You must log in or # to comment.
Ah, I see that the old Soviet system, vanguard democracy, is still in effect in the DPRK.
This is still a better system than liberal democracy, where oligarchs make it impossible to choose a non-corrupt candidate that doesn’t do the bidding of the oligarchs after lying throughout the entire candidacy. And that’s by design.But this system has been superseded by China’s layered voting system, I believe introduced by Deng Xiaoping.
Yea, candidates are generally chosen from a broader group than this implies, and your meme puts a negative twist on literally every aspect for no reason whatsoever. Further, membership of political parties isn’t private and locked down, you can join political parties. I don’t know what your deal is, you keep making vaguely targeted memes after getting called out for the same error of taking your personal fears of mishandling and turning them into percieved reality. Same with your repeated idea of a “political class,” where you erase the concept of class as it relates to ownership of the means of production and twist it into meaning “type of job.”
Copying over a comment I gave for you:
The DPRK has a form of socialist democracy largely similar to the USSR and PRC, but adapted to the unique conditions of the DPRK’s existence and history. 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, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting.
Yea, candidates are generally chosen from a broader group than this implies
Candidates can be selected from non-party members, but they are absolutely selected by the party members, and after nomination are assigned a party.
your meme puts a negative twist on literally every aspect for no reason whatsoever.
The reason is humor. That, and I feel negatively.
membership of political parties isn’t private and locked down, you can join political parties.
You can join any political party you want in the same sense that you can work for any company you want in a Bourgeois society. That is, you can join if they want you to.
I don’t know what your deal is,
My deal is that I’m interested in how a bunch of Communists convinced themselves to support undemocratic political structures. I have read some Lenin and Mao, but its not the same as engaging with people who really believe in it. We’re all people, and ones with ostensibly similar political aims, and yet we came to such different conclusions.
you keep making vaguely targeted memes
there have recently been so many pro-DPRK memes, will you not begrudge me a few critical memes?
after getting called out for the same error of taking your personal fears of mishandling and turning them into percieved reality.
From where am I to learn about “reality”? Not personal testimony, not by reading legal documents, not by thinking about the consequences of consolidated political power? Am I to assume that a state doesn’t oppress its citizens and is democratic merely because it purports to be inspired by the teachings of Karl Marx?
Same with your repeated idea of a “political class,” where you erase the concept of class as it relates to ownership of the means of production and twist it into meaning “type of job.”
Either you do not understand what control is, or you refuse to acknowledge a class not mentioned in the writings of Friedrich Engels.
Copying over a comment I gave for you
Yes, I read the book. Thank you. It was a little out of date, but overall informative.
You can join any political party you want in the same sense that you can work for any company you want in a Bourgeois society. That is, you can join if they want you to.
It’s good actually that capitalists, fascists and reactionaries are banned from grasping political power.
Either you do not understand what control is, or you refuse to acknowledge a class not mentioned in the writings of Friedrich Engels.
Yes obviously doctors and nurses are different classes just like principals and teachers. (Sarcasm)
My deal is that I’m interested in how a bunch of Communists convinced themselves to support undemocratic political structures. I have read some Lenin and Mao, but its not the same as engaging with people who really believe in it. We’re all people, and ones with ostensibly similar political aims, and yet we came to such different conclusions.
You skimmed Lenin and Mao have no real grasp on any of the fundamentals but think yourself a scholar hence you come to malformed conclusions that are unworkable and entirely detached from reality and struggle. If you actually studied Marxist theory and engaged with the reality and history of the struggles of the people you would likely have far less inane views and they would most likely line up with those who have engaged too. I also think you don’t really understand what democracy is as you seem to believe anything outside of Western style bourgeois democracy is not real democracy.
Candidates can be selected from non-party members, but they are absolutely selected by the party members, and after nomination are assigned a party.
Somewhat, and you’re not even factoring in the taean system at the factory level.
The reason is humor. That, and I feel negatively.
