/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>467090
>there aren't any indications that the political system in the dprk is incapable of delegating political leadership to somebody else, not part of the Kim family. So far it appears that it just hasn't done so.
If this is in any way true, then it's just a different kind of corruption: the ruling class of DPRK is using a hereditary figurehead to lend legitimacy to their own privilege.

>>467084
If you have the chance, take a break from reddit to read about a Marxist understanding of where knowledge comes from
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm

>>467084
>why don't you argue with me about something (that's fairly unimportant) that I have no practical knowledge about while I continue to bullshit expertise?!
Comrade Dunning Kruger has logged on

>>467091
>the dprk has a lot of corruption.
How do you know ?
They managed to build an atomic weapons program. North Korea is a tiny country with a tiny economy that also is under an economic blockade. They must have considerable economic efficiency to realize such a big project, they couldn't have squandered much surplus on bribery.

Listen there is so much bullshit being said about the Dprk because of a massive propaganda astroturfing campaign, that you can't reasonably believe negative assertions about them unless they can be proven. You need to apply counter-heuristics to negate propaganda bias.

>>467094
>appeal to authority fallacy
just argue your position, nothing else will do.

>>467094
>what you are saying is wrong
>but i won't offer a rebuttal
pointless

>>467095
>Countries that build nukes can't be corrupt
Lol - seriously
>Muh, argue your position
This belief that truth is something innate and divorced from experience/practice is why you have such a ghey reddit tier character and lame loser life. It's not hard to Google 'north Korea markets' and find relevant info the contradicts your counterfactual understanding. But that is beyond the point. You simply are not qualified on this topic. Within the context of a Communist Party, you would have no right to speak about it (inb4 liberal screeching). And while leftychan isn't a CP, I'm not bound by some requirement to debate every halfwit with a shit life, little practical experience outside of being a NEET/wagie, and dunning kruger syndrome.
>Why no, I've never been within 1000km of the DPRK nor ever been in the same room with someone who was from there. Please take my view on this topic, which I'm adamant to debate about, seriously.
Ya, no thanks.

>>467095
i quoted the wrong post
my apologies to >>467094

>>467092
>appeal to authority fallacy
just argue your position, nothing else will do.

>appeal to authority fallacy
>just argue your position, nothing else will do
I can guarantee this person honestly believes they aren't just a radlib

>>467098
Large countries like the US can manage corruption and a nuclear weapons program simultaneously. But for North Korea, the nuclear weapons program probably consumed around 40% of the annual budget during the peak development phase, That isn't doable for inefficient corruption riddled institutions.

You can't substitute character-assassinations for actual arguments. It just looks like you are dodging the topic. If you know so much more about North Korea then the rest of us, why not share that knowledge instead ?

>>467100
Com'on don't be nasty.
Besides radlibs can't argue for shit, if they knew what logical fallacies were, they'd be 90% less cringe.

>>467102
>Large countries like the US can manage corruption and a nuclear weapons program simultaneously. But for North Korea, the nuclear weapons program probably consumed around 40% of the annual budget during the peak development phase, That isn't doable for inefficient corruption riddled institutions.
I literally laughed reading this
You're a expert at state budgets with a focus in military research expenditures now, and there's no way a country with a series of 3 hereditary rulers is corrupt🤡
>You can't substitute character-assassinations for actual arguments
I certainly can. As I've said a million times, you have no qualifications to be offering an opinion on Korea. You bullshit yourself into thinking youre smart, so you take offense at me pointing out that you're not lol
>It just looks like you are dodging the topic. If you know so much more about North Korea then the rest of us, why not share that knowledge instead ?
<Stop being a moralizing, womanly whiney woe is me faggot. realize that everything is more complex than you realize. Be creative. The truth of the DPRK is this: it's highly corrupt but so is everything that exists- because reality doesn't conform to moral ideals, especially liberal pomo bullshit ones pressed into midwit black and white thinking. But if you need something definitive and relevant, the DPRK is in some ways better and in some ways worse than Amerikwa - probably these days more the former than latter.

