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.
This is just proof that one form of capitalism is incompatible with other forms. It is not proof that USSR was socialist. Once again, not-capitalism =/= socialism. It is not enough to just "abolish" what you think is capitalism. Nationalizing everything, planning commodity production, price controls etc is not socialism.
Is this a parody? First of all, in the US, it's less than 0.5% of their economy https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201117005990/en/Global-Luxury-Goods-Market-Report-2020-Market-to-Reach-403.2-Billion-by-2027---ResearchAndMarkets.com. But this is all splitting hairs, we are talking about how having exploitation, commodity production etc does not make it socialist, and now you are making hairbrained defences saying $700 million dollars of stolen wealth annually diverted to Kim and his cronies is justifiable. We don't even know the s/v ratio of NK because prices dont reflect SNLT there. That is not a good thing btw, because it completely mystifies exploitation whereas at least in private capitalism, you can calculate the rate of exploitation.
I'm disengaging here. This discussion is becoming less and less rational. I think I have achieved my goal, i.e. showing the readers to what extent of irrationality you have to go to defend NK. I will be disengaging here.
I'm glad in the end we managed to agree on this. I'm sorry if I came out as hostile at some point during the discussion.
Cheers.
You're mistaken, I do not agree with you. By not-capitalism I meant the kind of capitalism we have in liberal countries. Having a command economy with commodity production is still capitalism, not of the liberal variety but its own form. It is NOT socialism. I'm not going to let you take advantage of my disengagement by taking some kind of "win" based on an obvious misreading.
Comrade, I was trying to find some common ground to help the discussion become more cordial. I know you desperately want to steer the conversation into pointless semantics of what exactly is capitalism and what exactly is socialism, but I do not care about your personal definition of socialism. I don't find that discussion at all productive and you will never reach me—or anyone else—by obsessing over definitions. I say this from experience on being on the other side.
So far, you've used the informal markets in the DPRK to argue there's generalised commodity production in the DPRK. I asked you to explain the how the primary sector works in the DPRK and you just assumed it works for profit with no evidence. I asked you to give evidence of a market for MoP in the DPRK—which must exist if there's generalised commodity production—, you replied with 'terrible exploitation'. I asked you to show the terrible exploitation by pointing out surplus product, and you conceded there's barely any luxury production in the DPRK and hypothesized it's all imported. I pointed out this implied an export-lead economy, and how the CIA says only 1% of their production is for export, and you replied with an article claiming 3% of their production goes for imports. You've never answered my original question, but by your last message I gather you see the DPRK as an economy that's at least qualitatively different from regular capitalism or whatever you want to call it. I was hoping from this mutual understanding I could understand your position better. It's up to you if you want to help me understand.
I repeat, (a) nobody is reading us anymore, winning is now irrelevant, and (b) I don't care about semantics.
It's not just informal market, Christ. Its the entire economy. All goods are produced finally to be sold. That's commodity production. There is wage-labor, there are markets, there are prices, there is profit. How does the average North Korean get his food, his clothing, his utilities, his luxuries? Does he not pay for it? How does he earn money? Does he not work for it? The social relations in North Korea are fundamentally the same as any capitalist country. You are stuck on the concept of state control as if that is what socialism is. I bet you also post the meme "Socialism is when the govt does stuff" and then unironically believe that when it comes to NK.
I'm not arguing about semantics, I am describing again and again how commodity production is the fundamental feature of capitalism and how it exists in NK. Nowhere in Marx's work would you find a single line saying you can have commodity production under socialism. He and Engels and every other non-revisionist socialist repeatedly emphasize that you cannot have commodity production if you want to eliminate exploitation, alienation, oppression and all other features of class society.
I don't know how anyone can parse the massive amount of repression and exploitation that goes on in NK and consider that as a viable or desirable social form. People do read these threads, even if they don't upvote them. Even if a single person reads and understands it, it is worth it.
What a shame, we're back to the beginning. It must be nice being the smartest person in the room and being asked the same question over and over again. 'How does the market for CNC machines, land, or intercontinental ballistic missiles works in the DPRK?' 'How big is the capitalist class?' 'Where's the surplus product?'. I'm beginning to think for you these are pointless questions, like, who cares about the details, after all capitalism is when people work for and buy consumer goods with pieces of paper, and once you have people working for pieces of paper and markets taking those same pieces of paper in exchange for consumer goods, everything else doesn't matter: once you've got that key piece you can just deduce all the rest is there.
That inquiring about all the missing features: no financial sector, firms organised around quotas instead of profit, no rents on land, no markets for means of production, the pieces of paper not being convertible and being useless to command production regardless of how many you've accumulated… is waste of time. Maybe I should take my copy of Capital, rip off every chapter after the third one, burn them and listen to you instead.
You're getting close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Finance_(North_Korea)
Communism is when you do commodity production but you dont care whether your firms are profitable. Enterprises literally have to make profits to survive. They dont just get to absorb capital and do whatever they want. North Korea has a 50% tax on profit :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_North_Korea.
Communism is when you abolish rent. Also this doesnt matter when there are like 10 other forms of exploitation still present.
Evidence? Even if this is true, it doesnt mean shit, because commodities still exist. The average worker doesnt buy means of production, he buys consumption goods.
??????????????? money works as money in NK. Once again you're using the argument that the state controls the majority of production as evidence of socialism.
I suggest you actually read Capital instead of pretending like you have.
Your Wikipedia links were astonishingly lazy (and evident you have not read them), so I spent some time looking for markets for MoP in the DPRK. Even though the onus has been on you for almost 2 days. Outside special economic zones I was not successful, and it's not possible to prove a negative, however I did find evidence of a financial sector! http://naenara.com.kp/sites/polestar/contents/books/book-4.pdf is an insurance company seemingly focused on hedging cooperative farms against climatic disasters. Here's an article as well http://knic.com.kp/news.php?id=34&language=ENG
It's actually pretty interesting, I hope it may help you on your future anti-AES debates. It won't help you against your straw-man, because it's a state owned enterprise, but it would further your point against others. By the way, according to p.20 of the PDF, the tax rate on profits at least for that kind of firm is a flat 30% without credits.
You must realise plenty of revisionists like Xi Jinping and Stalin, and even outright liberals have read Capital and analyse things different than you do. You can't use disagreement as evidence of cluelessness.