I don’t really think taking a permanently negative, endlessly “skeptical” stance towards some of the most propagandized against countries in the world is a good thing. It reeks of chauvanism and “left” anti-communism.
You can join any political party you want in the same sense that you can work for any company you want in a Bourgeois society. That is, you can join if they want you to.
Sure? That’s a good thing, parties should be able to expel corrupt or poorly-performing members. You can’t have your cake and eat it here too, either parties have to be open and thus vulnerable to the corruption you keep hinting that they may have, or they need mechanisms for preventing such problems and dealing with them as they arise. Again, “left” anti-communism.
My deal is that I’m interested in how a bunch of Communists convinced themselves to support undemocratic political structures. I have read some Lenin and Mao, but its not the same as engaging with people who really believe in it. We’re all people, and ones with ostensibly similar political aims, and yet we came to such different conclusions.
The political structures are democratic, though. The reason you and I have come to different conclusions is that you let a fantasy of “pure socialism” in your head, free of hierarchy, problems, and class struggle, be the enemy of existing socialist systems. This is why you kept getting quoted Gramsci’s teardown of Bordiga:
Comrade Bordiga limits himself to upholding a cautious position on all the questions raised by the Left. He doesn’t say: the International poses and resolves such and such a question in this way, but the Left will instead pose and resolve it this other way. He instead says: the way the International poses and resolves problems doesn’t convince me; I fear they might slip into opportunism; there are insufficient guarantees against this; etc. His position, then, is one of permanent suspicion and doubt. In this way the position of the “Left” is purely negative: they express reservations without specifying them in a concrete form, and above all without indicating in concrete form their own point of view and their solutions. They end up spreading doubt and distrust without offering anything constructive.
The article begins with a characteristic metaphysical hypothesis: Comrade Bordiga asks whether we can 100% exclude the possibility that the Communist International will slip into opportunism. But we could also ask whether it’s possible to exclude the possibility that even Comrade Bordiga would become an opportunist, that the Pope will become an atheist, that Henry Ford will become a communist, etc. In the realm of metaphysical possibilities one can muse indefinitely, but a Marxist should pose the question differently: Is there a real possibility that the Communist International is no longer the vanguard of the proletariat, but is rather en route to becoming the expression of the workers’ aristocracy, corrupted by the bourgeoisie? When the question is posed Marxistically it becomes easy for any comrade to resolve it.
This all applies perfectly to your use of skepticism as a weapon to avoid actually grappling with the complexities of building socialism in real life. You take the possibility of problems with a system as evidence for failure.
there have recently been so many pro-DPRK memes, will you not begrudge me a few critical memes?
Why should the fact that there are pro-DPRK memes justify anti-DPRK memes? If there were a bunch of anti-slavery memes, would having a pro-slavery meme be justified in the name of “balance?” No. This argument doesn’t hold any water. My issue with your “criticism” is the same as that of Gramsci’s towards Bordiga: your critique is “sterile and negative,” it offers no solutions and only spreads doubt and division. This isn’t comradely critique, it’s just doomerism.
From where am I to learn about “reality”? Not personal testimony, not by reading legal documents, not by thinking about the consequences of consolidated political power? Am I to assume that a state doesn’t oppress its citizens and is democratic merely because it purports to be inspired by the teachings of Karl Marx?
You begin by reading and studying. Read the news, laws, and what pro-socialist groups are saying. You aren’t to “assume” anything, we must find the truth from facts. The problem here is that you are assuming the opposite, that a socialist state is anti-democratic and is oppressing its citizens for no reason.
Either you do not understand what control is, or you refuse to acknowledge a class not mentioned in the writings of Friedrich Engels.
I understand what control is, I have yet to see you make a compelling argument for why we should abandon the Marxist understanding of class. You kept trying to invent the idea of an administrator class, but experience shows that the Marxist understanding of class is correct, that the state is representative of the ruling class in society, and not outside of that.
Yes, I read the book. Thank you. It was a little out of date, but overall informative.
