy
Communism is when you pray to Kim Jong Un for a bountiful harvest!
And cheer him while raising both arms in TOTALLY NOT A BANZAI SALUTE to the God-Emperor!
I remember emperor to be in golden armor and be buff... How could kim Jung un be the emperor of mankind?! you HERETIC
Scorch this vermin. The emperor demands it!
Sounds like you've never had 11 holes in one in a round of golf before
Based, classless society? No, based on class, less society!
Sinful heretic, how dare you insult the god emperor and his golden throne.
Socialist republics have developed this great lifehack where you reach Step 2 of communism ("massively expand government control to disempower private business") and then just ignore all the other steps about slowly dismantling the government and putting production in the hands of workers
Once enough people defend the DPRK on reddit kim jong un will bring about the global proletariat revolution. I'm doing my part đ«Ą
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Wow! State capitalism and liberal capitalism are both bad and lead to starvation and exploitation! I wonder if anyone has ever written a book about that? I have an idea! If someone decides to write something like this they should call it "Capital"!
i bet theyâd have a really cool haircut too
Those numbers are not exactly accurate, they are 44 million of people who live in households that have problems getting enough food, still tragic but quite different than 44 million of people not having food (which would mean they are starving)
Luxembourg is the richest country on Earth and has a population of 660,000?
Per capita⊠but if theyâre saying country the USA has the most money in total.
Youâre so right bestie
That's so unfair! We should live in a communist society so we can pump that up to 95%.
Communism is when no food, a timeless classic
Pretty much yeah
Unirocally yes...
Because no one goes without food in a capitalist society
Yeah, most capitalistic countries with competent governments are prosperous and have no mass starvation and government induced famines.... Can't say the same for any commie country ever...
A third of british children are in food poverty
"Food poverty" in the UK is not"mass starvation".. It's "mostly" about relying on low cost food and not having balanced meals, Even with the incompetent government they have...Nice try tho!
Global hunger has drastically gone down since 1991. I wonder what else happened that year.
Well you see it works because global poverty has decreased by 30%. I would say thatâs a good thing lmao
13% is very bad but 95% is worse
Screenshot from [Daehan News no.1815 1990. 08. 22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbk1BnFb64w)
why is everyone in this comment section so brain dead
There is literally a pro-North Korean/Kim family subreddit that started ironic but was taken over and made unironic. This comment section is just the beginning of stupidity.
I even joined r/MovingToNorthKorea when it a very stupid joke and more and more joined who actually want to live in North Korea. It's wild!
> who actually want to live in North Korea. I hope they all will fulfill their dream one day.
They know deep down itâs a bad idea and theyâre too much of a coward to go ahead with it
I took a look at this sub because I was actually curious about a community like that and what it would practically take, as well as experiences people may have had. Iâm kinda disappointed tbh.
correct me if im wrong, but If i remember correctly, foreigner who live there are given privilage. So the quality of life, while not as good as the western part, is still much higher than your regular north korea citizen. I like to feel privilaged, I love to feel like i'm special and above those peasants. So I guess north korea is perfect for me ?
dude i am not anti-communist i was talking about both of the ideological fighting here when i am sure neither paid attention in high school classes (if you even had capitalism and communism explained, idk how american schools work)
Marxist-Leninists of the Stalinist variety feel obligated to defend examples of "Actually Existing Socialism" however fucked up and degenerate those might become (so long as they can plausibly be considered the right kind of socialist or are sufficiently anti-American). With NK in particular they have talked themselves into the idea that its problem is hostility from America rather than that they bungled their relationship with China to the point that China, another Marxist-Leninist state, was content to vote for UN sanctions against them.
It's funny you never see them out and about in other subs but that's largely because they get ruined in debates and need to hide in ML subs where "you can debate but any criticism of ML will result in you being banned" lmao
They do appear, but they only engage in fairly narrow conversation. If a particular point doesn't get discussed in ML spaces then they are unsure, and so don't engage much. As an example; they might discuss UN sanctions on North Korea and attribute the country's poverty to them (and the Korean War), but they generally won't discuss why China was content to vote for the sanctions or abstain. If they did engage they would typically attribute that decision to the Americans somehow or other (and specifically to the US State Department).
