Oh Hi, I did not see you there, I was just celebrating the Day of the Foundation of the Republic for the DPRK. Sense you are here you might as well stick around and join us for this time honored tradition of our group, the weekly discussion thread.
• Matrix homeserver and space
◦ Theory discussion group on Matrix
• Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna’s Archive, libgen
deleted by creator
Hyper militarism is when country i don’t like has an army.
deleted by creator
There is definitely some truth to this statement. While trying to think of examples I realized I definitely was just thinking of examples I’ve seen. I will say though, the US definitely does still count as hypermilitarized in my mind and in the minds of most if not all the (non-conservative) people I know, so I think you might be exaggerating the double standard a bit
Damn the theme for this comment chain really is that you all use esoteric definitions of terms haha
I’ll try to read State and Revolution (that’s the one by Lenin right? I think I already had it on my list)
As for hypermilitarism, I think ingraining military prowess into the national ideology would count. Tying national identity to military dominance does not seem healthy for a society. Furthermore, bragging about one’s military prowess also seems unhealthy for a society and pointedly against international peace / cooperation.
The definitions of militarism I think of when I hear the word are typically “Glorification of military,” “Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.” And “The view that military strength, efficiency and values should dominate the country’s public policy choices and take precedence over other interests.”
Personally the definition: “The policy of maintaining a large military force, even in peacetime” falls more on the “hypermilitarism” side of things in my mind. However, I do understand that desire in countries that have been colonized and repeatedly attacked.
Anyway the DPRK seems to fit all those definitions and from what I’ve read (don’t worry I’m reading more) those definitions are ingrained in the ideology of Juche.
Also my questions don’t involve the US at all. The US is a clear example of militarism and definitely takes the cake as the most hypermilitarized country. That being said, the US hypermilitarism arises from the prevalent corruption in it, whereas the militarism of DPRK is a foundational element of Juche. <- this is not to say the US is better in any way, only to illustrate that what I dislike is not specifically that the DPRK is hyper militarized but that its founding principles require it to be and that seems flawed.
Regardless, trying to say something is good because another thing is worse is a fallacy. I’m not interested in American corruption I’m interested in opinions on elements I view as flaws in the ideology of the DPRK.
I also realize that you are probably used to dealing with trolls being antagonistic on purpose, but I really am just trying to learn.
deleted by creator
I did not mean to imply you were being trolls. If that was unclear I am sorry. I also did not mean to imply that you were being deliberately antagonistic. I was trying to make you aware of the fact you were coming across to me that way. And that dealing with trolls would explain why you may naturally have responded in that way
You are correct, the others in this chain have been much less condescending. That’s why my reply about it was directed toward you.
Wikipedia fits both those requirements?
You are right that I should probably have researched the terms definitions that you would use, but I honestly did not know there were significant discrepancies in the definitions of these terms until this discussion.
As for your second point, I do not want to “totally disentangle the USA” from this discussion. I simply wanted to point out that your argument was fallacious. The wrongs of one entity do not justify the wrongs of another.
The reason I said my argument didn’t involve the US at all was that I’m not interested in comparison between North Korea and another country.
Analyzing one variable is also how science is done. I want to analyze specifically DRPK because that is what my question was about. If I ask why a flower is red and you start describing how it’s not as complicated as why a flower is blue, can you see why that isn’t helpful?
Bringing up how the US shaped the current state of NK is certainly relevant. Bringing up a genocide being funded by the US on the other side of the world with no connection to the DPRK is not.
Furthermore I am not here to “rank nations” though I will admit I definitely do need to reconsider the way I currently rank them and why. I was wondering what the justification was for supporting a nation with traits I viewed as negative and that fit my definition of fascism. If you do it because “the US is worse” then I guess I have my answer.
I guess I should have specified that I meant I’m not interested in that right now, as in that isn’t the topic I’m asking about right now.
This is what I meant by condescending and antagonistic.
Firstly I have never heard that expression before. Secondly, what? The whole thing I’ve been bringing up with definitions is incredibly important.
When I say “words have the meaning you give to them” I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter what definition you have, I’m saying the exact opposite. It is important that we have the same definitions of words if we are going to use those words to try and communicate with one another. I’m not sure how you misinterpreted that but I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear enough.