>>467090
>Hereditary positions don't always precede property relations.
As far as I'm aware hereditary aristocracy came out of the primitive societies pretty much everywhere across the board and was tied to the land ownership.

>I'm not sure to what extend you really can claim that the DPRK has hereditary political leadership, because there aren't any indications that the political system in the dprk is incapable of delegating political leadership to somebody else, not part of the Kim family. So far it appears that it just hasn't done so.
My conclusions are from surface observations and comparisons with the Soviet Union.
I think the system is incapable of delegating to anybody outside of the Kim family because the Kim family is a core of the entire structure giving it stability. Looking at the Soviet experience we can see that the political structure is very unstable and prone to crises of reproduction. It is my guess that monarchic element gives this structure some stability, but in my humble opinion this is just delaying the inevitable political crisis.

>I think you are correct to conclude that political power in the dprk is entrenched, however not to the extend that you could call it monarchical. How do you know about the state social mobility in the DPRK?
I interpolate from the Soviet experience.
Stalin era Soviet Union had remarkable social mobility due to rapid changes in the structure of the economy, education system and frequent mass purges.
The trend after Stalin was on declining social mobility due to cronyism and in-group intermarriage tendencies. Tho there were also some counter tendencies present from the Stalin times such as widespread and encouraged training in absentia at the university and various class quotas.
I assume in DPRK this process has gone much farther than in the Soviet Union due to there being no Stalin and no proletarian revolutionary impulse in its history.
Acceptance of monarchical elements is just one of the biggest signs of this. Soviet society wouldn't have accepted such elements precisely because of its historical inertia.
DPRK on the other hand was born out of the national liberation movement, not a social revolutionary movement.

>And there is of course the elephant in the Room that the dprk hasn't really expanded the role of private property.
You would need data on the black markets to say anything about this. The Soviet progressing social ossification was characterized by an increasing intermingling of managerial and political entrenched groups with black market organized groups.

>I think that what Stalin did was correct, considering that the Soviet union was engaged in a total-war death-match against Fascism
Nothing to do with death matches, Stalin just didn't think twice about using radical measures. He even tried to lay a theoretical foundation for recurring purges with a postulate about the exacerbation of the class struggle with further advancement towards communism.

>but for less extreme times you need gentler method's
I agree, but I don't think this was Stalin's opinion on the matter at all seeing how he was starting to spin the flywheel of repressions again at "less extreme times". I think his opinions was that there must be recurring "bloodletting" to retain the revolutionary momentum.

>It's probably possible to achieve a similar result by rotating personnel and keeping a high proletarian quota.
problem is that hereditary entrenchment is in direct opposition to rotation
and I don't think this is a kind of conflict that can be solved by talking it out, and I don't think that Stalin thought it either, which is why he preferred going straight to the terror and physical removal part

>I think they lowered the proletarian quota after Stalin but I'm not sure if i remember that correctly.
Actually, I think they increased quota in Brezhnev times seeing as there was a tendency of decreasing ordinary workers membership.

>>467106
*extrapolate

>>467105
>>467106
Well - this debate seems rather over.
But one question remains. How based is the DPRK either because of or despite all that?

>Inb4 muhstability
I actually agree

>>467104
You may have a point that the triple continuity of leadership coming from the same family raises the question about corruption, but it doesn't prove it.
Given that the current ruling narrative is characterize by extreme anti-dprk-bias, you have to prove negative assertions.
You are welcome to refute the assertion that North Korea has to be efficient to be able to make nukes happen, but so far you seem to have conceded that point.

>I've said a million times
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an insult, it doesn't make it an argument.
Give up, i won't take the bait, i won't join you in the mud-pit of words, it's just too boring.

>>467106
>As far as I'm aware hereditary aristocracy came out of the primitive societies pretty much everywhere across the board and was tied to the land ownership.
Primitive-societies turned into clan-societies, there were many different types, not all off them were agrarian, there also were trading clans, warrior/marauder-clans, herding clans and so on. For a very long time agrarian clan-society could be very egalitarian, that only changed when territorial contests became frequent. Most theory that i have read attributes this to clans with social stratification being able to have dedicated warriors that were better at conquering.
I'm not sure if miss-interpret your words but landed aristocracy grew out of slave-society which came after clan society. Basically that's the dawn of feudalism.