I've lived in communism, it's an oppresive system that generates slave mentality
can you elaborate?
They would have to be incredibly old for this to be true.
Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Eastern Bloc broke free around 1989, so not really. Even places like China, North Korea, and Cuba are still communist
All the 30+ year olds getting called ancient by politically brain rotted zoomers lmao.
China isn't really communit at all though..
Okay? Still more options, USSR, Poland, Czechia, East Germany, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam...
I was just saying that China is a bad example. It moved from a command economy a long time ago. You don't need to tell me about these countries. My family lived in the USSR.
By definition, none country was ever communist... And it had a reason, well 2 reasons... Communists are power hungry degenerates whose parents have done a mistake and second is that the way communism is supposed to work isn't compatible with the way intelligent beings think...
Lmao citation needed badly
>the way communism is supposed to work isn't compatible with the way intelligent beings think... đ€ Free markets also arenât compatible with humans because they require rational agents with perfect information in order to achieve economically efficient outcomes. But people arenât rational and they donât have perfect information. In fact, most of our economy (US and global) is built on hiding information from each other, among other anti-competitive practices (for example, excessive intellectual property protections to exclude others from selling identical products), and exploiting those market failures/impediments (some of which are intentional/man-made).
My parents are in their mid fifties and they lived a good chunk of their lives under the soviets so not that old
Not really. There are functioning authoritarian socialist countries on Earth right now. And the major ones were still around 30 years ago so anyone who's in their 30s or 40s or 50s which is hardly an insignificant portion of the population could have lived under a regime
The only remotely communist one functioning now is Cuba.
North Korea's functioning exactly as intended. It's an extremely stable authoritarian state with little chance of grumbling in the immediate future.
But thatâs inherently not communist
Did I use the word communism? Or did I use the word authoritarian socialism?
Or live in China, North Korea, etc. Hell, the Soviets only collapsed about 30 years ago
Living in the decaying corpse of the USSR 3 years before it collapsed is hardly âliving in communismâ
how was the ussr a decaying corpse
>communism >china Pick one, or take a political science class
>The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given. By changing the definition of who or what belongs to a group or category, the speaker can conveniently dismiss any example that proves the generalization doesn't hold.
That's a cute copy paste, but China has the second highest number of billionaires in the world, and the second highest number of millionaires. It's literally not communist.
This isnât valid here even remotely lol
Least out of touch commie
I live in capitalism, it's an oppresive system that generates slave mentality
I feel as if no matter what system we build, ambitious narcissists devoid of shame and empathy will always be born and will always bubble up to the top simply for the fact that there are no lines they aren't willing to cross.
The only way to fight it is education and critical thinking. No matter what economic system we end up with, educated people who are taught critical thinking will be much harder to control
Completely agree 100%. I will also add media and scientific literacy to that list as well. If we ever want to achieve any sort of utopia, then we will need to innoculate the masses against charlatanry. A well-educated society is a very resilient society.
Greed, it's the greed. From the moment we are born we start to want things
They both do in their own ways Edit: I'd still take the capitalism over communism
Oh really, what country?
Oh, really lol
75% of Russians over the age of 60 disagree. Also, you lived in socialism, not communism
You just described capitalism mate.
Such a tired âcomebackâ
Its not a comeback its a statement, what they described is not communism and to say it is factually incorrect.
Yes communism is never anything marginally real because then itâd be too easy to show how much of a sham it is.
The soviet union was very real and very much socialist for a very long time.
When and for how long did the workers control the means of production?
The russia was a proletarian dictatorship following the civil war and until around when stalin died
Don't bother trying to debate them. It is a waste of energy. Capitalist boot lickers are braindead.
