this ought to be amusing
There’s a conversation unfer a feddit.org comment that I don’t think you can see due to defederation from the Zionists, but that’s about it so far.
I am also confused. Specifically about “there’s no such thing”. Is the meme saying (among other things) that authoritarianism doesn’t exist or isn’t real? That seems obviously untrue on the face of it? Unless we’re redefining it so as to be meaningless.
Help me out here.
A State is supposed to exercise authority, so by saying X country (enemy of the Usonian Empire) is authoritarian you’re basically saying “There is a State”. Basically doublespeak Usonian propaganda.
In most instances, “authoritarianism” is a more rigidly defined term than simply meaning “exercises authority.”
E.g. Wikipedia defines it as
a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
A state necessarily exercising authority changes nothing about how violently and uncompromisingly any particular state goes about it. So I’m guessing calling a state plainly authoritarian is essentially saying nothing at all, but if I say your country is as authoritarian as North Korea, you know exactly what I’m saying and that I’m certainly saying something that is neither doublespeak or propaganda, right?
youre describing different quantitative levels of authority , but too much or too little authority it is. autoritarism means authority is present. water is wet. furthermore there is a lack of semantics. is this authorit exercised against the zionists or the palestinians and so on?
i am from the global south so yes, i know what it is when you call my korean brothers authoritarian. it means enemy of the usonian empire
I think we are conflating two different things: the state’s foreign policy stance and its domestic structure.
You are correct that ‘authoritarian’ is often a propaganda label used to justify sanctions or invasion. However, refusing to use the word to describe any state in the Global South implies that the only form of oppression that matters is Western imperialism. That effectively erases the lived experience of people in those nations who might be jailed or disappeared by their own government.
The term ‘authoritarian’ shouldn’t mean ‘enemy of the US.’ It should mean a system where the people have no mechanism to hold their leaders accountable. By that definition, a state can be anti-Zionist and still be authoritarian toward its own citizens. Do you believe there is any word we should use to describe a government that silences its own working class, or should we just stay silent about that to avoid sounding like the US State Department?
“Authoritarian” is ALL states. “Authoritarian” as we know it today was just made up by the CIA to slander actually existing socialism states like China and the DPRK
“Authoritarian” is ALL states.
do go on, you almost got it 🤣
Almost getting it, but instead Marx famously said “Communism can only be done by tranfering all political and capital to the state, where it will willingly give away all this power.” Silly us for not knowing Marx works more.
No? That’s not how the withering of the state works. The state is a product of class struggle, by collectivizing all production and distribution class is ended, leaving only “the administration of things.” There’s no point where the state “gives away power,” the state is not outside of class struggle but a product of it. Without class struggle, there’s no need for the elements of society used to protect the ruling class, which in socialism is the proletariat.
Bedtimes are authoritarian, your parents are dictators
No yeah good point, we should simply impose no limits on the kinds of people currently fucking the world, that definitely won’t lead us to exactly where we are now.
I’m confused.
How?
It’s multi-layered and tedious to write down on the phone. Prolly easier to ask you some questions: How do you think this meme’s formula works? Do you beleive it to be factual that China isn’t authoritarian and that North Korea is not andictatorship? If not, do you know anybody who has ever claimed this?
“Authoritarian” is ALL states. “Authoritarian” as we know it today was just made up by the CIA to slander actually existing socialism states like China and the DPRK
The DPRK has gotten a particularly HEAVY dose of slander from the empire because of its proximity to its puppet gov of SK
Well… in that case, the meme is at least correctly used. That was my main concern anyways :')
You must realise you’re holding a very fringe position that’s more a conspiracy theory and will be considered trolling, right?
You must realise you’re holding a very fringe position that’s more a conspiracy theory and will be considered trolling, right?
This is seemingly paradoxical when a real deal conspiracy theory is being mainstream. DPRK being hell on Earth is a conspiracy theory not supported by facts, but it’s not fringe, it’s held by the entire collective western media (though that is more of a 5 corpos in a trenchcoat) and it’s constantly fed to their populations. Information bubbles are real.
And there are many such cases in topic of communism.
China and the DPRK being socialist states with functioning democratic structures is the standard take among communists, which is certainly fringe in the west but not everywhere. Especially Lemmy, which was and is developed by communists.
In China, they have direct elections for local representatives, which elect further “rungs,” laddering to the top. The top then has mass polling and opinion gathering. This combination of top-down and bottom-up democracy ensures effective results. For more on this, see Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. This system is remarkably effective, resulting in over 90% approval rates.
From the same book, for the DPRK:
The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.
How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels. As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.
To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability
As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting. Without the context of the candidate selection process, this is spun as entirely anti-democratic.
which was and is developed by communists
Is that so? I didn’t find any information on that from a quick search. Not an “attack”, genuinely curious.
Here is dessalines’ github page for essays, and their profile pic is of Che Guevara. Dessalines is the lead dev, and other devs are communists as well. For more, here’s dessalines pinning the basic Marxist-Leninist study guide I made to the c/communism community here.