>I think the system is incapable of delegating to anybody outside of the Kim family because the Kim family is a core of the entire structure giving it stability.
Nope speculation. Their system is probably also stable without the Kim family. I don't buy this because this reeks of "special people that have a unique ability to rule". It seems to me that the Kim's were very capable politicians, but not irreplaceable politicians. It appears to me that you are sneaking-in monarchical believes as a premise. Monarchs believed they were indispensable, but that was never true.

>Looking at the Soviet experience we can see that the political structure is very unstable and prone to crises of reproduction.
Was it really unstable ?
Considering what epic historic onslaught the Soviet Union could withstand without buckling, i hesitate a guess that you can't find another country that was as robust. You could argue that it was not stable enough to achieve it's historical task of bringing about world communism, but that is entirely different from claiming that ML-state were unstable by nature. You are just making up a contrivance because you want to argue that ML-states require a monarchical element.

>I interpolate from the Soviet experience.
>DPRK on the other hand was born out of the national liberation movement, not a social revolutionary movement.
You have to make a choice, you either say that the DPRK and the Soviet Union are comparable and you can interpolate from one to the other, but then they both have a tendency to preserve a proletarian character and social mobility, or they aren't comparable. But you can't have it both ways.

>You would need data on the black markets to say anything about this. The Soviet progressing social ossification was characterized by an increasing intermingling of managerial and political entrenched groups with black market organized groups.
This is a fair point, private property relations can grow out of an informal economy. But then the question is why hasn't the black-market undermined the formal economy to the point where it can't maintain it self anymore. You are basically telling a story where the DPRK never really progressed beyond the mode of production of a monarchical feudal society, that might be in the process of being transformed into a capitalist one. Early stage capitalism is an incredibly explosive force that sweeps away feudal structures with great ease and expediency. And that process usually is anything but subtle. Where are the signs ?

<for less extreme times you need gentler method's like rotation
>I agree
>problem is direct opposition to rotation
>I don't think this is a kind of conflict that can be solved by talking it out
You are sending mixed signals.
What do you propose ?

>>467114
The bong is loaded and comrade dunning kruger is ready to debate this very important issue among the left.

>>466603
A slayviukrayni, can't breed with humans, only Nazis.

>>467115
>The bong is loaded
is that a wealthy British person ?

>this very important issue among the left.
You don't get it, do you ?
That debate isn't really about North Korea, it's about ruling ideology and whether or not your accept the narrative about the "evil Norks" and by extension support the position of the imperial bourgeoisie that sees it self as having the right to "overthrow the regime"

The point of arguing that North Korea is a feudal monarchy is because Marx said it's progress when capitalists overthrow feudal systems, and that means you can Marx-wash being a imperialist-pseudo leftist.

>>467086
>social mobility
>in socialism
in socialism there are no classes or they're are going extinct, therefore there is no reason to have social mobility, since more than mobile, society is completely fluid. but please, continue to read your "theory".
also, you include the necessity to have the state leadership subject to this rule of social mobility, this means that politics in your "socialism" is already a different class, this is means that your society is doomed before mine.
>hereditary positions in the social division of labor were a direct precursor to the emergence of private property
no proof of causation, also in completely different environments. i could also say that absolute monarchy, itself a product of private property, led to the modern de-privatized state, and I would be more correct.
>periodically physically removing entrenched elements
i wonder who's giving him this right.
>>467098
>produced no proof of corruption
>slandering comrades therefore
kys

>>467105
>>You can't substitute character-assassinations for actual arguments
>I certainly can
lol yes we know

>>467114
>there also were trading clans, warrior/marauder-clans
hunter-gatherers are primitive societies

>herding clans
ownership of cattle and pastures

>I'm not sure if miss-interpret your words but landed aristocracy grew out of slave-society which came after clan society. Basically that's the dawn of feudalism.
hereditary aristocracy predates feudalism, it first appeared out of the tribal system
ownership of land is perfectly compatible with slavery, also there were feudal elements all throughout slave based mode of production

>Their system is probably also stable without the Kim family.
We've already seen multiple times how "stable" is ML system without any monarchic elements.
Literally can't go twelve years without shitting the bed with some political crisis that requires army involvement.

