Oh, I was accidentally right then, haha. Does that make me double wrong? 😅

Essay? Article? Don’t know what the word for it is, excerpt is wrong though now that I think about it.

Great excerpt! Definitely helps to show his method in action.

As @DefinitelyNotAPhone@hexbear.net said, there’s a huge difference between selectively using Nazis for their knowledge on R&D while keeping them on a tight leash, imprisoning, and even executing them, and what the West did, which involved giving them cushy jobs, erasing their crimes, and putting them in the highest seats of leadership of organizations like NATO. The West loved the Nazis (still does), the Soviets hated them.

Lemmy’s primary devs are Marxists, as are a ton of its users.

The fact that the CPSU was under constant danger of infiltration and espionage, and thus needed to be purged, does not contradict Stalin’s reported style of leadership as recognized by the CIA in an internal document shared in the meme above. The USSR, throughout its early period (founding until end of World War II), was under constant siege, invasions by capitalist powers, civil war, and active infiltrarion by fascists. These drastic conditions required resolute actions, ones broadly supported both by the party as well as by the general population. We are cutting out the Cold War and Red Scare for the purpose of this conversation, but it wasn’t that the siege lessened, it just changed character.

Stalin’s style of leadership in meetings was generally recognized as being quiet, allowing other members of the Politburo to speak up first, contemplating, then coming to a firm motion to push for and vote on. This was an effective method of leadership, and is what the CIA is principly describing here as being a “captain of the team.” Additionally, Stalin tried to resign no fewer than 4 times, all of which were rejected. Had he abandoned his post against the wishes of the Politburo, there would possibly be political crisis.

I recommend you read Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend. Losurdo challenges the liberal over-demonization of Stalin while shedding accurate light on Stalin’s real and genuine shortcomings and mistakes. It’s perhaps the best attempt by a modern writer to utilize all of the information we actually have available to sweep away the mountain of Red Scare propaganda to recognize the real Stalin, both good and bad.

?

I think you should use this as an opportunity to get to learn the political structure of the DPRK a bit more. The Kims are beloved, but not all-powerful, the WPK isn’t even the only party in government, but a coalition.

But, take care!

Kim Jong-Un is the head of the WPK, the main (but not only) political party in the DPRK. If my argument sounds like “billionaires aren’t wealthy because they don’t have much liquid,” then you need to study Marxist economics more. Kim Jong-Un isn’t performing an M-C…P…C’-M’ circuit, production in the DPRK isn’t funneled to him. They have a planned economy.

Secondly, most of the starvation happened in the rural areas, which were even more underdeveloped. One of Kim Jong-Un’s major campaign goals is to bring the rural development more in line with the urban development. Social stratification exists in all socialist states, the USSR for example had a difference of about 10 times from the top to the bottom on average, but in capitalist systems this number is in the hundreds to millions to even billions. Equality is not the goal of Marxism, satisfying the needs of everyone and planning production more coherently is the goal.

As for labor organizing, yes, it’s done by the WPK. Marxism has no basis in pushing for labor organizing outside the state, in a centrally planned economy this kind of organization leads to some areas having undue privledge. This was found early on in the USSR, that’s why the Soviet system took over the factory committee style that was more localized and worked against the broader planned economy.

Again, I have my criticisms, but the DPRK should he able to chart their own course. I think you should read up on Marxism a bit more, without a firm analysis of capitalism it can be difficult to understand why public ownership and planning is so different from private ownership and markets. Not saying you need to read Capital yet, but just some good research at first.

The economic strarification in the DPRK is among the lowest in the world. The DPRK is not a wealthy country, nor is the Kim family excessively wealthy. They have privledges above and beyond the average person, no doubt, but the function of the DPRK’s economy fundamentally cannot reach the same levels of stratification that capitalist economies do. The DPRK is not really a market economy, it doesn’t really engage in traditional commodity production outside of Rason and other areas, and because of that rhere aren’t these extreme profits to give to the Kim family even if they wanted to.

You also keep repeating the idea that there’s very little democratic input, but that just isn’t the case. The system requires worker input to function, it isn’t a capitalist economy that can rely on markets to sort distribution. There’s money, for sure, and some limited private property, but fundamentally the system cannot exist without those running society being able to have a say. The Kim family couldn’t possibly run everything by themselves even if they wanted to. Labor is collectively organized, society-wide.

As far as control of information is concerned, that’s a very standard measure proposed by Marx in the manifesto itself, it’s very easy for outside influences to overwhelm the information sphere for their own gain. The US has been known to do that, especially with tools like Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, etc. Defectors were far more common in the past, during the Arduous March when the Soviet Union dissolved and natural disasters led to famine. There are even defectors that risk their lives going back to the DPRK.

All in all, you seem extremely confident in your view of the DPRK for someone who has done no research whatsoever. If you haven’t, then make it a point to learn. The Black Panther Party were such big fans of the DPRK that after visiting they adopted Juche into their practice. Again, I have my own criticisms, but it’s hard to have a conversation with someone who hasn’t done any research and doesn’t seem to be interested in sources I bring to the table either.

There are a large number of claims you’ve made here with no sources. Where are you getting your information from?

