Cowbee

@Cowbee@lemmy.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Again, no examples provided for natural resources that don’t need to be processed in any way, shape or form, including transport, as the average way to get them. No, it isn’t obvious at all that there are natural resources that involve no processing or transport yet are sold this way on average, and you continue to refuse to provide an example for something so “obvious.” Very unserious.

  Regarding Marx on value, you’re confusing how Marx builds up his argument, proceeding from the most basic element upward and outward, and developing a many-sided view, with the totality of the base of his argument. Marx is specifically referencing how prices appear “random” at first, as prices of each commodity is itself different, but that they can all exchange for each other in consistent ratios through the universal commodity, money, and that this all proceeds from how we produce and distribute, ie labor. This naturally also includes natural resources, which themselves have no “value” alone.

  In other words, prices are not actually random, despite first appearances, and they all reduce down to their constituent elements, the basic block of value being labor-time as this is the basic input in production from which all else flows. Capitalism is a control system for the distribution of labor, and works to accumulate as much capital as possible.

  None of this is based on “assumption,” it’s based on clear observation of how capitalism functions.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You haven’t explained any of your arguments, even given any examples. You’ve simply made claims equivalent to “it’s absurd,” without actually contesting Marx’s positions. Either way, since you yourself said to forget everything else, I’ll narrow it down to what you believe is the key point:

  He can address it all he wants, it contradicts his argument I went over in the first place, that exchange of use values necessitates the presence of value. Forget everything else, this is the argument.

  Marx’s argument is not contradictory in the slightest. Land, for example, has no “value” but has a price, which is capitalization on rent. Natural resources, for example, have to be processed into a sellable form, which requires land, tools, and labor. Marx’s chief argument isn’t that use-values exchanging means they must have an underlying value alone, it’s that the prices in an economy are not random, and so must be the result of their common elements, as can be exchanged for the universal commodity, money.

  Commodity production is a social process, and commodity exchange is also a social process.

  I’ll also requote your original comment:

  Capital rests on the argument ~that the fact qualitatively different (in terms of use values) commodities are exchanged for each other in different quantities requires a quality they share in common which only differs in quantity from one commodity to the next, and Marx posits that the only quality this could be is being products of labor. Yet this is very clearly not something that all commodities have in common,

  This is not at all “very clear,” and you have not given a single example disproving this. Again, simply saying that something is clear is not in fact a counter.

  and that a thing’s status as a commodity and its ability to be exchanged for other commodities has nothing to do with its being a product of labor.

  Again, incorrect. Commodities are social products, and all are produced via labor. The commodity market itself relies on the differences between price and value to re-allocate labor, capital itself is a control system. You cannot divorce a commodity from the very fact that commodities of its type are made by labor, even if you could magic a widget into existence, its price would still be that of the rest of the widgets, because widgets are socially provided in a given socially necessary abstract labor time.

  The only way Marx’s argument can be accepted is if you start with the presupposition that commodities are valued by the labor required to produce them.

  Again, wrong. Marx’s argument is an observation of how labor and capital is allocated, and how capitalist economies function in reality. Marx is not concerned with idyllic, fantasy conditions where wizards can conjure infinite objects, Marx is talking about the concrete world where goods are produced, bought, and sold on a market in a non-random manner.

  How this happens that commodities are exchanged at their “value” is a complete mystery by the way, since Marx says it has nothing to do with the conscious considerations of either the buyer or the seller.

  Again, no capitalist is going to calculate SNALT, they are going to notice the cost of production and sell above that, meeting the market roughly where similar commodities are sold. Supply and demand therefore regulate price to value, and when this diverges, labor is re-allocated out of less profitable commodities and into more profitable ones, creating a social average. This is the driving force. It isn’t intentional on any one capitalist’s part, it’s capital itself playing the market regulator.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  No? Not necessarily.

  Yes, generally. There’s also transport.

  Again, not necessarily.

  Yes, again.

  It does make his argument invalid. Per Marx: “If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour.” This is how you get to the LTV in the argument. Yet it’s just trivially wrong.

