3 ms·

North Korea is an absolut monarchy not a communist country, even if they say so, they also say they are a people's democratic republic and it's clear they're n

North Korea is an absolut monarchy not a communist country, even if they say so, they also say they are a people's democratic republic and it's clear they're not.

golergka 9y ago
You're implying that there's a possibility for a regime that starts from commumist ideas not to become a monarchy or oligarchy. Can you point out a real-life example where that didn't happen, please?
- ghostDancer 9y ago
  I'm not implying it, i'm just stating that North Korea is not a communist country, even if they say so. I'm not english native but i thought that my writing was quite straight and clear in this case , but well you can try and twist it to suit your ideology all you want.
- ue_ 9y ago
  What about revolutionary Catalonia? Besides that, I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is a problem with the Communist idea; Marxism is a method of analysis, and that analysis can be applied to itself to find out what the problems were, and what is necessary to move past them. It's also worth noting that almost all the states you are referring to as monarchies or oligarchies are founded on the principle of Marxism-Leninism. Perhaps this isn't the best way. Left-Communists agree with that idea. Or perhaps anarcho-Communism is a better idea. There are many schools of thought within Communism. It's unwise to dismiss it, in my opinion.
  - lucozade 9y ago
    Let's say I had a software vendor who coded everything in Brainfuck and, historically, had only produced applications that had failed catastrophically. Now, let's say they try to sell me an application that they haven't written yet. But it'll be fine, they say, because they've decided not to use Brainfuck though they won't divulge what they will use. Exactly how unwise would I be to dismiss them? I mean they might produce Utopian software next time. But is it really wise to assume so?
    - ue_ 9y ago
      I don't think that's a valid analogy; firstly, you yourself can involve yourself or be privy to the academic discussions about the future of Communist ideology, Slavoj Zizek for example writes about it, as do a few modern day Marxian economists right up to Cockshott et al. and even incorporating neo-Ricardians. Secondly, the software product hasn't been made yet, and you can decide what changes will be made. And finally, there's not just one software product (ideology), there's many of them, each with either small differences or completely different in architecture. Don't assume, get out there and take a look if you're interested. But if you're not interested, there's no need to draw up strange analogies as if they discredit a whole massive field of literature and research going back to the fall of the USSR and even before that from internal resistance (such as from Orwell, Einstein, the leftcoms and anarchists) within the USSR. Even Lenin recognised the differences in ideology, famously allowing a funeral procession for anarcho-Communist Peter Kropotkin to continue, despite his supporters being vocal opponents of the Bolsheviks. And what of the Mensheviks, too? There is too much to dismiss, at least in my opinion. Though I admit that if we want to continue with Marxism-Leninism, a specific variant of Marxism which is a specific variant of German Socialism which is a specific variant of Communism, then we should investigate that. If not, then we shouldn't dismiss the rest of Marxism, the rest of Socialism and the rest of Communism, anarchism, egoist anarchism and even post-left (Stirnerite) anarchism, or even Georgism or social democracy. If you're going to start dismissing Communism, where do you stop with it?
olalonde 9y ago
Just like Somalia isn't a libertarian country, which was parent's point.
- ghostDancer 9y ago
  I didn't say the contrary or at least i can't read it in my words, maybe there's some hidden meaning in my words i can't see but you can.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  To me Somalia and the attempts at "communist" systems demonstrate what I find to be a flaw that actually is common to both philosophies. As both purist libertarian and purist communist philosophy share a skepticism of authority, leadership, and power / social structures (even if the end goal is different). Yet humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. Which means at some point, naturally, leadership and power structures will emerge from any group. Whether it be the warlord-oriented chaos of Somalia or the often awful authoritarianism Lenin-inspired states seem to drift towards. Since power naturally corrupts, I'd rather see people focused more on systems and practices that mitigate corruption at the top, e.g. proper checks and balances, transparency, etc. Wishing power structures away is unfortunately going against human nature, in my opinion.

North Korea is an absolut monarchy not a communist country, even if they say so, they also say they are a people's democratic republic and it's clear they're not.

golergka 9y ago

You're implying that there's a possibility for a regime that starts from commumist ideas not to become a monarchy or oligarchy. Can you point out a real-life example where that didn't happen, please?

ghostDancer 9y ago
I'm not implying it, i'm just stating that North Korea is not a communist country, even if they say so. I'm not english native but i thought that my writing was quite straight and clear in this case , but well you can try and twist it to suit your ideology all you want.
ue_ 9y ago
What about revolutionary Catalonia? Besides that, I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is a problem with the Communist idea; Marxism is a method of analysis, and that analysis can be applied to itself to find out what the problems were, and what is necessary to move past them. It's also worth noting that almost all the states you are referring to as monarchies or oligarchies are founded on the principle of Marxism-Leninism. Perhaps this isn't the best way. Left-Communists agree with that idea. Or perhaps anarcho-Communism is a better idea. There are many schools of thought within Communism. It's unwise to dismiss it, in my opinion.
- lucozade 9y ago
  Let's say I had a software vendor who coded everything in Brainfuck and, historically, had only produced applications that had failed catastrophically. Now, let's say they try to sell me an application that they haven't written yet. But it'll be fine, they say, because they've decided not to use Brainfuck though they won't divulge what they will use. Exactly how unwise would I be to dismiss them? I mean they might produce Utopian software next time. But is it really wise to assume so?
  - ue_ 9y ago
    I don't think that's a valid analogy; firstly, you yourself can involve yourself or be privy to the academic discussions about the future of Communist ideology, Slavoj Zizek for example writes about it, as do a few modern day Marxian economists right up to Cockshott et al. and even incorporating neo-Ricardians. Secondly, the software product hasn't been made yet, and you can decide what changes will be made. And finally, there's not just one software product (ideology), there's many of them, each with either small differences or completely different in architecture. Don't assume, get out there and take a look if you're interested. But if you're not interested, there's no need to draw up strange analogies as if they discredit a whole massive field of literature and research going back to the fall of the USSR and even before that from internal resistance (such as from Orwell, Einstein, the leftcoms and anarchists) within the USSR. Even Lenin recognised the differences in ideology, famously allowing a funeral procession for anarcho-Communist Peter Kropotkin to continue, despite his supporters being vocal opponents of the Bolsheviks. And what of the Mensheviks, too? There is too much to dismiss, at least in my opinion. Though I admit that if we want to continue with Marxism-Leninism, a specific variant of Marxism which is a specific variant of German Socialism which is a specific variant of Communism, then we should investigate that. If not, then we shouldn't dismiss the rest of Marxism, the rest of Socialism and the rest of Communism, anarchism, egoist anarchism and even post-left (Stirnerite) anarchism, or even Georgism or social democracy. If you're going to start dismissing Communism, where do you stop with it?

olalonde 9y ago

Just like Somalia isn't a libertarian country, which was parent's point.

ghostDancer 9y ago
I didn't say the contrary or at least i can't read it in my words, maybe there's some hidden meaning in my words i can't see but you can.
soundwave106 9y ago
To me Somalia and the attempts at "communist" systems demonstrate what I find to be a flaw that actually is common to both philosophies. As both purist libertarian and purist communist philosophy share a skepticism of authority, leadership, and power / social structures (even if the end goal is different). Yet humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. Which means at some point, naturally, leadership and power structures will emerge from any group. Whether it be the warlord-oriented chaos of Somalia or the often awful authoritarianism Lenin-inspired states seem to drift towards. Since power naturally corrupts, I'd rather see people focused more on systems and practices that mitigate corruption at the top, e.g. proper checks and balances, transparency, etc. Wishing power structures away is unfortunately going against human nature, in my opinion.