>I don't buy this because this reeks of "special people that have a unique ability to rule". It seems to me that the Kim's were very capable politicians, but not irreplaceable politicians.
wat
Kims are indispensable not because they are some genius politicians lol
They are indispensable because they define the whole framework of political process, the rules of engagement, so to speak. Because political rules were always the weakest spot in ML states, with everyone always doing whatever the fuck they think they can get away with.
The simple fact that Kim as a general secretary is a political constant already brings some order to this disorder of political wild west. That's why I say Kim monarchy is a structurally reinforcing element.

>Was it really unstable ?
are you for real?
the eastern block had political mood swings of a young girl on her first period

>Considering what epic historic onslaught the Soviet Union could withstand without buckling, i hesitate a guess that you can't find another country that was as robust.
It withstood only because Stalin was a literal political Übermensch, not because of the ML political system.

>But you can't have it both ways.
They have the same internal social dynamic of progressive ossification. Only Korea doesn't have such historical counter tendencies as Stalin undoing any social dynamic by the means of sheer revolutionary terror.

>But then the question is why hasn't the black-market undermined the formal economy to the point where it can't maintain it self anymore.
Black market is never going to be able to undermine the planned economy to such an extent by merely existing. It undermines the political system, which in turn undermines the planned economy.

Why it haven't been able to undermine the political system yet may be related to the monarchic reinforcing element that gives the whole political system some stability.

>You are basically telling a story where the DPRK never really progressed beyond the mode of production of a monarchical feudal society
wat
monarchy doesn't equal feudalism
If it's anything like the soviet union then workers can change their workplace

>Early stage capitalism is an incredibly explosive force that sweeps away feudal structures with great ease and expediency. And that process usually is anything but subtle. Where are the signs ?
You seem to confuse monarchy as a form of government with feudalism as a mode of production.

>You are sending mixed signals.
I'm not.
The solution is short term limits and barring from occupying the same position multiple times in a lifetime.
Also public scrutiny at the end of the term.
Also no legal immunity while in the office.

What you want is the effect of the purges but channeled not through troikas but through the jury court.

>dprk is corrupt!
<pls, show the proof
>hurr durr do you think dprk cannot be corrupt?
ahah, die.

>>467123
>in socialism there are no classes or they're are going extinct, therefore there is no reason to have social mobility
wow, literal galaxy brain lol

in socialism you have division of labor, including divisions between managers and their subordinates

so already you can have social mobility

>society is completely fluid
only if you have high social mobility

>also, you include the necessity to have the state leadership subject to this rule of social mobility, this means that politics in your "socialism" is already a different class, this is means that your society is doomed before mine.
what the fuck are you even talking about

you think that you can manage society without political institutions?

>modern de-privatized state
wat

>i wonder who's giving him this right.
revolutionary necessity gave him this right

>>467095
>How do you know ?
Because the same family has been head of state for three generations. You fucking idiot.

>>467130
Comrade Dunning Kruger has done his research - mostly in the form of weed smoking and cope sophistry. Hope can you deny the karma-inducing power of his ideas?

>>467129
Another day with comrade loser faggot doing nothing besides pretending to be an expert in things he has no clue about

It's really sad idealism.

>>467151
Name call all you want anon, it's not an argument.

>>467155
I'm still waiting for all your ghey arguments to materialize into something beyond (reddit tier liberal) rhetoric

>>467156
>country has audacity to call itself a "democratic" republic
>bureaucracy so ossified that the same family is head of state for three generations
If it made a claim to aspire to some other form of government it would be one thing. But to call oneself a democracy (even in the most charitable liberal definition of democracy as when you have elections) and have such an obvious dissonance, the word for that is corruption.