  Wrt labor/raw materials, you can sell ideas. Commodities aren’t even necessarily material things. Now you could say that ideas require humans, and humans require human labor to be created and raised and nature to nourish them etc etc yet it’s an unjustifiable presupposition that ideas can then be reduced to a mechanical combination of these aspects.

  Again, you’re trivially wrong. All commodities can be reduced to labor and raw materials, full-stop. Simply claiming that something is “trivially wrong” is not in fact enough to make it trivially wrong. As for “ideas” being sold, mental labor for research and development, etc. is in fact labor, and labor goes into training the skilled labor used for research and development. Again, the Law of Value is generally about the social inputs and social outputs of capitalist economies. Simply saying it’s an “unjustifiable presupposition” isn’t a counterargument.

  No. Value itself is neither exchange-value (which is just a relation between two values) nor use-value (the particularities of which dissolve when considering value), when Marx refers to value he is referring only to the labor-time socially necessary to produce a thing. If you were speaking about specific use values then this is just nonsense in context because you were talking about “the value in a commodity” as what price orbits around, and then you have the category error I went over. You corrected yourself here by saying value can be reduced to just labor instead of being “reduced to labor and natural resources.” Just admit you made a mistake and don’t act like the mix-up is on me.

  You can call it a mistake if you want, but I was clearly referencing the fact that call commodities are reducible to labor and natural resources. This is why Marx directly references labor and natural resources as the mother and father of all material wealth. Given that you haven’t yet made an actual critique of the Law of Value, this seems more like deflection than anything else.

  Sure, and why should this floor be reflective of the amt. of labor required to produce that commodity? Well you can justify this abstractly but in terms of actually making it work, it doesn’t.

  Because the price of labor-power is essentially regulated around what can be produced in a day of laboring, with the expectation that this is enough to reproduce a day of laboring. In other words, wages are kept around the level needed for workers to continue the production process in terms of means of consumption. This is reflected in the price of the commodities produced by the labor process.

  This has to do with the prev. “mix-up,” you were talking about [[[prices]]] again; commodities as values are only representative of certain expenditures of abstract labor, that is the universal. Use-values are [[[particularities]]] and the entire point of the book is that insofar as they are considered in relation to each other and to the universal which is money (price!), their particular use does not matter (indeed, the particular form of labor employed and any other considerations do not matter), only that they are expenditures of the total abstract social productive capacity of a society.

  Again, not a mix-up. Your original critique, if I am being as charitable as possible, is that use-values can be exchanged without having values. This is directly addressed by Marx, in the first chapter of the first volume of Capital.

  I’m not anybody’s alt, not that it would matter if I was. I’d imagine if I had a longer history you would pick something else out to use, but this got me to look at your history and I found this post called “Dialectical Materalism: How to Think Like a Marxist” that I’m going to reply to so thx.

  Correct, your argument would not matter if you’re an alt or not, it’s just highly strange that this would be your first comment, days into a thread, many comments deep into it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  All you need for commodity exchange is for people to accept something is yours and be willing to exchange something they own which you desire in return for it. That thing being a product of labor is not necessary. You can own land based on agreement without taking any trouble to cultivate or defend it, and exchange it for other things based on agreement. You can exchange naturally occurring things without rendering them ~crystallizations of social labor.

  Yes? Marx talks about natural resources. Land is covered more in volume 3, but nevertheless this is fully accounted for. Natural resources take extraction to refine and produce, and the concept of owning land requires a body to uphold that, the state, and the value of land itself is tied to how productive it can make you. All value comes from labor and natural resources, this is straight from Capital.

  Marx’s argument is invalid in another way because there are so many qualities commodities share besides being products of labor.

  This does not make his argument invalid, though. What’s common is that the makeup of commodities can be reduced entirely to the labor and raw materials that went into them.

  Now, I know that the law of value is supposed to come specifically with highly developed industrial society with large scale social production which makes the abstract real etc etc however the issue is that this then messes with Marx’s argument I went over in the prev comment where he tries to prove the LTV by going over the concept of commodities/commodity exchange as such without regard for this.

