• UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You think one of the most sanctioned countries in history that’s been spending years and years trying to build cities and roads, you think they’d have time/infrastructure to bring all of their citizens WiFi? Do you know even half of what goes into making an internet network, let alone without the support of other nations?

    So are you telling me that there is no internet in North Korea? What’s this then? A north korean showing how wonderful life is in Pyongyang on Tiktok. So there IS internet access in North Korea for average citizens, right? Or… maybe there is internet access only for a select few individuals, part of an effort in spreading state propaganda. Therefore, is the state prioritizing state propaganda efforts more than an individual’s right to free information and media? Forget North Korea. Look at China. Why do they still have the great firewall up? They clearly have very well developed internet infrastructure. Why don’t they allow their citizens access to the outside world?

    United Nations Security Council 2397. Read it.

    I just did. It does permit North Koreans from working abroad. It however does not prevent them from seeking asylum. Why do all North Korean asylum seekers have to smuggle themselves through China and other countries, without being caught to reach South Korea? If South Korea was the one to refuse entry to them, why do they still grant these people asylum?

    Google “Juche.”

    “Juche as a philosophy includes three basic elements: Nature, Society, and Man. Man transforms Nature and is the master of Society and his own destiny. The dynamic heart of Juche is the leader, who is considered the center of society and its guiding element. Juche is thus the guiding idea of the people’s activities and the country’s development.” How is not any different than fascism? “The Man, the central element that guides society”, aka the “Fuhrer”. Absolute control on media, “molding and mobilizing the people as communists”, aka purging of non-communist ideology and people who take part in that ideology… Like… Come on mate…

    What does this even mean, link a video to it, I am genuinely curious as to what this is even referencing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i82PBpw2Vg0

    https://youtu.be/GkaJlNjS-nM?si=aAp37umVObm_5pyO

    https://youtu.be/umO1Sl8HApE?si=5801Q24ZfFW5XzXf

    What I mean by “knowledgeable people” is people who can see past the western propaganda to take a critical look at past socialist 'experiments. You, clearly, still can’t see past things at surface value. Everything is black and white to you. Why can’t you look at history, current dynamics, sanctions, foreign pressure, etc, etc. Instead, you go to flinging petty insults at people whose side you should be on! You say you want something that is very very different than the soviet union? Then, I’m afraid you don’t want socialism.

    If that is your definition of “knowledgeable” then you’re missing one very critical element. You’re missing the part where you need to look past all propaganda, which includes Chinese/Soviet/North Korean, etc. sponsored propaganda. Things are not black and white to me. I understand (or at least try to) individual ideas that are good and bad from all corners of the world. The soviet union did some things right. It did many things wrong. I want to replicate the things it did right. I do not want to replicate the things it did wrong. China lifted millions of people from poverty. I want to copy the methods that they used to do this. This does not mean that I want to erect a firewall to prevent my countrymen from accessing the outside world. I want collective ownership over means of production. I want unions to exist. However, I do not want to run over my own countrymen with tanks because they disagreed with me. I am an athiest. I want a society free from the shackles of religion. However, I do not want to outright ban religion. I want free elections. I want to go even further and have direct democratic practices in all possible places. I do not want a state monopolized media. I do not want the President of my country to be President for life. I want socialism. I do not want authoritarianism. I do not want there to be a super powerful class posing as “political leaders”. I want public housing, healthcare, education, etc. I want collective ownership over AI. At the same time, I still want to be able to make fun of the President. So on and so forth…

    • I do not want authoritarianism

      begging you to read the Jakarta Method, but I’ll give you a quote from it if you won’t! (also, read On Authority by Engels please it’s so short)

      quote here

      This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

      In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

      Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

      Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

      That group was annihilated.

      • Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method