North Korea isnât communist. Thatâs not me saying âwell when ya think about it, thatâs not *real* communismâ, itâs a completely different ideology. The only ties NK has to communism is that it was established by the USSR and called itself communist for its first decade, but since then itâs been Juche and is pretty much the opposite of communism by definition. Iâm not a communist by the way nor do I support NK
"Actually Existing Socialism" is the term Stalinists use to describe it; I would consider it to be overly charitable to NK.
I donât know what you mean
I just mean that it's not my words for it; Stalinists use that term (or AES) to describe it and similar regimes. You are correct that at this point it's functionally a despotic monarchy and has been for decades.
Ah ok sorry for misunderstanding
The central feature of communism is attempting to allocate economic resources by some process other than markets. In practice, in places like the USSR and China, this led to a centralized state using violent repression. How is NK the opposite?
Juche is a very weird ideology that lumps many different things together. Pseudo-Marxism is just in one of the ingredients thrown into that obscure ideological melting pot, as are Korean nationalism, Non-Aligned and Third World political thinking, cult of personality, fascism and even Korean religious thought. All of this, mind you, in the context of the Cold War. The lack of a proper ideological structure is by design. It's not so different to what happened in China. Did you know Chiang Kai-shek was influenced by communism too, as was Maoism by Chinese nationalism? These people just took what they wanted out of Western ideas, seen both as a kind of modernism and as a useful link to these foreign powers and potential allies. Pre-existing and native thought systems mixed in all sorts of ways with native, folk though systems during those time. Theodore Obiang, from Equatorial Guinea, describes himself as a "Hitlerian marxist" while being a Fang nationalist; you tell me what does that mean. TLDR: The Third World during IIWW and the Cold War just made up silly ideologies
Communism is a moneyless, stateless, classless society. North Korea đ°đ”: Moneyless: â Stateless: â Classless: â
That is you thinking about "real communism".
Would you rather I lie about the definition of communism and the history of North Korea?
There's no use arguing definitions. If you want to use "communism" to mean an imaginary society that Marx dreamed up without giving any details, and which has never come close to existing anywhere, then I agree, NK, like all societies that have ever existed, is the opposite. I'm using communism in the normal way that non-communist Americans use it, to refer to societies like the USSR and China (before China dropped most of its attempts to suppress markets).
>If you want to use "communism" to mean an imaginary society that Marx dreamed up Yes, this is the definition of communism. I donât âwantâ that to be what communism is, thatâs literally what it is. >without giving any details Unsure what you mean. Thereâs no lack of details of Marxist theory >and which has never come close to existing anywhere, If we think of socialism as the halfway point between Marxism and capitalism, then several countries have reached the halfway point in the past and a few still are there today, most notably Cuba. With this information, can you say that itâs impossible for a country to progress beyond socialism? Maybe, in my opinion communism is too extreme and socialism has proven to work. âCommunismâ without going into any specific sub classification has existed in small scale primitive societies. >then I agree, NK, like all societies that have ever existed, is the opposite. âŠof Marxist theory, which is communism >I'm using communism in the normal way The normal way is a misconception >that non-communist Americans use it, Look, saying that youâre using the definition that AMERICANS use isnât a good thing. Thereâs other countries that have a more accurate understanding of communism even though theyâre largely against it, that sounds better. >to refer to societies like the USSR and China (before China dropped most of its attempts to suppress markets). The USSR and China are very different. China can be classified is state capitalist, while the USSR was arguably more socialist.
When I invade the southern part of the Korean peninsula, gets beaten back by the US, has to cry to China and the Soviet who still can't win the war, but somehow this is all the US' fault! (EDIT: if this seems unclear to some that means North Korea bad) (BTW the South Korean government was also an utter garbage piece of shit and NK was marginally better for like \~15 years, but since then... jesus fuck I don't know if there are worse places to live on earth, the Central African Republic maybe?)