  No, you never disproved anything.

  The argument only doesn’t apply for the first reason. There’s no necessity even for Marx that commodities be arbitrarily “difficult” to produce.

  There is, though. A commodity’s value isn’t dependent on how much labor went into that individual commodity, but that commodity as a social product, ie on average. If someone spends 10 hours on a mud pie that takes 2 seconds to create on average, it’ll be just as close to worthless as the rest.

  How is this a response to what I said?

  Because you’re confusing the fact that prices reflect value with the idea that people independently think of that before purchasing.

  This is both incorrect (for Marx, value is entirely determined by socially necessary labor time) and doesn’t mean anything (this is like multiplying 3 apples by 7 pears, what does it mean that the value of a commodity can be reduced to labor and natural resources?; with value being determined by labor time you can reduce things to a certain quantity, but then you just add on a qualitatively different thing and you return to the original problem of needing a third equivalent, or a value to unite the components of value).

  You’re mixing up Exchange-Value with Use-Value. All use-value comes from labor and natural resources, but natural resources themselves can be reduced to the labor required to gather them and refine them, etc. All socially necessary labor time means is that it takes society on average a certain amount of labor to create something, and natural resources can be themselves reduced to labor. 3 apples and 7 pears both may take the same amount of labor on average to create them, and thus their prices naturally gravitate near the same value.

  You forgot to explain how this actually occurs. You just say that capitalism does it.

  Through the market. Buying and selling of goods, competition, all of this from the perspective of the capitalist confronts them as input costs and profits. Competition forces prices towards a floor, lack of competition brings in new competitors which then brings the price back to being roughly as profitable as the rest. Capital essentially functions as a control system.

  You should tell Marx this since he expressly says that he thinks the only universal is labor. You both happen to be wrong, though.

  You should actually read Capital, because Marx quite literally states this.

  Use-values like coats, linen, etc., in short, the physical bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements, the material provided by nature, and labour. If we subtract the total amount of useful labour of different kinds which is contained in the coat, the linen, etc., a material substratum is always left. This substratum is furnished by nature without human intervention. When man engages in production, he can only proceed as nature does herself, i.e. he can only change the form of the materials.[17] Furthermore, even in this work of modification he is constantly helped by natural forces. Labour is therefore not the only source of material wealth, i.e. of the use-values it produces. As William Petty says, labour is the father of material wealth, the earth is its mother.[18]

  Marx isn’t wrong, and neither am I, it seems you genuinely haven’t opened Capital because this is in the first few pages.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I have never once said states and revolutions are the same thing, only that the only way to create a leftist state is revolution, and that states themselves are inherently violent towards the non-dominant class. Regimes are just scary words for states in common lingo, so please explain what a regime is.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve been talking about both revolutions and states, which you call “regimes” to sound scary.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, of course I can read. You rejected my interpretation, and I very clearly explained how your rejection is baseless. What is a “non-violent leftist regime?”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  So we are back to square one: since all leftist states are the result of revolution, it is definitionally correct that “tankies” are those who support socialist states. All states are tools by which the ruling classes retain their dominance, in socialism this is the working class. Therefore, all states are inherently violent, and trying to label some as uniquely violent misses the entire point of the state, a monopoly on violence.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Yet this is very clearly not something that all commodities have in common

  This is not clear at all. Elaborate, please.

  and that a thing’s status as a commodity and its ability to be exchanged for other commodities has nothing to do with its being a product of labor

  Why not? Are you saying that the utility of a commodity to someone does not change whether or not it was made with labor? This doesn’t really matter, though, the point of the Law of Value is that commodities are socially produced, and socially distributed, which normalizes their price around their values. Arguments like the “mud pie” don’t apply, because mud pies are neither useful nor difficult to make.

  The only way Marx’s argument can be accepted is if you start with the presupposition that commodities are valued by the labor required to produce them.

  Incorrect, the exchange-value that price fluctuates around is representative of the value in a commodity. Another way to look at it is that the value of a commodity is the sum of its inputs, which can be reduced to labor and natural resources.

