Anonymous #2 1d

Move to the isolationist nation of whom we killed 1 million of their civilians during the Korean War? Probably wouldn’t be welcome, and I wouldn’t really blame em. They should be left to their business, and it isn’t what we are advocating for in our country with vastly different material conditions.

10

Anonymous OP 1d

Is it your position that North Korea is isolationist and not communist

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

No private property, government controls where you work, live, go in your free time. No money except for one rich city, no electricity or running water in most of the country. Sounds like the USSR to me. I'm happy in a capitalist society where I can actually own things.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

The problem is that our material conditions exist because of capitalism. If we became communist, we would all be reliant on one party and the wealthy people at the top. Once all of their money is gone, there is none for anyone else and we inevitably become a country like the USSR or North Korea.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Yup, you guessed it, we are collectivizing your toothbrush

10

Anonymous #2 1d

Ahh yes, because we steal all the money and then it runs out. Rats 🤭. 2/10 troll

1

Anonymous OP 1d

When the government takes over the toothbrush factory and steals every dime from the owner of it, yes you are.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

The darn goberment 😡😤

14

Anonymous OP 1d

So that didn't happen in the soviet union and cuba and NK? They were/are currently starving because of mere bad luck?

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Probably because of the decades long embargo’s we put on them to isolate them and force regime change, not bad lack it was intentional. But seriously you are a bad troll

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Oh so it was the capitalists that had the job of supporting the communists? Basically what I just said? What happened to seizing means of production? Guess it worked out poorly for them.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

can you tell my landlord to stop owning my house so i can be a good capitalist like you and own things?🙏🥹

8

Anonymous OP 1d

North Korea has collectivized the toothbrushes so hard that underground private markets to clean your teeth are rapidly growing

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Gee it’s almost like blockading a country from all trade (especially an island nation like Cuba) would have devastating consequences 🙄. In a communist world trade between nations when they still exist is still necessary

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Radio free Asia type beat 🤭

8

Anonymous #4 1d

That landlord actually used to be a renter and worked his way up, just like you should. And if it wasn't him, it was someone who came before him. The government just needed to stay out of it and cut taxes to make it easier.

0

Anonymous OP 1d

Why is trade between nations still necessary

0

Anonymous #4 1d

I don’t own the means of production, I’m not a capitalist

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Why do you think? Individual nations cannot produce everything, especially small ones.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Damn just licking boot for free 💀

0

Anonymous OP 1d

The problem is the communists couldn't produce ANYTHING for themselves because nobody works under communism. They pick up the check no matter what. Relying on the stability of capitalism is not a good defense of communism.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

“Communism is when you get paid for free and nobody works” I can’t have a serious conversation with a troll sorry fjfjfjfjfjf

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

In a country where it is entirely possible for you to own the means of production, you benefit directly from capitalism

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Due to prolonged economic recession? Sanctions are very good at doing that

10

Anonymous #2 1d

You benefit from the goods produced by the working class, regardless of who gets paid. But typically they would try to trade with other socialist states ofc

1

Anonymous OP 1d

So you would work hard if the government promised you a paycheck and never gave a performance review for your work?

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

You seriously know nothing about how socialist states actually operate 😭

7

Anonymous OP 1d

Yes I do. The working class that unionizes and strikes and gets paid for doing their job. Things that do not happen in socialist states.

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Ahh cause the capitalists never crush unions, and they are so popular these days 🤭

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Yes I do. I also know that most have failed intensely, resulting in mass death and displacement.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

Tends to happen when the global bourgeois makes every effort to crush your state and starve your people for regime change

8

Anonymous OP 1d

If the workers own the means of production, why would there still be scarcity? Everything would be produced in excess, right? There would be no barrier to overcome through trade. Do you even understand and believe what Marx said like I do?

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

You don’t understand, that is the case with a unified international proletariat, not small isolated socialist states. Marx never claimed Cuba could produce all possible goods while isolated from the world via embargo lmao

1

Anonymous #5 1d

Oh okay so we hate silly jokes now I see how it is 😤 hold on. Ahem. HIIII <3 (cutely)

6

Anonymous .gaia. 1d

Why would sanctions affect an isolationist state where workers own the means of production? (And you know all that support from China helps too)

5

Anonymous OP 1d

Unions are extremely powerful right now. In fact many people think they are too powerful, given how much actual poor people struggle.

