North Korean Workers in China Riot over Unpaid Wages; 2,000 Occupy Factory, Kill Plant Manager
North Korean Workers in China Riot over Unpaid Wages; 2,000 Occupy Factory, Kill Plant Manager
You're viewing a single thread.
187 comments
-
They should consider Communism.
-
I wonder if they think they actually DO live under communism?
-
-
What do you mean? Communist podcasts I listened to consider them Communist, Internet search says the BBC says they are Communist.
Edit: you all like to downvote instead of having a conversation. Everybody hasn't studied every subject, try sharing a little of what you know instead of discouraging discussion
-
Theyre a classless society with no currency?
You sure they arent a capitalist dictatorship disguised as Communist?
-
You make some good points. They most definitely have currency and a lower working class with an upper government official class. I would not consider them communist at all. North Korea is just an authoritarian capitalistic hellhole, that tries to sprinkle in one or two socialist policies to maintain the illusion of pursuing communism.
-
Just slap a coat of red paint and a gold star on it and call it communist.
-
I see in reading more that NK is pretty far from communist. But I think people have imagined communism to be something that it never could be. I don't see how society could exist without money. I see that Soviets thought that eventually they wouldn't need money but I think this is unrealistic and I don't see that existence of money in a society could be used to determine if it's communist or not. .
-
Marx said that socialism is the gateway for communism. Bring the means of prouction to the working class, then youd be able to make the next transition to communism.
In any case, there are no societies currently that meet the primary criteria for being called socialist OR communist.
-
I think the Zapatistas are doing pretty good at being socialists. They're not that far off from pure communism, either.
-
-
I don’t see how society could exist without money.
The fact you are incapable of understanding something doesn't change truth.
-
Exactly, satisfying the highest standard is not a criteria for categorisation. It's the same as saying USA isn't capitalistic because governament regulations are still a thing
-
-
This is the problem with people promoting socialism. They tend to compare idealized version of socialism with real version of capitalism. And such comparison inevitably leads to unrealistic conclusions.
The problem is that real version of socialism is what you see in China or Cuba or former USSR. The argument with "we haven't done socialism right" is the same as "we haven't done capitalism right".
I have been born in socialist country and to this day I can see negative consequences of that era. And the obvious reason why ideal socialism can't exist - people. Same reason why capitalism sucks.
Edit: To people downvoting me: Your fake internet points have no meaning, but I love the irony of it. You can't even keep the illusion of classlessness and equality in an internet thread, yet you are somehow convinced you could run a country like that. You'd be locking people for life in your communist paradise just for having different opinion and you know it.
-
Definition of Socialism: the workers own the means of production.
Which country were you born in where you owned the means of production?
-
I was born in country where intellectuals were in jail and uneducated workers were put to management positions, because they should own the means of production or some bullshit like that. You can imagine the end result of that.
And again, this is the same "that wasn't true socialism" argument. Obviously it wasn't. The socialism as per your definition can't exist on a country level. You can see it being implemented on a small company level (think family owned businesses) but the bigger it gets the more the cracks show and it just does not scale.
-
You don't need money going to shareholders in order to scale. You need management structure. Even anarchists would say they're against unnecessary hierarchy, and at least a little structure is generally necessary. Top management does not need to be paid 300-to-1 over the average worker. Nor do they need to specifically represent shareholders, which is what a CEO is.
-
No we'd say we're against hierarchy because hierarchy is evil and organisation doesn't imply it. It's an important corner stone to look out for as hierarchical realism (the notion that organisation just doesn't work between equals) is the fundamental opponent. On the contrary, if you look at systems, complexity and chaos theory it becomes clear that it's hierarchical systems which are fundamentally flawed, can, by their very structure, not process information nearly as well. SNAFU.
-
Right but as soon as you have hierarchy, you have classes. You can have hierarchy in family owned business and it can work with everyone doing their best for the good of the business/family. But these social structures fall apart as the hierarchy grows bigger. And very soon what's good for your family is not necessary good for the business - including non-monetary stuff like how much time you spend working or how hard your job is. Notice how there's not a single CEO or shareholder in the picture and the system is already falling apart.
There is this famous saying from communist times: "If you're not stealing, you're stealing from your family" That pretty much sums it up.
You can't have working socialism with humans, because the system is inhuman by its very nature. (and I don't mean it in bad way even if the consequences end up being really nasty for many human beings)
-
-
-
-
Lenin himself called the system he instituted state capitalism, it was supposed to be a transitory state as Marx said (and the Bolsheviks were very big on historical materialism) that first you have capitalism, develop productivity, then communism would follow naturally as a consequence of resolving capitalism's inherent contradictions.
The gaslighting started with Stalin, who invented the term "really existing socialism" to make it doubly clear that it was neither real, existed, or was socialism.
The closest any society ever got to communism isn't via the Bolshevik "dictatorship of the proletariat" (aka dictatorship of the state bureaucracy), but via Anarchism. Horizontal organisation, abolish hierarchies. Very early revolutionary Russia qualifies until the Bolsheviks abolished councils in practice, Rojava qualifies, Chiapas qualifies, revolutionary Spain (until Bolsheviks teamed up with fascists to kill it off), revolutionary Ukraine (until the Bolsheviks -- I think you see the pattern).