  How this happens that commodities are exchanged at their “value” is a complete mystery by the way, since Marx says it has nothing to do with the conscious considerations of either the buyer or the seller.

  Marx is correct, though this is no mystery. Commodities are social products, and are socially exchanged. What’s universal to goods bought and sold is that they require natural resources and human labor to create them, thus capitalism in being a social process acts as a price-finder for commodities, all based on inputs and outputs.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Revolution is the only way left-wing governments have historically been solidified. Bolivia tried the democratic process, and this failed, so now a potential revolution is brewing as clashes between the far-right and the primarily indigenous socialists are erupting. Allende tried the democratic process in Chile, and was coup’d for it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The simple truth is that anyone can go and apply for it, and the data is already being spread around. I’m not arguing “in favor” of this system, just that this isn’t some tight-locked info. It’s not that I cannot get it, I already explained that I don’t want to give my personal info to a NATO official’s org.

  Secondly, I never implied that the data was representative of anything other than perceptions, I included that in the first comment I referenced it in. I just added that it’s indicative of a strong, comprehensive democracy that perceptions are so high. This isn’t dishonest in the slightest.

  I already admitted fault to calling you a liar, when it’s clear that we both aren’t. Not sure why you’re still doing this, it’s pretty clear that the definition bit is the one where we disagree, and you’re insistent that disagreement means I’m a liar. There’s nothing for you to really do.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.

  The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.

  Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.

  This isn’t hand-waving anything. I am talking about a specific, observable stage capitalism inevitably results in over time. When you’re trying to say that it’s about trying to get your way forcefully, then this means it was imperialism when the Statesian North invaded the Statesian South and liberated the slaves. It means it was imperialism when the Soviets defeated the Nazis in World War II. In other words, it’s clear that you’re interested in imperialism as far as it can be used as a condemnation, and not as an actual observable system.

  For the sake of argument, let’s call imperialism as I described it “finance plundering.” Is your point that “finance plundering” isn’t a stage of capitalism, and that western countries are not "financial plunderers?* Is your argument that Russia also has the ability to stand with the west in that realm?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  All revolutions are inherently violent, so again, this just circles back to supporting socialist states.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The majority of people that lived in Eastern European socialist countries regret their fall, and over 90% of Chinese people support their government. Maybe you should talk to them.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  To implement the provisions of laws such as the Constitution, the Civil Code, and the Employment Promotion Law, and to effectively safeguard citizens’ personal dignity against infringement, the Supreme People’s Court hereby clarifies the following adjudication rules:

  First, regarding cases involving the public insult or defamation of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, people’s courts generally deem such acts to constitute an infringement of general personality rights; they order the cessation of the infringement, a formal apology, and compensation for emotional distress, thereby explicitly establishing the illegality of discriminatory speech and conduct based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

  Second, in the contexts of recruitment, hiring, job reassignment, or dismissal, should an employer engage in differential treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, determine that the employer has committed employment discrimination; they shall order the revocation of the relevant decisions, compensation for losses, and other remedies, thereby explicitly prohibiting unreasonable discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression within the sphere of employment.

  Third, should a school impose inappropriate disciplinary measures against students—or fail to fulfill its administrative duties, thereby leading to campus bullying—on the grounds of the students’ sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, hold the school liable, thereby reinforcing schools’ obligation to protect students’ personal liberty and dignity. These cases collectively demonstrate the people’s courts’ unequivocal stance: that the legitimate rights and interests of sexual minorities are entitled to equal protection under the law, and that any unreasonable discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is strictly prohibited by law.