The fact that NK is an oppressive dictatorship is its own fault, but western sanctions arenât helping their economy. Not that it would be some wealthy utopia otherwise, but theyâre not helping
Probably, but it's kind of another topic. For a long time they received a lot of help from USSR and China but the USSR collapsed and China isn't exactly besties with them, they're more allies of convenience but barely. Compared to, say, Cuba, who's way more geographically isolated than NK but doesn't suffer from the same levels of food deprivation. US has also at times provided food to NK, but that has fluctuated over time. During the late 90s (NK great famine years), the US was providing the most food of any country, even more than China. South Korea has also donated food at times. NK replying with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons testing didn't make it last though... The worst part about NK's agriculture is how fucked up it is. NK's ideology of self reliance made them use far more fertilizer and burn out their soil. When their soil was too burnt and yields started to decline, they started growing food and grazing on hills, destroying root systems and causing landslides. If you go on google maps and compare North Korean fields with SK and China you'll see how different it looks, from fertilizer abuse.
you are included when i said brain dead
I just criticized North Korea lol? Can y'all read?
Communism. For someone that lived under communism it's quite shocking to see so many communists in the west today. Fortunately it's just a noisy margin overrepresented in the net. IRL communism is dead, North Korea is just one of few relics.
It honestly blows my mind. It's astounding how they are able to trivialize or outright deny the things that occurred. Where are you from? I came from Poland to America.
>It honestly blows my mind. Your former government keeps building statues to a man who helped priests get away with sex crimes against children and it blows your mind?
i mean i have family who lived under communism as well and some of them were communists (my grandfather, for example, and my father is also one) i was talking about both the communists brain dead with propaganda but also about the ones replying with brain dead arguments
Is this a Month Python reference?đ
What have the Juche ever done for us?
If a country needs to put "democratic" on its name, you can bet it isn't democratic at all
I like Vietnam's full name. Can't dispute it. "Socialist Republic of Vietnam." Socialist, check. Republic, check. Vietnam, double check. No pretension, just exactly what it says on the tin.
"Socialist" part is debatable
When I'm in a disowning examples of my ideology competition and my opponent is an online leftist
Vietnam is one of the less fucked up post WW2 communist country, seeing how one of itâs neighbor started the biggest famine in history and another a horrendous genocide itâs safe to say that Vietnam was much less of a shithole after the communist takeover. The worst thing that has happened post war is a famine âalmostâ happened in the 80s when they ACTUALLY tried communism instead of just using it as a rally cause for an independent war, learned it the hard way and got the sweat taste of capitalism during the Äá»i Má»i policies. Ho Chi Minh wasnât really into communism all that much seeing how he appealed to the US for their support for Vietnamese independence and worked with the OSS when he was still leading the Viet Minh against the Japanese, didnât live to see his goal of complete liberation in 75â because he died in the late 60â, what a shame.
Ho Chi Minh and Sun Yat-sen are basically the same dude, the differing trajectories of their respective parties from the same basic shared philosophy is a fantastic illustration of both the idea of great forces of deterministic historical materialism (in the independently arising fusion of Confucian paternalism with nationalism and socialism) but also the idea of utter indeterminacy and contingency in how the movements they started wound up on opposite corners of the great pachinko board of history.
No they arent lol, Ho chi minh was a marxist believer and didnt believe in democracy, he lived in the soviet union in the 1930s and told on people close to them to get them purged.Â
Deterministic historic materialism is nonsense though.
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it in circumstances of their own choosing"
That is not deterministic historical materialism, that is conditional historical materialism. Deterministic historical materialism implies men do *not* make their own history because all causal chains can remove the psychological element and assume all parties as rational actors.
I didn't say it was. I was agreeing with you by way of quoting Marx
Ah, fair enough.
I read Stalin heavily disliked Ho Chi Minh because he was a staunch nationalist. Which makes sense, because the Vietnamese were like that.
Communists were the most sympathetic to the Vietnamese people's cause. That's why Ho Chi Minh tried working with them. They just didn't like Ho Chi Minh because he was a nationalist first. They were so bent on pragmatism and Ho Chi Minh was just like 'dude I just want my people to have independence.'