It was published in 2023. It isn’t as up-to-date as it would be if it were written today, but in terms of scholarly texts on socialist democracy in english it’s one of the latest.
Overall, the problems with your “critique” is that you offer no solutions, feel entirely too comfortable speaking your mind as though factual without doing due dilligence beforehand, and that this contributes towards anti-revolutionary doomerism rather than constructive, comradely criticism from a sympathetic and knowledgeable point of view.
you’re not even factoring in the taean system at the factory level.
There is only so much room on the canvas, but Chongsanri and Taean seem to be based on similar principles as the rest of the government.
permanently negative, endlessly “skeptical” stance
I don’t mean to be only negative. There are great things about places like the USSR, China, Cuba, and probably North Korea too. However, I think that is due to the benefits of Platonic Aristocracy, not Socialism.
It reeks of chauvanism
You keep saying that I can’t expect non-western countries to have “western” democracy. It sounds like you’re saying only white people can have democracy. While there are plenty of non-western liberal democracies, I agree with the criticism that they aren’t that democratic. I would look to more radical forms, like DAANES, and urge the continued research into possible undiscovered strategies.
and “left” anti-communism.
I didn’t realize Lemmy was so anti-left.
parties should be able to expel corrupt or poorly-performing members. You can’t have your cake and eat it here too, either parties have to be open and thus vulnerable to the corruption you keep hinting that they may have, or they need mechanisms for preventing such problems and dealing with them as they arise. Again, “left” anti-communism.
This is why you kept getting quoted Gramsci’s teardown of Bordiga
I’d never read Bordiga’s writings before, but I find his critique insightful:
The same process will take place in Italy as in other capitalist countries. Against the advance of the working class, a coalition of all the reactionary elements will form, from the fascists to the Popular Party and the socialists: actually, the socialists will become the vanguard of the anti-proletarian reaction because they know best the weaknesses of the working class.
That is exactly what happened. Mussolini himself was originally a socialist, and members of the Popular Party joined his government.
If there were a bunch of anti-slavery memes, would having a pro-slavery meme be justified in the name of “balance?”
The pro-DPRK memes aren’t anti-slavery, they are pro-slavery.
your critique is “sterile and negative,” it offers no solutions and only spreads doubt and division.
Challenge accepted, I will try to make a meme that offers solutions, and I expect no negativity in response, as that isn’t comradely.
Read…what pro-socialist groups are saying.
Pro-socialist, or pro-DPRK? If a group is critical of the DPRK do you consider it to be not socialist?
The problem here is that you are assuming the opposite, that a socialist state is anti-democratic and is oppressing its citizens for no reason.
Making a democratic state is hard. All the (limited, biased) evidence points toward an oppressive state in North Korea. Forgive me if I suspect there might be some grain of truth in it.
I understand what control is, I have yet to see you make a compelling argument for why we should abandon the Marxist understanding of class. You kept trying to invent the idea of an administrator class, but experience shows that the Marxist understanding of class is correct, that the state is representative of the ruling class in society, and not outside of that.
It is such a great tragedy that Marx never finished “The State”. So many Marxists’ understanding of political power is skin-deep.
Just want to point out that Mussolini was an anarchist, and he was considered an opportunist by many before he swapt sides.
You keep saying that I can’t expect non-western countries to have “western” democracy. It sounds like you’re saying only white people can have democracy.
You have to be a troll. Western democracy is democracy in the loosest sense to keep acting like it’s the only valid form of democracy is ridiculous. I hope you eventually grow up.
Accusing me of being a troll while excluding the next sentence.
While there are plenty of non-western liberal democracies, I agree with the criticism that they aren’t that democratic.
This one? “Oh other forms of democracy exist but they’re not real democracy”.
It is trollish to interpret that as me claiming the only valid for of democracy is western democracy.
There is only so much room on the canvas, but Chongsanri and Taean seem to be based on similar principles as the rest of the government.
Sure, the DPRK’s system of democracy applies to much more than administration alone.