  …

  Moving forward, we will continue to systematically review cases nationwide involving the protection of sexual minorities’ rights and interests, summarize adjudication rules, and standardize adjudication criteria. At appropriate junctures, we will formalize established adjudication rules through various mechanisms—such as judicial interpretations, conference minutes, guiding cases, reference cases, and exemplary cases—to enhance the provision of legal norms. Furthermore, we will incorporate topics such as the protection of personality rights into judicial training programs, thereby ensuring the protection of citizens’ personal liberty and dignity in accordance with the law.” — Reply to the “Proposal on the Application of Law to Explicitly Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Judicial Adjudication”

  mp.weixin.qq.com/s/U1VX7omSTbnMjpoBTHIt-A

  China has a fair way to go to reach more socially progressive countries like Cuba, but the state does not categorize LGBTQIA+ individuals as “obscene” or “vulgar,” and instead has protections against discrimination based on gender and sexuality.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.

  The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.

  Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.

  Not sure what you’re really getting at, my takes are very standard among Marxist-Leninists. What makes you think I’d be unqualified to speak on socialism?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  🪞

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Nah, the problem was that it wasn’t even close to socialism, and instead was a sort of reactionary agrarian system with brutal repressions. It was stopped by the communists. Pointing out that the US Empire backed it is to prove the point that it absolutely wasn’t leftist, and that “tankies” don’t support it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  🪞

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Of course I’m not going to get it, your only source was effectively “trust me bro” in the face of hard evidence and materialist analysis from multiple people. All you’ve made clear is that it’s the “tankies” that actually seem to know what we are talking about. Have fun back at MeanwhileOnGrad, where bigots stalk leftist accounts for screengrabs.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I just gave you several well-sourced comments giving an approachable introduction to the systemic demonization of the DPRK, as well as a brief intro on how the electoral system works, and numerous articles, books, and documentaries to choose from, including Wikipedia. How on Earth could I do better for you? Stoop to your level and just say “you’re clearly wrong?”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  This is, again, nonsense. Do better.

  The Black Panther Party was not the only group to maintain ties with the DPRK. Cuba was already allied with the DPRK and has remained extremely close, and the DPRK aided numerous African liberation movements Castro had this to say of Kim Ill-Sung:

  Comrade Kim Il Sung, our closest brother and friend, has shown deep concern for us. He is a model of genuine internationalist.

  He was the first to provide Cuba with unstinting political and material support when it was in the most difficult situation. We will never forget the care he shows for the Cuban people.

  Those who met you Comrade Kim Il Sung expressed their feelings of respect and admiration for you, saying that you are so modest, sentimental, passionate and kind. Every time I heard them, I could not repress my urge to visit your country to see you. You were already fighting against the Japanese imperialists when I was born. So I took it as my due obligation to visit you.

  You keep framing this as purely being self-interest, with no actual care for the people. To that I ask, why is it that these movements all happened to be on the side of justice? Why is it that the DPRK continued to retain ties with some of the most socially progressive countries on the planet, and enmeshed itself with liberation movements globally, if it was only concerned with “Realpolitik?” Even if we all call it self-interest, it doesn’t change the fact that this self-interest was in aiding liberation!

  Regarding my sources being “bias,” again, this is nonsense. I am giving you hard evidence explaining exactly how the DPRK works, why it is so propagandized against, and how this propaganda works. I am always opposed to the bourgeoisie, I clearly critique capitalism and support socialism. Simply stating that socialist states are “oppressors, just with a different flavour” is the peak of ignorance when it comes to the massive gains made by the working classes once they take control of the state and can run society in their own interests.

  Do better.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The Kim family does have outsized influence, but the DPRK is not a hereditary monarchy. For example, the position of President, held by Kim Il-Sung, was abolished and split into multiple positions upon his death. This is why he is remembered as the “Eternal President.” As such, both Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un have held different positions. Both have held high positions, for example Kim Jong-Il had the title of General Secretary of the Worker’s Party of Korea, a position held by Kim Jong-Un presently. However, this is not the whole story.

  The DPRK has a much more distributed level of power, and the Kim family is both widely supported due to its influence, and yet is not the undisputed top-dog, so to speak. What’s more, the Kim family is so venerated precisely because the legacy of Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il is lived memory, imagine if Lenin had survived and raised his children as successors. It would be no wonder that the soviets would have elected his children, but it would not be a monarchy either.

