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.
Isn’t that a bit of a tautology? If working class ownership is desired only as a means to communism, and communism is assumed to be the eventual result of working class ownership, you would never be able to falsify your theory.
I don’t see what you mean. The path to communism, ie a fully collectivized system of production and distribution based on a common plan, devoid of classes and the state, requires building that. To build that, the working classes need to stitch together all production and distribution through socialism, and continue to erode the basis of class struggle. This requires political control by a working class state. The path to steam is heating water, eventually water boils when you keep heating it. You can spill the pot or turn off the heat, but that’s a disruption in the current path.
Totally, but I might also expect to see continued development toward the disillusion of class and state. Simply industrializing doesn’t give me much hope on its own.
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.
Isn’t that a bit of a tautology? If working class ownership is desired only as a means to communism, and communism is assumed to be the eventual result of working class ownership, you would never be able to falsify your theory.
I don’t see what you mean. The path to communism, ie a fully collectivized system of production and distribution based on a common plan, devoid of classes and the state, requires building that. To build that, the working classes need to stitch together all production and distribution through socialism, and continue to erode the basis of class struggle. This requires political control by a working class state. The path to steam is heating water, eventually water boils when you keep heating it. You can spill the pot or turn off the heat, but that’s a disruption in the current path.
Totally, but I might also expect to see continued development toward the disillusion of class and state. Simply industrializing doesn’t give me much hope on its own.