I don’t mean to be only negative. There are great things about places like the USSR, China, Cuba, and probably North Korea too. However, I think that is due to the benefits of Platonic Aristocracy, not Socialism.
This is phrasemongering. Again, sterile and negative, endless gesturing and no clear points. Socialism is not some holy state of being, it’s a concrete form of society where the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. All of that applies to the listed states, while aristocracy applies to none.
You keep saying that I can’t expect non-western countries to have “western” democracy. It sounds like you’re saying only white people can have democracy. While there are plenty of non-western liberal democracies, I agree with the criticism that they aren’t that democratic. I would look to more radical forms, like DAANES, and urge the continued research into possible undiscovered strategies.
I don’t keep saying that, actually. I have explained the difference between socialist democracy and liberal democracy, and the importance of consultative democracy. You picking DAANES as an example of what you would support just furthers this chauvanist viewpoint, treating structures that arise from socialists organizing in their own conditions and thinking you can just copy and paste to wildly different conditions. Again, you let the fact that the DPRK’s democracy doesn’t fit your individual preferences stand in the way of supporting the right of the DPRK to determine its own democratic structures based on their own conditions.
I didn’t realize Lemmy was so anti-left.
This is a cheap retort, not a real point. Marxists have attacked ultraleft dogmatists since Marx, it’s not the leftism that’s the problem, it’s the anti-communism using “left” sounding arguments, your habit of letting your fantasy socialism stand in the way of those concretely building real socialism.
I’d never read Bordiga’s writings before, but I find his critique insightful:
This is not the point that was discussed, you dodged the point to talk about something irrelevant. Nobody is saying that absolutely everything Bordiga ever wrote was wrong, but instead that he was more of a metaphysician and an idealist, and as such his analysis was closer to that of a liberal, against real progressive movements and arresting the movement of socialists in the west.
The pro-DPRK memes aren’t anti-slavery, they are pro-slavery.
This is both a non-sequitor and is bullshit. I used the slavery point as an analogy to prove why “balance” is unnecessary, and as I explained the DPRK has no slavery. Universal conscription is not slavery.
Challenge accepted, I will try to make a meme that offers solutions, and I expect no negativity in response, as that isn’t comradely.
The merit of whatever you post will be judged on its own merits, the fact that this post is highly flawed for one set of reasons does not mean a different post would not have other flaws.
Pro-socialist, or pro-DPRK? If a group is critical of the DPRK do you consider it to be not socialist?
Depends, really, but I have found the DPRK to be a great litmus test for judging how serious a socialist org is.
Making a democratic state is hard. All the (limited, biased) evidence points toward an oppressive state in North Korea. Forgive me if I suspect there might be some grain of truth in it.
This isn’t true, though. All of the legitimate evidence points towards a state governed by the working classes working in their collective interests.
It is such a great tragedy that Marx never finished “The State”. So many Marxists’ understanding of political power is skin-deep.
Vagueposting is worthless. Make a real point, don’t try to justify your anti-Marxist position on class and the state by invoking Marx. You didn’t even quotefarm Marx for this one, you just implied that what he may have written may have disagreed with his own positions and agreed with yours. This isn’t an argument.
Yeah who’s working on these private memberships and how are they any more private than a US senator (gotta have millions to run)
The US is not famous for the integrity of it’s democracy, but almost anything is better than this.
Peek of chauvanism. Purely ignoring class, the fact that the US Empire is a settler-colonial dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and looking at models alone, as though they supercede the class character of the state. Utter nonsense.
Yeah a “democracy” that allows a cabal of pedophiles and rapists dictate the country and invade and kill other people in the global south is better!
It really doesn’t need to be a contest between those two.
Geopolitics is literally a contest between the two.
Would you describe yourself as more of a kimilsungist, or a kimjongilist, personally?
Call me traditional but I am more of a Kimilsungist
A man of taste
They aren’t opposed terms, Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism is the term they use in the DPRK for juche socialism, ie Marxism-Leninism with the juche idea implemented.