  Finally, class. Class is not a level of material wealth, but a relation to production and distribution. The DPRK is overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, administration is not a distinct class in and of itself but a subset of broader classes, same with intellectuals. What determines class is based on that key aspect, the Kim family does not own capital but instead recieves wages from the state. Kim Jong-Un is largely used as a symbol, one that is democratically elected and directly trained by his father for the position.

  This is why it’s important to actually study the real systems at play, rather than coast on pre-formed opinions drilled into us about the DPRK from western media. The Black Panther Party maintained good relations with the DPRK, visiting it and teaching Juche to Americans.

  Image

  Yes, there are indeed a lot of people saying what you’ve claimed, and I very clearly explained why there is so much disinformation about the DPRK 2 comments above. I also explained how this disinformation works. Despite all of this, you’re still repeating the method of “it’s clearly xyz?” How unseriously do you take investigation into topics like this, do you even care at all? Or is this just an outlet for you? If you claim to be on the side of the people, then you owe it to yourself to take investigation and study seriously, rather than passively repeat disinformation even when shown hard evidence to the contrary.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The problem here is that all of your evidence thus far is “it’s clearly xyz.” Everyone here is fully aware that two things can be true at once, that one country being bad doesn’t mean others cannot be, etc. etc. My point here is that the DPRK is the single most propagandized against country on the planet, and that it takes an extraordinary level of effort for the average English speaker to get an accurate idea of what it’s like, sifting through all of the bullshit. That’s why I left you with some resourced you could check out.

  “It’s clearly xyz” is not a point, and continuing to present only that as evidence supporting your claims does wonders for legitimizing those of us who can actually bring sources. From Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:

  The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.

  How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels. As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.

  To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability

  As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.

  I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You do realize that in the face of actual, materialist analysis, simply saying “it’s clearly xyz” does not in fact cut it? Think about this for a moment: do you blame Cuba for its poverty, or the US Empire’s embargo? Do you believe everything mainstream news sources say about Cuba, or do you place a heavy deal of skepticism? The DPRK and Cuba are both quite similar situationally, with the former opting for heavy millitarization as deterrence and the latter opting for sending doctors as international aid. Both are socialist, both are under heavy embargoes, both have achieved quite a lot considering their circumatances. Both have strong ties with each other, and support liberation movements in Africa, Palestine, and more.

  A lot of what you think you know about the DPRK is just wrong. The problem with reporting on the DPRK is that information is extremely limited on what is actually going on there, at least in the English language (much can be read in Korean, Mandarin, Russian, and even Spanish). Most reports come from defectors, and said defectors are notoriously dubious in their accounts, something the WikiPedia page on Media Coverage of North Korea spells out quite clearly. These defectors are also held in confined cells for around 6 months before being released to the public in the ROK, in… unkind conditions, and pressured into divulging information. Additionally, defectors are paid for giving testemonials, and these testimonials are paid more the more severe they are. From the Wiki page:

  Felix Abt, a Swiss businessman who lived in the DPRK, argues that defectors are inherently biased. He says that 70 percent of defectors in South Korea are unemployed, and selling sensationalist stories is a way for them to make a living.

  Side note: there is a great documentary on the treatment of DPRK defectors titled Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul, which interviews DPRK defectors and laywers legally defending them, if you’re curious. I also recommend My Brothers and Sisters in the North, a documentary made by a journalist from the Republic of Korea that was stripped of her citizenship for making this documentary humanizing the people in the DPRK.

  Because of these issues, there is a long history of what we consider legitimate news sources of reporting and then walking back stories. Even the famous “120 dogs” execution ended up to have been a fabrication originating in a Chinese satirical column, reported entirely seriously and later walked back by some news outlets. The famous “unicorn lair” story ended up being a misunderstanding:

  In fact, the report is a propaganda piece likely geared at shoring up the rule of Kim Jong Eun, North Korea’s young and relatively new leader, said Sung-Yoon Lee, a professor of Korean studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Most likely, North Koreans don’t take the report literally, Lee told LiveScience.