>>467158
yeah, its fucking corrupted. stay on reddit

>>467125
I think primitive societies are the step before clan societies.
Some Herding clans did have ownership of cattle and pastures, but many were nomadic.

The landed aristocracy was the most powerful class during feudalism. They didn't have much power in tribal society, and in slave society the slavers were the most powerful. I don't know to what extend you can say that people claiming land in earlier modes of production already constituted private property, because that usually entails state enforcement

I find your claim that ML systems were unstable, unconvincing. State socialism managed to endure the most extreme situations. No Capitalist bourgeois political system has even come close to this.

>They are indispensable because they define the whole framework of political process, the rules of engagement, so to speak.
What does this even mean ? It sounds like corporate marketing speech.

>Because political rules were always the weakest spot in ML states
Previously you said the DPRK wasn't an ML state, make up your mind.

>The simple fact that Kim as a general secretary is a political constant already brings some order to this disorder of political wild west
The royalty stabilizes political systems trope ?
You sound like a monarchy apologist.

>the eastern block had bodily functions
oof
>Stalin was a literal political Übermensch
great man theory

>Black market is never going to be able to undermine the planned economy to such an extent by merely existing.
So now you admit that the DPRK is socialism and not a monarchy. Every monarchy had it's power broken by capitalist markets.

>monarchy doesn't equal feudalism
It kinda does. The so called monarchs that exist in capitalism tend to be capitalists with "traditional marketing". Even if they still have some formal political-powers, it's never more than symbolic stuff that would evaporate the moment they tried to use those in a political contest.

>You seem to confuse monarchy as a form of government with feudalism as a mode of production.
No monarchical rule is the super structure of a feudal base, which usually means an agricultural mode of production

>The solution is short term limits
Yup liberalism detected.
The liberals invented political term limits because people kept re-electing economically left-leaning governments in certain bourgeois electoral democracies. Which meant that reformers could be re-elected often enough to reform out of capitalism. And they put in term-limits to prevent that. It's very undemocratic, because it's basically overriding the democratic will of the electorate.


I think your motives might be to define the DPRK as a monarchy to comply within the ruling narrative of imperialism.

>>467130
>>467158
>>467160

>>467126

—-
Nobody has actually substantiated the claim that North Korea has a lot of corruption.

>>467163
Ya. Don't you have any experience in the real world?

>>467162
What a retard. Comrade Dunning Kruger, you need sleep. This is laughable even for you.

>>467165
where's the evidence for corruption in the DPRK

>>467167
Are you on indica or sativa today?

>>467161
>Yup liberalism detected.
Choke on my dick pathetic theorylet twerp
I've had enough of your moronic takes

>The liberals invented political term limits
Wrong.

>Which meant that reformers could be re-elected often enough to reform out of capitalism. And they put in term-limits to prevent that.
Shit pet theory. Any reformer would be offed long before he could "reform" out of capitalism.
Also I guess Hitler doing away with term limits was the epitome of democracy now lol.

>It's very undemocratic, because it's basically overriding the democratic will of the electorate.
"democratic will of the electorate" is an oxymoron
"the electorate" by definition has no political will, it's just impotent cattle

"democratic will" is when you execute all of the archons cause you fucking feel like it

"democratic will" is when you proclaim your own Emperor, take the Eternal City by force, purge the senators, decimate the praetorian guard, and have your Emperor's last words of advice be "enrich the soldiers and despise everyone else"

"democratic will" is when you threaten to sack London if the King's head doesn't roll

limpdick bitch

>They didn't have much power in tribal society, and in slave society the slavers were the most powerful.
slaveowners also were owners of land retardoid

>I don't know to what extend you can say that people claiming land in earlier modes of production already constituted private property, because that usually entails state enforcement
state along with hereditary aristocracy emerged out of the dissolution of clan societies

>I find your claim that ML systems were unstable, unconvincing.
I don't give a fuck
you're a nobody

>State socialism managed to endure the most extreme situations.
The only thing that ML retardation has "managed to" by itself is shitting the bed like no other society before it.
Soviet Union weathered the storm on Stalin's watch.