0

Anonymous OP 1d

You said in a communist world trade still exists, I didn’t know your argument was limited to Cuba in the present. What did Marx write about Cuba? Since I know what he wrote, I didn’t see anything about Cuba.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

alright calm down lol

5

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Obviously he didn’t write about Cuba you twit 💀 my point was Marx never said a small isolated socialist nation could eliminate scarcity, rather a united international proletariat

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

He’s a troll lmao

1

Anonymous OP 1d

How confident are you about that

2

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

It’s called international trade, which would still occur in a world with a unified international proletariat. And yes China helps, but the blockade also aims to prevent that from even reaching Cuba.

2

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Like 9/10, my faith in humanity will take a big hit if I’m wrong 💀

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I’ll ask again, if there is a United international proletariat, why is trade still necessary

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Because isolationist is a myth. I’m not a North Korea dick sucker but any talk like that from the Kim regime is just them dressing up the fact that they’d been cut off from trade with the world. We have sanctions in place for a reason. Yes Juche is also crap

6

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Because resources vary depending on region, even in a united socialist world resources would need to be shipped and certain goods come from certain places

1

Anonymous OP 1d

But why would they be traded, as opposed to being allocated fairly by the United proletariat

0

Anonymous .gaia. 1d

Listen I don’t like their system, but I feel like calling for continued sanctions that only harm their people, merely for the sake of regime change, isn’t the way to promote change. They will only double down.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Correct I was getting at that sanctions are bad

10

Anonymous .gaia. 1d

Are you sure you’re not? When was the last time you made sure there wasn’t North Korean fluids stuck to the back of your teeth? Or the last time you didn’t open wide for authoritarians?

-1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Well ofc they would be allocated, I’m saying we still exist in a system of trade, so resources are still needed by small socialist states that they cannot produce on their own.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1d

Real my b

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Damn we just going with the ad hominems now huh? 💀

11

Anonymous .gaia. 1d

If all sanctions were lifted, and there were no disincentives to trade with North Korea globally, what would change?

3

Anonymous OP 1d

It’s cute to watch you all square this up in real time

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I mean an activist isn’t going to respond to any argument in an honest way, what’s the big deal

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Probably a decrease in isolationism, loosening of the Kim family’s hold on their governance, and (hopefully) a better system of genuinely socialist governance.

5

Anonymous OP 1d

Why would the Kim family give up any power? What’s wrong with the socialist governance as it currently exists?

5

Anonymous #7 1d

I called I guy a twit but I’m sorry cause for a sec I thought he was a troll and not genuine 😞

4

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

The decrease in their hold would likely occur when there is a clear reason for less authoritarian governance to exist (I.E. less fear of foreign intervention and better material conditions). The Kim’s aren’t in power for no reason, they do have wide support due to isolationist ideology following the Korean War.

3

Anonymous OP 1d

You said earlier that in a communist world trade is still necessary, why would it not be allocated fairly by the United proletariat? I saw no one claim that resources are not needed by small socialist states.

0

Anonymous OP 1d

What do North Koreans need today that the workers who have owned the means of production for 70 years can’t produce?

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Given that they have little arable land given how mountainous their country is, food. Every region can produce different goods, and the most easily produced goods come from available resources.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

I meant trade is still necessary while nations exist, obviously a united international socialist society would simply allocate resources 🙄

3

Anonymous OP 1d

You don’t think the Kim’s are in power because they assumed control of the military and educated generations of Koreans that they are divine gods in human form delivering them from oppression? If there were no sanctions, why would foreign intervention be any less scary? If there were no sanctions, what material conditions would improve and why?

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

1. You assume the personality cult arose solely by the Kim’s design. They absolutely reinforce it, but it also arose amongst the North Korean people following their countries creation and the war. 2. Less scary because better material conditions mean less chance of regime change attempts being successful 3. Trade would produce better material conditions via access of goods they previously had little of.

4

Anonymous OP 1d

What does the transition from global socialist nations to united international socialist society look like

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

You are asking me to speculate about stages in historical materialism vastly ahead of our own, it’s like asking someone in feudalism to imagine a socialist society. It’s hard to speculate about what it looks like in practice, but based on the shrinking of the number of classes through its progression, we can know at least the class character of the future stages.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

So if North Korea had enough arable land, you don’t think there would be food shortage issues?

