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?
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.
You’re just proving my point here
Hmm, so your point was that you were in fact being counterproductive? If so I totally agree
You clearly don’t even understand my point, because you’re not bothering to learn anything. You can’t even grasp the differences in economies, let alone the differences in how one is operated from a liberal party compared to a workers party.
Do you even know the main difference between the Chinese economy and the US economy? Both are mixed, as in they both have elements of socialist and capitalist organization, yet are organized and controlled in vastly different ways. The US, and other western economies, are beholden to Capital interests, because the liberal parties subservient to Capital. The socialist aspect has been withered away since the gains of socialist forces for decades, because workers have no power. The Chinese economy is under the control of the CCP, a workers party. While the party itself is organized as a Democratic Republic, the State is under the dictatorship of that workers party, meaning that Capitalist forces are subservient to the state. And that’s before the discussion of how a party can be communist, yet be able to wield the forces of capitalism within a controlled scope to rapidly industrialize key industries before taking state control to socialize those industries in the form of state capitalism. Let alone how worker cooperatives, where there is an actual socialist means of production, fit into the picture.
No investigation, no right to speak
So the goal posts have shifted again. Let me remind you again, the root of this thread was about whether North Korea was authoritarian. Now you’re talking about China vs US! I never mentioned China this whole time and was waiting to see when you would bring it up. Amazing.
You seem to be very proud of your knowledge about China and want to show it off, even when it has no relevancy. I hope that works out for you.
Of course you’re too high on smugness to bother getting the connection. My point hasn’t changed since the first comment I made on this thread, you’re just too much of a debate pervert to understand that