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.
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.
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.
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.
Somewhat, and you’re not even factoring in the taean system at the factory level.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 didn’t realize Lemmy was so anti-left.
I’d never read Bordiga’s writings before, but I find his critique insightful:
That is exactly what happened. Mussolini himself was originally a socialist, and members of the Popular Party joined his government.
The pro-DPRK memes aren’t anti-slavery, they are pro-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.
Pro-socialist, or pro-DPRK? If a group is critical of the DPRK do you consider it to be not socialist?
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.
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 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.
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.
It’s the negative space outlined by everything else you’re saying
Is it? It seems like the exact read anyone would have of what you’ve said.
Sure, the DPRK’s system of democracy applies to much more than administration alone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Depends, really, but I have found the DPRK to be a great litmus test for judging how serious a socialist org is.
This isn’t true, though. All of the legitimate evidence points towards a state governed by the working classes working in their collective interests.
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.