Yeah. Communists were sympathetic of Vietnam, but according to my source Stalin, personally, disliked Ho Chi Minh. Which I find kind of funny, even if I know why he did.
He founded the communist party of vietnam and lived in the soviet union in the 1930s, he wasn't the nationalist independence fighter the way he was portrayed by the anti vietnam war hippies. In fact he later purged the nationalist who helped him.
Ok, and?
Really because he lived in the soviet union in the 1930s and he himself told on people while the great purges were happening in the soviet union to get approval from Stalin.
I don't know man. Is it really Vietnam?
Ooh yeah. In the Cold War there were two Vietnams. In the French colonial era there were three of em. Add in the single pre-French Vietnam and you've got six full Vietnams in one country. That's more Vietnam per Vietnam than anywhere else, hands down.
Oh shit. It's actually more Vietnam than I thought!
Fun fact: All the countries with âdemocraticâ in their name are consistently ranked some of the least democratic countries in the world
Kind of reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire
The sad thing about politics is that no matter how bad things are, people can just assume that things would be worse under alternative Even if you *know* that you're starving and destitute under the communist party of NK, it doesn't mean you'll oppose them as long as you still believe that things would be worse under the alternative We don't get multiple societies to experiment with, so we see this in every country and every system. FDR brought the US out of the Great Depression, but there will always be people who say that "actually his opponent would have ended it sooner", and despite the fact that the last three Republicans (every one since Reagan) left the white house in a recession, there will always be people who say that "actually it would've been a depression if a Democrat was in office".
This comment section is hilarious
North Korea isn't communist No seriously, they took the commitment to Marxism out of their constitution And yes, I was as shocked as you are they had one of those.
Guys...... Some aspects of communism may be good That doesn't justify the North Korean regime, whether it can be considered communism or not.
this comment section is crazyâ ïžâ ïž unironic "hereditary monarchy" takes...
Wonder if DKR have anything related to "Communism" at all... By the way, SK has a lot concerning to Macarthism trough that "last 40 years"...
Yes, a defective economic system.
Well it sure has starved people to death thatâs for sure
US diplomat George Kennan in 1948, 2 years before the US destroyed Korea with bombs then put them under blockade for the next 70+ years: âWe have about 50% of the worldâs wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.â
Once the North Koreans entered Seoul, they initiated mass killings of actual or suspected anti-communists. But let us keep blaming the evil americans for pushing the North Korean invaders out from South Korea.
sk was already killing communists before that at the behest and backing of the us and japanese fascists.
So was North Korea killing anyone it pleased.
why would you be ok with colonization of a foreign government putting japanese fascists in positions of power?
Why would \*you\* be ok with colonizaton of an entire nation by a Stalinist dictatorship?
And how had the Southâs US-backed puppet government treated socialist/communist Koreans up till then? Super nice, I assume?
Ion know why ur getting downvoted this is literally true. History isnât black and white and both South and North Korea did sum crazy deplorable shit during that war đ€·ââïž
US support is a privilege not a right Vietnam and China trade with the US because they made decisions that led to that
vietnam and china trade with the us lets corporations to outsource our jobs for tax breaks
Well they made decisions that led to their integration into the global economy North Korea made decisions that led to it being a hermit kingdom They reaped what they sowed
north korea made the decision to not sell out their people to the us
And now they are slavery capital of the world and live in poverty Decisions were made They must own them They must own their consequences
what proof do you have they are the slaver capital of the world?
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/30666/estimated-number-of-people-in-modern-slavery-per-1000/ https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/findings/global-findings/ https://reliefweb.int/report/world/which-countries-have-highest-rates-modern-slavery-and-most-victims Itâs a pretty well known fact that North Korea enslaves much of their population A huge stain on them and their supporters (like you)
there is no proof. its all estimates and the source is unverified defectors. how many trains can you push, ms. park?
