How, by the following definition, is North Korea socialist/communist [it's long out of neccessity, sorry]?
And by extension, everything else people seem to recognise as socialist/communist? In this thread please use the definition below, for the sake of figuring if north korea is socialist/communist. If you are not going to do that, don't bother answering. This isn't a thread saying socialism will work, it's a thread challenging the commonly held views about what socialism is. First off, my views as a socialist do not mesh with the ideas of many who call themselves socialists; I have heavy disagreements with social democrats, democratic socialists, trotskyites, leninists, deleonists, maoists, and stalinists. Therefore the definition I give will not match their definition. Second, I would like to make clear that when I say socialism or communism, I use these two words to refer to the exact same thing, not as seperate ideologies or one as a transitional phase and the other as some obscure utopia. My definition of socialism/communism is a society in which the people themselves share ownership and control the land and the means of production, through direct democracy. Essentially it's the extension of democracy to every quarter of society, the home, the workplace, and the community at large. A socialist society can only exist when the vast majority of the world population wants it to; there is no buying a plot of land and forming your own commune, as socialism can't exist while capitalism does. The people themselves then establish the socialist society democratically, through a revolution. In a socialist society, the following should apply: The socialist society has no monetary or barter system, there is no money and no trade, a socialist society has a gift economy. The socialist society is leaderless, since leaders are inherently undemocratic. The people themselves are in charge, administrating through a global direct democracy. The socialist society is stateless. Essentially, state is the power to use force legally against people. Socialism can't work in a coercive system. As well the existence of a state would undermine a classless society. The socialist society is borderless and global. Socialism can't exist in one country, nor can it exist while capitalism exists. The socialist society is classless. There are no upper and lower classes, no elites and no poor, and there is no state. So your turn. Does north korea fit the definition above? Did the soviet union? Does china? How bout cuba, vietnam, or cambodia? Do France, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, or any of those european countries fit the definition? Does obama fit the above definition of socialism? Vinny, if you're going to answer, READ THE DEFINITION AND DEFINE BY THAT! Your own definition of communism is irrelevent here. Everyone in the world socialist movement has agreed upon the definition above. This question is subject to linking and reposting, to ensure the most answers. That's cool, L, I look forward to your answer. :)
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's a totalitarianism.
2 :
North Korea is most certainly 100% communist because Kim Jong, a tyrannical dictator, and his national military controls the entire nation which confiscates most of the countries food supplies to feed themselves (why do you think their army is so big...because thats where all the food is). Kim Jong also personally controls imports/exports, manufacturing, etc. He also answers to no parliment, no governing council or court-type leveling system of any kind. Edit: Give this answer all the thumbs down you want, it wont change the truth.
3 :
Learn to Juche. Socialism and communism are stupid, outdated, white ideologies. Their mention annoys the fuck out of me. Juche idea it is they are!
4 :
No country that has ever existed and no person who has ever existed fits your definition of a socialist. When people say that Obama or North Korea are socialist, they are obviously not using your definition. They're using some other definition. You can't have useful discussions with others until everybody involved in the discussion agrees upon the definitions of key words, phrases, and concepts. Hope that helps.
5 :
Your definition of Socialism is incorrect.. that's the problem. Or to use Communism for a better example (since it's more concrete than socialism)... In Communism there is no private ownership. Instead a central entity controls all production and distribution of resources. Without that central entity, there is no way to maintain the structure and you'd end up with anarchy. And that is the downfall of all such systems.. so long as there is one central group given so very much control it will always end up corrupt and no longer acting solely in the best interests of the people. If there is no central entity (I use that term because it doesn't have to be a government), what is to stop someone from taking 5 iphones for free just because he wants to? Or how could you stop someone from requiring pine cones in order to receive a jar of peanut butter? If there's no central ruling group then there's no system to maintain order. In Socialism and Communism, someone always manages the resources to determine who gets what. That is precisely what causes those systems to turn into modern slavery.
6 :
Socialism, at its root, is about the emancipation of the masses. Working men and women, no matter one's race, ethnicity, culture, or sexual orientation, are at the heart of the socialist ideal. Only through the resilience of the proletariat can Socialism prevail over Capitalism and the upper tiers of society that it benefits. But this is not something that is achievable unless the majority discover the meaning and revolutionary ideal of class consciousness. The complete abolition of privately-owned property, along with the eventual disintegration of the state and all its bureaucratic foibles is the ultimate conclusion of this - global - class struggle. Worker's democracy, with the strength of the proletariat as its foundation could be the ideal solution to any possible vacuum left by the destruction of the state. When the means of production and distribution is sorted out and finally implemented, and true transparency in both the decaying of the state and democracy is achieved, the worker cannot fall into complacency and deem his work done. Socialism, as implemented by a single state, has been proven to be both unproductive, disastrous, and most importantly, counterrevolutionary. Stalin believed in Socialism in one State; Mao advocated eternal revolution; others implemented similar methods with terrible, repressive results. It can be argued that Socialism, once accomplished in a single state, is at once in danger from within and without by certain elements whose sole purpose is to undermine the victory of the proletariat and bring him/her back under the yoke of class oppression. This cannot be disregarded as foolish paranoia, nor simply as the replacement of one dictatorship with another. However, the methods utilized by the Russians, Chinese, N. Koreans, Vietnamese, and countless other states are both terrible and exploitative. A reign of terror has no place in Socialism - no matter the severity of the situation before it. Socialism, once organized into an efficient process of production and distribution, must eventually begin the process of dissembling the state into a borderless entity within which all who possess the ability to work, work to the best of their abilities for the betterment of the collective good. Held to such a standard, N. Korea (or the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc.) do not even hold a candle to the true concept of Socialism or the equality of the masses. These states remained within the binds of class stratification and state bureaucracy - the very things Socialism rails against. When the state owns the means of industry, military, governance, and security, the people are left with naught but the very thing they originally overthrew. Not that they themselves are immediately aware of this; the state goes to such ridiculous and heavy-handed lengths to keep and maintain the perceptions of the people. A society built upon lies and deceit (produced by the very people they originally supported) is the very antithesis of Socialism. The DPRK is an especially special case, as it is one of the few self-described "socialist" states that hasn't fallen or economically transformed itself to hold off its own collapse. It is a state frozen in time. Kim Jong-il is a leader who was neither democratically elected or cares for the well being of his people. He lavishes himself and his government allies with Capitalist goods and services while the proletariat wilts beneath his heavy hand. He rails against imperialism whilst threatening the South with nuclear extermination. These truths are certain and indisputable; Kim Jong-il is about as Socialist as Obama - who isn't. However, with that being said, stateless Socialism still contains multiple issues and flaws that need addressing. For instance, who is to ensure the transparency and equality of the eventual classless society? Surely the state cannot be held in such a role; it would surely abuse its power. The only solution (in my mind) is to follow the paths of Democratic Socialism, with the eventual goal of a stateless, borderless, classless society. Socialism cannot be utilized without the power of democracy - how else will the people be heard and heeded. A state that's built beneath the crushing spirit of the proletariat, which follows the mandates of the masses, is an ideal that cannot be disregarded. The state's role (aside from its eventual disintegration) must be the mouthpiece of the worker, through which his/her needs are formulated and carried out. Lenin's Russia built its order of governance from the top to the bottom, with a central entity dictating to the organizations below it. The same cannot be repeated; the state must be on the receiving end of policy-making - not the other way around. A dictatorship of the proletariat over the state, so to speak. Now, I've rambled quite enough (I suspect at moments incoherently), but I hope I got some measure of my point across.