>No Capitalist bourgeois political system has even come close to this.
illiterate historylet mouth breather

The First Republic weathered no lesser storm than the Soviet Union, and the newborn French Empire has gone on to steamrolling all of the old feudal Europe.

>What does this even mean ?
It means that the Kim is the general secretary by default.

>Previously you said the DPRK wasn't an ML state
Where?

Try rereading multiple times if your illiterate ass can't understand simple sentences.

>You sound like a monarchy apologist.
I don't give a fuck what I sound like to some nobody retard on the internet.

It's my take on it, deal with it.

>oof
it's called a metaphor..

>great man theory
nah, Soviet Union collapsed in the end after all
only without Stalin it would've collapsed much earlier

I don't care if this fact of life rattles your dogmoid sensibilities
All you need to do to understand the importance of Stalin factor is to look at his contemporaries, what someone has aptly noted as a "sea of gray"

limpdicks Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov
idiot Beria
lapdog Malenkov

this is your elite vanguard, mltard
a bunch of blind kittens bumbling in the dark
this is what your political system amounts to without the Stalin factor

and your own vegetable tier mental level is just another proof of this

>So now you admit that the DPRK is socialism and not a monarchy.
Again. Retard.

Monarchy is a form of government. A superstructure.

Socialism is an economic system. A base.

Basic things, retard. BASIC.

>It kinda does.
It does not, historylet.

Google Hellenistic period.

>No monarchical rule is the super structure of a feudal base
Wrong.

>which usually means an agricultural mode of production
there is no such thing as an "agrarian mode of production" theorylet

>I think your motives might be to define the DPRK as a monarchy to comply within the ruling narrative of imperialism.
It IS a monarchy.

Reality doesn't care about your feeling, and neither do I.

Tfw you're a midwit loser who fancies themselves as an expert on everything.

>one person comes along to point out you're a midwit loser but refuses to even engage with your horseshit college sophomore bad takes

So you scream about fallacies like some faggot who surfs reddit constantly

>another person comes along and actually points out several things you're just plain wrong about

Time to load up another bowl before doubling down on being a retarded dunning kruger faggot

<Seriously bro. This is embarrassing.

>>467173
>All you need to do to understand the importance of Stalin factor is to look at his contemporaries
oh, and don't ever bring up such sub zero autism score "old bolsheviks" as Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Radek, Trotsky

they were even worse, at least limpdicks were not leftoid dogmoids and enemy class collaborators

>>466481

DPRK isn't quite a monarchy, but I think it's up-in-the-air whether or not it's socialist. The Kims are absolutely a dynasty, and their appeal is to national identity - it's been a while since I've gotten much into this stuff, but Juche seems to be a mix of modern nationalism, Maoism, and a kind of benign (?) monarchy. The legitimacy of the government seems principally maintained by national military power (which they indeed have in spades) rather than economic quality, which would sound pretty fascist save that, as far as I'm aware, they still use a (mostly) centrally planned economy.

So there are economic ideas derived from MLism, but the political and social structure of the country seems more based in a dictatorship of Korean national identity than the proletariat. It seems pretty far removed from Marxism, this dynastic leadership upheld by the military.

All this isn't a condemnation, in case someone with comprehension difficulties gets the wrong idea. NK has a right to exist, and nobody should be fucking with them.

>>467204
Rights are fake though

>>467205

So are borders, money, and words - even "fake," here. What's it mean? It's gibberish. Just a bunch of chicken scratch imbued with arbitrary meaning, unless there's some reason to imbue it with meaning, some usefulness.

>>467214
And so is your manhood

>>467205
"fake" and "abstraction" are two different things and something being an abstraction doesn't inherently make it bad or not useful.

>>467221
Comrade dk just reupped and is ready to enlighten us

Socialism can unironically be somewhat monarchic.