Many countries include ‘Democratic’ or ‘People’s’ in their names, even though they are not democratic and do not serve their people. Examples: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Lao People’s Democratic Republic People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Democratic Republic of the Congo And German Democratic Republic (East Side) in 1949–1990. None of these states are democratic, power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a small ruling elite. Who are they fooling with these names?
Neither of those supports the stance that it should be considered a democracy though…
You’re missing the point…
That’s their version of Democratic Republic represention within the party, shaped by the material conditions of both the before-mentioned genocidal bombing campaign and the continued attempts of outside forces to collapse the state via CIA Activities and Sanctions designed to starve and isolate the entire country.
You should check out the Blowback podcast if you’re interested in The Korea War and how those events shaped Present-day North and South Korea
OP’s post is a simple observation about the names of countries and their political alignment. There are probably numerous reasons and causes for both the name and the political alignment. But the observation still holds.
It’s a massive simplification that removes all context of each of those countries anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist histories, all of which is incredibly important to understanding their current political organization and the scope that democracy holds in each.
Sure, but the root comment was implying that the countries mentioned in OP, like North Korea, are democracies. Which is clearly wrong. That’s all I was saying.
Or alternatively, the names of these countries is just marketing, and socialist movements usually tend to be authoritarianism in disguise.
You can either investigate yourself or lean into your preconceived biases, if you’re choosing the latter that’s your choice.
You clearly don’t want to have an actual discussion that includes those nuances that take into account the geopolitics of global capitalism and material conditions, so let’s just agree to disagree or something
I’m just calling out what I consider bad justification under the guise of “nuance”. Earlier in the thread, a user was claiming that North Korea was a sort of democracy. Now the goal posts have shifted to “yes it’s authoritarian but here’s why”. If this were the argument from the start, this would be less of an issue. But what’s problematic is this silent goal post shifting that I constantly see in these sorts of discussions.
authoritarian and democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts. I think ignoring the details of both aspects in favor of thought terminating clichés is counterproductive, assuming the goal is to actually understand the intricacies of these societies instead of a black and white understanding.
Nobody is trying to imply a black and white view of the world, but that doesn’t mean words don’t have meaning. Just because North Korea has a semblance of elections doesn’t make it democratic, just like the US isn’t socialist even though it has welfare programs. And if you jumped into every discussion about US late stage capitalism with a “actually capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive”, I would consider that just as counterproductive.