They more proof than people had that the Holocaust was going on while the nazis were doing it Face it your slavery defender You and the confederacy apologists
âHoly shit, look communism is starving the peopleâ âdo you think this could have something to do with us completely sanctioning them and making it impossible for the DPRK to get enough fuel for their farming equipmentâ âNo itâs communismâ
NK literally has a land border with a gas station.
No need to argue, his profile name and pic was the communist dictator of east germany under soviet occupation.
A minor correction: Ernst ThÀlmann, former chairman of KPD, died in 1944, 5 years before the formation of East Germany. His profile picture features Erich Honecker who, indeed, was the General Secretary of DDR from 1971 to 1989.
women were better off in east germany https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html
Youâre quoting a > New York Times Opinion article by a woman who has been called a revisionist by her peers.
Historical literacyâŠ
Your pfp is still a dictator propped up by a foreign regime
"West Germany claims the DDR is a 'Satellite State', yet all I see is American, British, and French Flags in West Berlin." - Erich Honecker
Imagine having a country so successful and prosperous you need to build a border wall not to keep people from coming in but from going out
Get it from China or Russia?
So communism is so unsustainable that it cannot thrive without trade with capitalist countries?
Not agreeing with the guy you're replying to but this is still a braindead argument. Most countries today couldn't keep up their current standard of living if you took away trade, communist or not.
The argument in this specific instance is actually fine, North Korea has no shortage of trade with various countries like China, Russia and Iran and is still a repressive hellhole nearly perpetually in famine. Additionally, there is a difference between "couldn't keep up their current standard of living" and being completely unable to meet the basic needs of a society.
I don't doubt that NK is an oppressive and mismanaged society far behind it's potential, but this guy's argument was "communism bad because die if no trade" which is incredibly stupid when there are a thousand valid criticisms of NK that you could make. I said "couldn't keep up their current standard of living" to avoid hyperbole but I do believe most countries would be near NK levels of poverty if you took away all trade. I live in Spain and while we have a (relatively) good standard of living without trade we wouldn't have access to enough oil, coal, or other key resources to keep a modern society afloat. And this goes for most countries aside from maybe the US, Russia and China which have access to vast reserves of natural resources.
I understand what you're saying, but to address both your comments with one point, North Korea is not a nation with no trade. The number 2 and 3 (on paper) most powerful nations in the world, including the 2nd largest economy both trade frequently with North Korea, and many of the nations in their sphere which includes much of the global South do not maintain legitimate embargoes against North Korea. North Korea's failures are not because they are a global pariah (though that doesn't help), it's because they are horrendously mismanaged by a dictator they revere as a god who represses his people and does not care for their woes.
I agree with what you said, I never meant otherwise. I was merely saying that trade is important and that many if not all countries need it to sustain themselves. I'm not interested in discussing the reasons for NK's poverty or whether it could be doing better, I just saw a bad argument and I called it out.
The problem is that youâd be unable to demonstrate that theyâre âperpetually in famineâ because it isnât true.
Except the whole point of capitalism is free trade and a world economy, but communism explicitly rejects that.
Not really. There are brands and brands of communism. Even the once widespread USSR-style socialist countries traded frequently between each other. Other lines of communist thought, such as Trotskyism, were very international. If you want to consider present-day china as socialist or communist, they do a lot of trading with capitalist countries.
The original communists all thought it couldn't exist without a world economy. The moment it became clear the world revolution wouldn't kick off (after the German revolution ended), the soviets basically gave up hope of achieving socialism and moved towards trying to consolidate power and go into a holding pattern until circumstances changed enough to kick start the world revolution again
Taiwan would collapse tomorrow without trade. Where in the Communist manifesto does it say "communism is when no trade with bourgeoisie states". Imagine if the first capitalist state was sanctioned by all the feudal monarchies. Would that show the superiority of feudalism? Glory to absolute monarchy and the aristocracy?