-
Interesting tidbit I picked up on an Andrewisim video recently: organizations from the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist branch of the left are particularly vulnerable to falling into cult behavior. It's a reason to consider the whole branch to be bad and cut it right off. If not that far, then at least view organizations from that branch with a lot of criticism.
-
Yes, exactly it always fails, because it just does not scale. It's an idea, that can't exist in reality on a country level. You can point to Freetown Christiania as an example - a small anarchist commune, that already shows some major cracks in its structure. I mean, just grow family business a bit and you can already see structures and hierarchy emerging.
-
Rojava is about 4.6 million people, about as many as Kuwait. About 11 Icelands worth of population.
-
Yeah that one is probably closest. Still pretty far from socialism and held together by military with child soldiers.
-
Still pretty far from socialism
Plenty of worker control and ownership. If you want to get technical I'd say it's a mixture of state socialism (only other example: Yugoslavia) and anarchism.
held together by military with child soldiers.
You mean the less than 200 16-18yolds which were demobilised like ten years ago.
The thing is that the YPG is organised horizontally, tons of independent militias and in some locales 16yold bearing arms was understood as being completely kosher, so it happened, and then the larger structure and the world got wind of it, and not doing it was added to the memorandum of understanding between all the sub militias.
There might be some technical gripes as the YPG is not officially a state actor and according to the letter of international law only states are allowed to recruit 15yolds into the military (for non-combat roles), and you can join the YPG with 16, but frankly speaking that's not really an argument, it can be countered by saying "de facto" a lot.
You, OTOH, make it sound as if it were some African warlord with boot camps for 10yolds they raided as slaves. The situation is quite different, it was teens saying "ISIS killed my family I want a rifle to fuck them up". And TBF there's practically nothing more lethal than a 17yold gal with a sniper rifle and a grudge.
-
Thanks for detailed reply. I didn't mean it in a bad way. It certainly wasn't well written comment. Apologies.
What I failed to convey is that IMO this is not best example as It's a community stuck between rock and a hard place. A lot of what it is right now seems to exist out of necessity. Which makes me wonder how well would it work if there were other realistic options that aren't absolutely horrible.
Like if you lifted the entire land and dropped it in the middle of the EU with free market and mobility, would it still exist? I don't think it would. For the same reasons I mentioned earlier.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ironic
-
Well at least they have the right to (down)vote then. That isn't that common in the socialist paradise last time I've checked. 🤣
-
-
-
-
It's rather anti communist to be ruled by a dictator, and certainly a hereditary one. That's as close as you get to monarchy, which is the antithesis of communism.
The irony is that the people are good that they live in an communist utopia, and while everyone shares the same circumstances that can hold. It's only when living abroad when they see they are being exploited, like the rioters in this case.
-
It's because they haven't winnowed the State as Marx described. The problem is that once certain members of the Proletariat get their hands upon the levers of power, they find they rather like it and don't want to let go.
-
It's okay to be downvoted. That just means you're the proxy for which people question what should be questioned (even if the informed answers are already very clear), that you've touched on impactful and deep subject matter. Don't be sad about a meaningless red number.
-
Nine times out of ten, those kinds of questions are never done in good faith so they tend to be downvoted. It's called sealioning.
-
Oh wait that's a much safer term to describe those antics than what I've been using. I've always known it as "JAQing off" (just asking questions).
-
There seems to be a bit of a difference, even though both involve asking questions. To quote wiktionary:
sealioning (uncountable)
A type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter, in order to wear down an opponent and incite angry responses that will discredit them.Apparently coined by this webcomic:
JAQ off (third-person singular simple present JAQs off, present participle JAQing off, simple past and past participle JAQed off) (slang, derogatory) To ask loaded questions inviting someone to justify their views or behaviours, in an attempt to make tangential claims of little verisimilitude appear acceptable.
So the way I understand it, "JAQing off" is when you're trying to guide your audience towards a certain conclusion without stating it outright (e.g. "Are the official numbers of holocaust victims really as solid as people claim? Are there alternative historical interpretations? I'm just asking questions here, not implying anything folks." when you think just saying "The holocaust didn't happen!" might make it too obvious you're a Nazi), while sealioning is more about annoying the other party and trying to make them look bad/unreasonable and yourself polite and reasonable in comparison (e.g. "I'm just curious, is there any actual evidence that fascists are inherently bad people, as you claim? As a person with no opinion on the matter, I would just like to have an honest and open debate on this subject." so when people reply with something like "Fuck off, fascist!" you can say "Wow, so much for the tolerant left."). Both tactics are frequently applied by online trolls, especially of the far right, but they have somewhat different goals.
-
-
And this is a place where we have the authority to call people out on their bullshit and make everybody more informed in the process. Deep Canvasing is more effective than Sealioning.
Nice iFunny watermark, heathen
-
Ah yeah, that's what they all say amirite?
I've probably only met a handful of communist who admit to the crimes of communist regimes and acknowledged that communism in practice never lived up to the ideals. But they're only far and few and majority of communists engages in bad faith behaviour, especially when you list all the bad things communists states have done and they go "no true communists fallacy" or "what gulag?". Or, even if they acknowledge the arbitrary arrests and purge, they say "those people deserved it".
But yeah, keep feigning acting in good faith. I've seen this many times.
-
-
-
Hey thanks!
-
-
-
-
It seems like with that level of militancy they've got some pretty powerful class consciousness.
-
187 comments