Again who gives a shit about that right now? I don’t care if the US were to blow up the moon, that has no bearing on whether or not the DRPK is militarized or why it is or isn’t a justified trait.
Bruh why are you obsessed with ranking nations? Did my comment really come off that way?
Also technically speaking, if we were to set common definitions of what militarization means and its degrees then we absolutely could rank nations like that and it would not be subjective like attractiveness. However that would require common definitions which we don’t have and it would also require us to desire to rank nations by militarism which in currently not interested in tho the US almost certainly does win that one lol
Anyway, sorry if my questions or response are pissing you off. You are right that I have a long way to go, but hey Plato said to never discourage anyone who makes progress no matter how slow right?
deleted by creator
Alright, firstly, my original question was strictly about the opinions of people in this community and their reasoning behind them. This was the proper place to ask that question.
Second, instead of receiving answers to my question, I was made aware of my ignorance and my further comments were primarily asking questions to further my understanding of those responses and asking questions about where I could go to learn more myself.
You are correct that it isn’t reasonable for me to expect all of you to hold my hand and teach me everything. That is why I did try to ask questions more focused on where I could find the answers myself.
So were the ones in any dictionary ever. Now if you mean that the Marxist-Leninist definitions are more rigorously defined then you can assert that, but you can’t assert that other definitions are invalid or not based on “reality” only that they are less rigorously defined and do not share much overlap with your set of definitions.
You can even argue that more rigorous definitions are more useful for in depth discussion, and you’d be right, but that still doesn’t mean the other definitions are any less “real.”
As for the rest of your comment, it seems like you don’t understand what I mean by right now.
Imagine you were asking someone where you should go eat and they brought up a time they accidentally ate rotten food from their fridge. Does that help you decide where to eat? No. Does that mean that the story didn’t happen? No. Does it mean that the story isn’t important? No. But it isn’t important in the context of your decision on where to eat.
Imagine you were asked your friend what shade of red a flower was and instead of answering they decided to talk about what shade of blue a nearby one was. Is the shade of blue of that flower any less important and the shade of red of the one you’re looking at? No, but hearing about the shade of that flower doesn’t help you with your question. So it isn’t important right now.
That is what I’m trying to say with the moon example. Sure we’d all die, but that wouldn’t answer my question and while relevant to you and I, would not be relevant to the intended topic of discussion.
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Firstly *its. Second, yep you’re right because that is a problem that doesn’t exist.
It is presumptuous for you to assume I’m incapable of talking about the US or the atrocities committed by it. As it is presumptuous that you think I in any way support those actions or have no empathy for those affected by them.
I’m sorry you’re upset. Clearly I’ve struck a nerve and I do apologize for that.
I do not think you are a “bad guy” for telling me to do reading. You are correct on that front and I believe I said as much.
My criticism of your responses was strictly about how emotional and unhelpful some of it was.
This response is similar.
You seem so focused on belittling me or hating me for opinions you believe I have, that you don’t seem to be attempting to understand what I’m trying to say.
I’m sorry that you think I have no sympathy for others. I’m sorry saying anything that initially offended you.
I’m sorry that you automatically assume people do not care about what has happened and what is still happening to people around the world due to the imperialism and disregard of countries like the United States. Your compassion for others is admirable, and your distress over the perceived disregard for their suffering is also valid. But your hatred towards me is misguided.
I am not your enemy. I am not blind to the problems of the world and I am not silent about my distaste for the US’s role in those problems. However, considering I made that point in my last reply, it seems you are so set in your belief that I am your enemy that you will no longer listen to reason. I doubt there is any evidence I could give you, or words I could write that would change your mind, so instead I’ll end this with an apology.
I can imagine where you’re coming from. I can imagine where your feelings of anger and hatred and paranoia arise from. I can imagine the feelings of distrust you feel towards me and the feelings of wrath you have for anyone who you believe would defend the atrocities you’ve learned about.
It must suck feeling all of those feelings. It probably sucks worse feeling like you can’t share them openly because there is prejudice towards “tankies.” Finding a safe space on the internet for you to share those thoughts only to then have to deal with someone from the outside questioning those thoughts may feel like a violation.
I really am sorry that I have added to your negative feelings today. I hope you forget about this conversation quickly and can focus your mind on more positive thoughts, or at the very least, one less negative one.
deleted by creator