5

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Yes! They might have many shortages of other goods of their natural resources weren’t conducive to production of those goods though. Trade would still be necessary.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

*if their

1

Anonymous OP 1d

1. Not sure where you are getting that assumption from. What do you think of the quality of the North Korean education system? 2. There are several much more scary ways foreign intervention could threaten North Korea than American sanctions (you know that right?) 3. Why would trade with capitalist nations produce better material conditions? Or who do you think they would trade with that they aren’t trading with now?

2

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

1. Obviously major issues and a cult of personality, but you fail to realize it is material conditions and resistance to occupation that caused it to arise. 2. Ofc, but people are less likely to be swayed into western regime change attempts if their material conditions are good and needs met. 3. The collapse of the Soviet Union cause the famine in the 90s following the lack of trade. While they do minimal trade with China (limited from political reasons) they get little trade elsewhere.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

4. Recently however trade with Russia increased, and living conditions and access to goods has indeed become better

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Is that a really wordy way of saying you have no idea How many times have you been convinced to support a political movement by someone who can’t explain what happens when they succeed?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Ahh yeah, we can’t try capitalism because we don’t know what the future stages might entail. Just gotta stay in feudalism forever smh

1

Anonymous OP 1d

1. Where do you get the assumption I don’t know about the NK revolution? What would you change about the Korean education system? 2. I love when you miss an obvious oversight and cope with ofc ofc ofc (again, I see no reason why there would be less fear, there would obviously just be more overt threats to their power) 3. Why would trade with capitalist nations produce better material conditions? What style economy does Russia have? Who would they start trading with that they do not trade now?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

1. Your focus on the education system is very interesting, obviously I would support removing the cult of personality from an educational space. 2. Once again my point is that stability increases when people’s material needs are met, which would increase with trade. 3. Not just capitalist nations, though yess some are needed as most of the world remains capitalist. Access to goods you can’t produce in your country obviously better material conditions. Especially when it’s essential things

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Do you disagree with North Koreas current agricultural policies? What would change about them if there was enough arable land? What communist country has ever had enough independent sustainable food production for their people in the way you think would happen if North Korea had enough arable land?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I’m not sure of any capitalists who believe there are future stages of capitalism. What are these future stages of capitalism you refer to?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

China currently has plenty of food. The agriculture policies are of little concern when the point is that they cannot produce enough and rely on trade to meet people’s needs due to a lack of arable land.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

My point is that this is comparable to thinking we cannot progress from feudalism to capitalism because we can’t predict everything that comes next following the change in socioeconomic structure.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I think it’s fair to count that as dodging the question directly

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

I think you don’t know where we are in this conversation lmao

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

I wasn’t talking about “future stages of capitalism” but rather the stages beyond it

1

Anonymous OP 1d

No one cares about the change in stages of the socioeconomic structure they want to not be slaves to the king of England lol

0

Anonymous OP 1d

What are the stages beyond capitalism

-1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

No shit, and we don’t want to be slaves of the bourgeoisie. Obviously the majority of people aren’t fully grasping the change in systems as any stage progresses. Gradually it will become as ridiculous to advocate a return to capitalism as someone saying we should return to feudalism is today.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

How many times have YOU been convinced to support a political movement by someone who cant explain what happens when the succeed? I’m looking for a number, or an explanation why it’s not important that you can’t explain what happens.

-1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Socialism and communism

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

A number? What happens when we progress to the next stage is that the proletariat gains control over the means of production.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

1. What do you think would happen to the Kim government if the cult of personality was no longer part of the educational space? 2. Your point here about stability does not seem to address my claim that fear of foreign intervention would not decrease with no sanctions. 3. What style economy does Russia have? What countries would you guess they trade with that they do not trade with now? Why is it beneficial for North Korea to trade with capitalist nations and not only other communist nations?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

1. I imagine we’d see less of cult of personality among the masses. 2. My point is that this fear decreases when the country is more stable, which reduces sanctions would bring. 3. It’s beneficial because most of the world is still capitalist, and some goods are easier acquired though them.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

