What is considered white. Hell, I’m Sicilian and some of my Hispanic friends are as light or lighter than me. Of course we know with chuds, they will find another group to demonize.
I’m reading a book on immigration by Chomsky’s daughter and the thought just came to me. I’d like for that to be the case, my girlfriend is a Latina and a lot of my friends are as well, I’d rather them eventually be absorbed into the whiteness blob so they aren’t in quite as much danger from bigots.
After that, I’d rather whiteness as a gatekeeping concept go the fuck away entirely.
damn turns out when nearly everyone is sanctioning them and their agricultural environment is shit, people turn to black markets
Considering that they already have markets, maybe they should just legalize the black market and embrace what they always were : a state capitalist economy.
BRB, going to tell Kim to press the delete State and the delete Market button.
Your link says that they are regulated but allowed
Yeah, turns out they are not socialist.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1we5OEdteZFfAh11v0s_RVh3LWAkVICGrFnvksVynGxw/edit#heading=h.k8djmoh9t33d
You don't need to read 5000 pages to understand that having markets, money, commodity production, profits and exploitation doesnt mean you have a socialist society.
they are making an effort towards socialism, despite starting out feudal, suffering from a genocidal war, being sanctioned by nearly the entire world, and having a shit agricultural environment, which I find impressive, compared to someone on the internet whining about. Through the WPK, the proletariat are the ones in power, thus it is socialist
What does "effort towards socialism" even mean? In what concrete way are they doing this? There is no evidence that the proletariat are in power. The state is in power in NK. By this logic, the proletariat is in power in the USA because they are the ones who elected the current government. If capitalists can sieze the state using consent manufacturing and guided democracy even in countries like Sweden or New Zealand, why do you think a repressive state like NK allows actual proletariat power and not that the people elected in power(if they are elected at all) not simply reflect the interests of the bureaucracy?
This is why I beg people to read Marx. Please read Marx, and you will understand why NK or China or Cuba are not socialist and have no greater chances of becoming socialist than any other capitalist state.
The doc has several sources that go into great detail about it. This article is also a good read
you also need to take into account the conditions they are in, they can't just zap over to socialism
In your own mind, what is socialism and how does a country go about achieving it?
Nooooo they are not socialist, they should stop cracking down on the black market and do a Dengism to prove me right :angery:
Inability to read is a common feature among thirdworldists. I said they are NOT cracking down on their black markets, and they are already liberalizing, so they are already proving me right.
Are you a «thirdworldist»? Because your own link says they are cracking down on the black markets. It's also lacking citations, incoherent and orientalist as shit, but I digress.
They are not cracking down on black markets. They are simply regulated. Why do black markets exist in the first place? It's because commodity production (capitalism) is the dominant form of production in North Korea, and informal markets are just an expression of its capitalist nature. They are not an aberration, they are part of its nature.
Please explain how the market for tractors, CNC machines, land, or intercontinental ballistic missiles works in the DPRK. If their economy is a capitalist economy ran for profit there must be such a market, like there is in my country where commodity production for exchange is actually the dominant relation of production. I'll wait.
Are those goods produced to be sold? Yes. Does profit exist in this equation? Naturally. If a good has a price on the market, it also has a cost. The difference is profit. This is inbuilt in the system of generalized commodity production. Most of the profit is taken by the state. North Korea has businesses that make profit. They have foreign businesses in Special Economic Zones. They have black markets. Their major source of foreign income is from trade with China and South Korea (both capitalist nations, so the nature of this exchange is obviously capitalist). And the kicker is that they are liberalizing more and more, just like Cuba.
Now I have a question for you. Why bother with the bullshit "socialism" that North Korea is doing when it is obviously not producing good results? Sri Lanka and Kerala have better standard of living, despite being capitalist nations with a social safety net and lower level of industrialization than NK. Why even bother with that method, and all the pain and trouble and sanctions and military regime necessary to maintain it when they can just admit that they are capitalist and become like a Vietnam or Nepal?
North Korea is a supremely fucked up country, there is very little to admire there. It's all just completely unncessary suffering. They are a victim of geopolitics in the 50s, but from there on, it's all their fault. I'm not even going into the obvious massive gulf in standard of living between Pyongyang residents and rural villagers.
Source: your ass. Nobody produces land, CNC machines, or ICBMs to be sold in the DPRK. Where are they even selling it? Is there plutonium in these informal markets? Who's the CEO of the Korean equivalent of Raytheon? Or their RE/MAX? Or their Hermle AG? Absolutely ridiculous. But no less ridiculous than conflating international trade with capitalism.
And you're somehow forgetting that Korea lost their war, and South Korea not only exists but also has the highest suicide rate in the world.
Edit: Here, have some Engels on what happens when you focus to much on reified categories instead of analysing material conditions
We have already had more than one occasion to make ourselves acquainted with Herr Dühring’s method. It consists in dissecting each group of objects of knowledge to what is claimed to be their simplest elements, applying to these elements similarly simple and what are claimed to be self-evident axioms, and then continuing to operate with the aid of the results so obtained. Even a problem in the sphere of social life
And thus the application of the mathematical method to history, morals and law is to give us also in these fields mathematical certainty of the truth of the results obtained, to characterise them as genuine, immutable truths.
This is only giving a new twist to the old favourite ideological method, also known as the a priori method, which consists in ascertaining the properties of an object, by logical deduction from the concept of the object, instead of from the object itself. First the concept of the object is fabricated from the object; then the spit is turned round, and the object is measured by its reflexion, the concept. The object is then to conform to the concept, not the concept to the object. With Herr Dühring the simplest elements, the ultimate abstractions he can reach, do service for the concept, which does not alter matters; these simplest elements are at best of a purely conceptual nature. The philosophy of reality, therefore, proves here again to be pure ideology, the deduction of reality not from itself but from a concept.
And when such an ideologist constructs morality and law from the concept, or the so-called simplest elements of “society”, instead of from the real social relations of the people round him, what material is then available for this construction? Material clearly of two kinds: first, the meagre residue of real content which may possibly survive in the abstractions from which he starts and, secondly, the content which our ideologist once more introduces from his own consciousness. And what does he find in his consciousness? For the most part, moral and juridical notions which are a more or less accurate expression (positive or negative, corroborative or antagonistic) of the social and political relations amidst which he lives; perhaps also ideas drawn from the literature on the subject; and, as a final possibility, some personal idiosyncrasies. Our ideologist may turn and twist as he likes, but the historical reality which he cast out at the door comes in again at the window, and while he thinks he is framing a doctrine of morals and law for all times and for all worlds, he is in fact only fashioning an image of the conservative or revolutionary tendencies of his day — an image which is distorted because it has been torn from its real basis and, like a reflection in a concave mirror, is standing on its head.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch08.htm