  “It’s more symbolic,” Lee said, adding, “My take is North Koreans don’t believe all of that, but they bring certain symbolic value to celebrating your own identify, maybe even notions of cultural exceptionalism and superiority. It boosts morale.”

  These aren’t tabloids, these are mainstream news sources. NBC News reported the 120 dogs story. Same with USA Today. The frequently reported concept of “state-mandated haircut styles”, as an example, also ended up being bogus sensationalism. People have made entire videos going over this long-running sensationalist misinformation, why it exists, and debunking some of the more absurd articles. As for Radio Free Asia, it is US-government founded and funded. There is good reason to be skeptical of reports sourced entirely from RFA about geopolitical enemies of the US Empire.

  Sadly, some people end up using outlandish media stories as an “acceptable outlet” for racism. By accepting uncritically narratives about “barbaric Koreans” pushing trains, eating rats, etc, it serves as a “get out of jail free” card for racists to freely agree with narratives devoid of real evidence.

  It’s important to recognize that a large part of why the DPRK appears to be insular is because of UN-imposed sanctions, helmed by the US Empire. It is difficult to get accurate information on the DPRK, but not impossible; Russia, China, and Cuba all have frequent interactions and student exchanges, trade such as in the Rason special economic zone, etc, and there are videos released onto the broader internet from this.

  In fact, many citizens who flee the DPRK actually seek to return, and are denied by the ROK. Even BBC is reporting on a high-profile case where a 95 year old veteran wishes to be buried in his homeland, sparking protests by pro-reunification activists in the ROK to help him go home in his final years.

  Finally, it’s more unlikely than ever that the DPRK will collapse. The economy was estimated by the Bank of Korea (an ROK bank) to have grown by 3.7% in 2024, thanks to increased trade with Russia. The harshest period for the DPRK, the Arduous March, was in the 90s, and the government did not collapse then. That was the era of mass statvation thanks to the dissolution of the USSR and horrible weather disaster that made the already difficult agricultural climate of northern Korea even worse. Nowadays food is far more stable and the economy is growing, collapse is highly unlikely.

  What I think is more likely is that these trends will continue. As the US Empire’s influence wanes, the DPRK will increase trade and interaction with the world, increasing accurate information and helping grow their economy, perhaps even enabling some form of reunification with the ROK. The US Empire leaving the peninsula is the number 1 most important task for reunification, so this is increasingly likely as the US Empire becomes untenable.

  Nodutdol, an anti-imperialist group of Korean expats, released a toolkit on better understanding the situation in Korea. This is more like homework, though. I also recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance for learning about the DPRK’s democratic structure.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  One of these things is absolutely not like the other two, supporting the Khmer Rouge is more likely to get you banned than not. Saying the USSR and PRC are bad is just generic anti-communism.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  In general, I make it a point to not run away when pressed. That way, if anyone does continue to read on, it gives my points more legitimacy. I think by this point it’s pretty clear that you and I disagree on what constitutes “publicly available,” I consider anything to be available to the public to go and get to be publicly available, while you take the more extreme view that for something to be publicly available, it must have no steps required to get it, a simple link to a download or viewing must be the shortest distance. I disagree, but I don’t honestly think this disagreement is worth calling either of us liars.

  To that end, I suppose I got carried away and returned your energy. Once you declared me a liar and untrustworthy, I wanted to flip that on its head. You called it a “no u” argument, but my point was always clear, you and I both have different views on what publicly available means. The data itself that I referenced and the points I made based on them are widely available from people like the person I linked, so it’s not like the validity of the data is seriously in question.

  As for not taking it to DMs, it’s because I know neither of us are likely to be convinced, so the only utility it could possibly have to either of us is being in the open. I don’t really expect to convince you in particular, but discussing things openly has convinced many bystanders to my various points over the years, so it’s keeping true to that.

  Just my 2 cents.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I guess I’m curious why you’re still replying too, why is this interesting? I already explained how you pretended “publicly available” has an extremely specific meaning that doesn’t mean accessible to the public.

  Either way, though, I don’t see the other people here, so not sure what you mean there.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Didn’t think so.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Have you done anything productive lately?