I mean that is what OP is doing. The meme depicts two people disagreeing about whether North Korea is “bad”. Do you think it is “bad” or “good”? If so, I’m genuinely curious what information you use to decide.
I try not to see things in a moral framing like that, but I do support the DPRK in their struggles and support their right to govern themselves as they see fit.
You asked if my only metric is socialization, which I take issue with as the class character of the state comes into question, as social democracies are still dictatorships of capital. As a socialist, I support socialism and movements towards it and towards communism. I support national liberation movements against imperialism.
The reason I support the DPRK is because it’s socialist, ie a socialist country continuing to build socialism. This isn’t blind support, but support for their right to build socialism in the manner evaluated by the Korean people as most effective for their conditions.
When a country is socialist, a number of other cascading things are necessarily true, or usually true. This includes performing better than peer capitalist countries in similar conditions, and working towards communism.
All fine. What I’m really trying to ask though is whether there is something a socialist state could do to lose your support broadly. For example, in theory could a socialist country exist that exhibited a degree of cruelty toward humanity that would prohibit your support for that country?
That’s a bit of a loaded statement, isn’t it? The easy answer is sure, there could be, but the more important question is why did this happen and what could have been done to avoid it? Did it happen because of socialism? Is it truly a case where the working classes controlled the state, and yet is getting worse, rather than more progressive over time, only explainable by socialism?
The point I am getting at is that every society makes missteps and mistakes, but socialism is a system of continuous improvements, and therefore it’s important to recognize if the path to improvement is through maintaining socialism, or if the entire thing needs to be scrapped and restarted. In almost all cases improvement comes from development and freedom from the pressures of imperialism.
maintaining socialism, or if the entire thing needs to be scrapped and restarted
That’s really a pragmatic evaluation. I think in theory that any state can be changed either through reform or sudden revolution, including Bourgeois ones.
socialism is a system of continuous improvements
Out of curiosity, do you see an indication of a continuing progression toward communism over time in North Korea?
The DPRK has the working classes in charge of the state, with public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. As long as these remain true, and there are no underlying problems of the character that can overturn those, simply continuing to develop industry and infrastructure is working towards communism. I don’t see anything major upsetting this in the future.
No, and I explained that that isn’t. What do you even mean by “evaluating a country?”
I mean that is what OP is doing. The meme depicts two people disagreeing about whether North Korea is “bad”. Do you think it is “bad” or “good”? If so, I’m genuinely curious what information you use to decide.
I try not to see things in a moral framing like that, but I do support the DPRK in their struggles and support their right to govern themselves as they see fit.
I share your hesitancy to use a moral framing, but why do you support them? You said it isn’t purely based on their form of production.
You asked if my only metric is socialization, which I take issue with as the class character of the state comes into question, as social democracies are still dictatorships of capital. As a socialist, I support socialism and movements towards it and towards communism. I support national liberation movements against imperialism.
The reason I support the DPRK is because it’s socialist, ie a socialist country continuing to build socialism. This isn’t blind support, but support for their right to build socialism in the manner evaluated by the Korean people as most effective for their conditions.
When a country is socialist, a number of other cascading things are necessarily true, or usually true. This includes performing better than peer capitalist countries in similar conditions, and working towards communism.
All fine. What I’m really trying to ask though is whether there is something a socialist state could do to lose your support broadly. For example, in theory could a socialist country exist that exhibited a degree of cruelty toward humanity that would prohibit your support for that country?
That’s a bit of a loaded statement, isn’t it? The easy answer is sure, there could be, but the more important question is why did this happen and what could have been done to avoid it? Did it happen because of socialism? Is it truly a case where the working classes controlled the state, and yet is getting worse, rather than more progressive over time, only explainable by socialism?
The point I am getting at is that every society makes missteps and mistakes, but socialism is a system of continuous improvements, and therefore it’s important to recognize if the path to improvement is through maintaining socialism, or if the entire thing needs to be scrapped and restarted. In almost all cases improvement comes from development and freedom from the pressures of imperialism.
That’s really a pragmatic evaluation. I think in theory that any state can be changed either through reform or sudden revolution, including Bourgeois ones.
Out of curiosity, do you see an indication of a continuing progression toward communism over time in North Korea?
The DPRK has the working classes in charge of the state, with public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. As long as these remain true, and there are no underlying problems of the character that can overturn those, simply continuing to develop industry and infrastructure is working towards communism. I don’t see anything major upsetting this in the future.