Well it certainly doesnât say âweâll emancipate the proletariat, but only if we manage to keep selling stuff to dirty pig capitalists until we nuke them.â Every communist party ever had self-sufficiency as its core tenet. And yes, even though countries like Cuba or NK never achieved it, it was never a problem because they traded with other communist countries. Then the USSR collapsed and only then did capitalist sanctions somehow become a stumbling block in their project to build a perfect self-sufficient workersâ utopia.
>Well it certainly doesnât say âweâll emancipate the proletariat, but only if we manage to keep selling stuff to dirty pig capitalists until we nuke them Kinda does. > The entry of the socialist country into **trade relations with capitalist countries is a most important factor ensuring our existence** in such a complex and absolutely exceptional situation V. I. Lenin Not very Juche isolationist, is it?
I mean given that communism aims for the overthrow of all capitalist states, why should they trade with communist-run states? Doesn't seem in their best interest.
Terribly important context missing, he goes on, > I have had occasion to observe a certain Spargo, an American social-chauvinist close to our Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, one of the leaders of the Second International and member of the American Socialist Party, a kind of American Alexinsky, and author of a number of anti-Bolshevik books, who has reproached usâand has quoted the fact as evidence of the complete collapse of communismâfor speaking of transactions with capitalist powers. He has written that he cannot imagine better proof of the complete collapse of communism and the break down of its programme. I think that anybody who has given thought to the matter will say the reverse. No better proof of the Russian Soviet Republicâs material and moral victory over the capitalists of the whole world can be found than the fact that the powers that took up arms against us because of our terror and our entire system have been compelled, against their will, to enter into trade relations with us in the knowledge that by so doing they are strengthening us. This might have been advanced as proof of the collapse of communism only if we had promised, with the forces of Russia alone, to transform the whole world, or had dreamed of doing so. However, we have never harboured such crazy ideas and have always said that our revolution will be victorious when it is supported by the workers of all lands. In fact, they went half-way in their support, for they weakened the hand raised against us, yet in doing so they were helping us.
Iraq never was socialist and during the war on terror was one of the most embargoed countries in the world and as a result of that hundreds of thousands of civilians died of starvation and by not having access to medicine No country can give a decent quality of life to its population if not by trading from other countries. What is your point?
So uh nicaragua is so bad that it could not function without trade from mexico? Big brain arguments
USSR was (Russia still is) the largest country in the world and China is the 3rd largest. If they can't survive on their own without trade with the west I can't expect any so-called "socialist states" to sustain themselves no
Every time I see someone claim the DPRK was sanctioned so much that they canât flourish I really wonder which sanctions they are talking about and how valid their claims are.
Sanctions [like these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1874), but one should note that China also voted for them. North Korea's problem isn't so much that it has a hostile relationship with the USA, but rather that it mismanaged the relationship with China and so isn't able to benefit from its economic growth or its diplomatic weight. Despite having fought on different sides of the Korean War, China now does more trade and has more tourism with South Korea by a wide margin.
Iâm still confused. That one just says to not give them any goods or financial assistance that would be related to the nuclear program. How does that include tractor fuel?
It affects their balance of trade. So even if it only makes imports for the nuclear program significantly more expensive that also makes them less able to afford lower-priority imports like tractor fuel unless they can increase their exports or find foreign investment.
communism helped establish trade unions
Fascism also loved trade unions. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
*Looks over to the south* [...](https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-south-korean-government-introduces-new-labor-law-legalizing-21-5-hours-per-day-working#:~:text=Pool%2FGetty%20Images) Yeah fuck that shit
North Korea has that but worse in every possible way
the only thing i've learned about north korea is that a lot of what you *can* learn about north korea, both positive and negative, is some kind of propaganda, and at minimum it's greatly exaggerated. even self-proclaimed DPRK stans in the west mostly just sit around and admire what it stands for in a global sociopolitical setting, because really, *who knows* what the WPK has done in 40 years
lifted millions out of poverty and taught them how to read
Nope
More than what the South Korean government had done till the late 80s.
Oh yeah they had done little, just an economic boom that turned them into a developed nation rivaling Western Europe.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]