This is in stark contrast to the NK system, where the lower classes have absolutely no say in their representation and next to no say in the economic sphere.

First, property is near entirely state-owned. There are very controlled and minor elements of private property, like the Rason Special Economic Zone, but production is handled at the state level. The state isn’t a class, and neither are administrators, but extensions of class. Saying “lower classes” doesn’t really make any sense, here. There’s also a good deal of collective decision making in the economy, since it’s a centralized economy and everyone is pretty much a worker in the same system, this is a necessary implement for the economy to function.

My issue is that North Korea is doing absolutely nothing to eliminate class distinctions; on the contrary, they use incredibly oppressive rule to prevent the lower classes from achieving anything approaching political or economic power.

Again, I’m not sure you know what a class is. A class is a social relation to production. The only way to eliminate class is to collectivize all of production, globally, and the DPRK has a very collectivized economy. There are criticisms to be made of its economy, but certainly not along the ideas of class.

But this is all largely irrelevant to my larger point: what actually makes North Korea “leftist?” The oppressive state control, the violent oppression of the lower classes in favor of a ruling elite, the restriction of basic personal and economic freedoms, the intense control of information, control of movement, and oppressive violence are, again, what we would expect from a far-right dictatorship.

The DPRK is leftist because it has a collectivized, socialist economy. That doesn’t mean it’s a utopia, but on the other hand the people actually do support their system, because they are doing well when contextualizing the extreme violence they face through brutal sanctions and recovering from genocide at the hands of the US. There aren’t “lower classes” and “higher classes,” but stratification in society due to different roles in the collectivized system (outside areas like Rason, which have private property and engage in foreign trade). Far-right regimes rely on bourgeois property and systems run for the purpose of the profit motive, but the DPRK’s system is a centralized economy run for fulfilling needs.

Who owns the means of production in North Korea? It sure doesn’t look like the workers to me.

The means of production are publicly owned.

Overall, I really think you need to do more research on the DPRK. I have my own criticisms with it, but ultimately they aren’t an imperialist nation and are supportive of their system. It’s up to them to chart their own course. My hope is that one day the ROK and DPRK can normalize relations, and the entire Korean people can be unified once more, progressing hand in hand to a better future. The fact that the US millitary illegalized the popularly supported pan-Korean state and split it in two against the will of the Korean people is a tragedy time hasn’t healed yet.

I’ll take a shot at it.

1. What is the difference between a “strongman” and a head of state? What makes one socialist system with a leader acceptable and leftist, and another not? Are all leaders inherently antithetical to leftism, in your views? If so, then that disqualifies the vast majority of Marxism.

2. When you hear Marxists talk about statelessness, there are two important factors. The first is that the state, in the eyes of Marxists, is distinct from administration, management, etc, the state is the instrument by which the ruling class, the one with firm control over the means of production, oppresses the other classes in society. The second is that the state can only disappear when class disappears, and class can only disappear when all production globally is collectivized. If any socialist state erased itself, its armies, its control over capital, etc, it would be invaded and collapsed immediately.

3. Hierarchy of power is more of an anarchist critique than a Marxist critique. Anarchists see hierarchy in general as bad (with some caveats), while Marxists critique class dynamics. A full, late-stage communist society would lack a state, but would still have managers, administrators, and hierarchy (though no class).

This doesn’t exclusively apply to the DPRK, but any AES state. The biggest issue with your analysis is grafting anarchist ideals onto Marxists, when our analysis is entirely different in the final result. We may share a hatred of capitalism and a desire for a better world based on cooperation, but there are fundamental differences between anarchist horizontalism and decentralization, and Marxist collectivization and centralization.

To be fair, some do end up listening over time. I’ve seen people listen, change their mind, and start reading theory and dropping the anti-communism. That doesn’t change that some social fascists and radlibs will endlessly complain about Marxists like it’s the 60s in the US Empire, but in my experience most of us Marxist-Leninists were at some point liberals, especially in the global north.

Okay? Strange behavior on your part, you might want to look into a mirror.

Don’t really follow, are you just saying that because I’m opinionated and like to talk about Marxism, I’m the same kind of shit-stirrer that constantly posts memes trying to provoke a response, and mods a bunch of drama communities specifically about snooping on people for screengrabs? I can’t say I agree.

I don’t see what this has to do with Trump or data collected by GPUs.

What does China have to do with this?

@Provinto@lemmy.ml gave an excellent answer, but I figured I’d take my shot at simplifying further.

Essentially, the bourgeois state is formed over time to support bourgeois society. A revolution that tries to wield it in its own favor has to contend with the fact that over time, the state as a superstructure is fully compatible with its respective base, capitalism. In order to change the base and superstructure, an entirely new state needs to take its place, not just in name but in structure, otherwise the old superstructure left hanging will wrest back control, like what happened at the Paris Commune.

I pretty plainly admit to focusing on correcting misinterpretations of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, I spend very little time power posting, and I don’t own and moderate drama communities. I also don’t downvote troll people, or stalk them and post about them on drama comms.

I’m certainly opinionated, and have my own political views I don’t shy away from, but I think it’s pretty clear that this is a fundamentally different situation.

Deeply unserious behavior.