*reduced

1

Anonymous OP 1d

You did not answer either question regarding North Koreas agricultural polices, could you? You understand the logic that when a country doesn’t have enough food, you should have some concern about what that countries agricultural policies are right? Not even that it’s the only concern lol Are Chinas agricultural policies communist? Do they resemble how you think North Koreas policies would without sanctions? Like at all? Do you understand that response doesn’t follow any of the questions 😅

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Do you understand that the agricultural policies are of little concern when the region is mountainous and couldn’t meet demand even with the most perfect polices imaginable? China is a state capitalist mixed economy. Necessary to build productive forces, while still preserving control of the economy by the class dictatorship of the proletariat.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

If you have some ideal policy that can summon arable land to a mountainous region please write there embassy! You really could help 😍

1

Anonymous OP 1d

*their 😞

1

Anonymous OP 1d

1. So if the North Korean people were not taught fake history of the Kim family, there would be less of a cult of personality, but they would still support the Kim family? If so, why? 2. Fear of succesful intervention may decrease with stability, but why would fear of intervention go down? You understand the distinction, right? You know dictators are usually paranoid in an unstable way, right? 3. Why are some goods more easily acquired through trade with capitalist nations? Like what goods?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

1. I’m not saying they would support a strong hold by the Kim family at all. This random tangent is really irrelevant to the point. 2. If there is no longer a fear of successful intervention in their countries system, the nation will lessen authoritarian tendencies, this is well documented. 3. Goods needing resources not easily available locally for production. I’m not going to spend more time answering question after question when they are irrelevant to the point.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Who are slaves of the bourgeoisie? You have successfully moved the conversation away from when I asked you to explain a crucial part of the communist transition, and you couldn’t. I’ve had people do it before, I was waiting to see what you gave me to work with lol

0

Anonymous OP 1d

Are socialism and communism necessary stages beyond capitalism? Why do you think they are stages beyond capitalism?

-1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

The transition is the proletariat seizing the means of production, what don’t you get?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

A number. Of political movements. You have supported. Without an explanation. Of what happens. When the movement succeeds. (1 movement, 2 movements, etc would be possible answers) Who is the proletariat? How do they gain control of stuff?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

A number I have supported? What are you on about lol. You know your questions could be answered by actually reading the theories of Marx 😉

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I’ve read it all, and you’ve run out of semi-predictable answers to my questions, you’re boring me I won’t support a movement if you can’t explain what happens if it succeeds, does that not make sense?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

And my response was that we can’t know the full extent of such a transition because we have yet to transition to the prior stage. Which we know is when the means of production are in the hands of the proletariat, organized under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (class dictatorship opposite the one we live under as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie). One again actually reading Marx would make it way easier on me so I don’t have to answer a million questions.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

If you’ve “read it all” you wouldn’t be asking such silly questions lmao. Especially when the next stage has been explained to you. I cannot claim to know exactly what the stage beyond the next looks like. Like I said, it’s like asking someone under feudalism to picture socialism. And don’t worry, you aren’t alone, you are also beginning to bore me 🥱.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

lol I have read all of Marx, I am just seeing when you get stuck, and what I’m saying is it’s dissapointing that you can explain this far but don’t have an answer for this. If you don’t know because we haven’t had the means of production in the hands of the proletariat, how do you know there even will be an eventual transition from global socialist nations to a united socialist society?

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

I am 100% confident I can explain what socialism is to someone living under feudalism in 1650-1750, lol Feudalism in Russia was still being practiced after Marx had written the communist manifesto, lol, try squaring that one.

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Sure you have bud. You are just testing me 🤭. We absolutely have had the means of production in the hands of the proletariat. We progress further due to the inherent contradictions within capitalism. Since you are testing, I want too as well, why don’t you give explain Marx’s position on human nature? Maybe give me the types of alienation under capitalism?

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

You are correct, it was semi-feudal. But you cannot explain it in a way that would be fully comprehensible unless one lived in it. In the same why I can say communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society with the means of production owned collectively, but you cannot fully understand what it is like to live In such a society if you haven’t experienced it firsthand

1

Anonymous OP 1d

1. So in your ideal world, the Kim family doesn’t indoctrinate their people and hold power in North Korea anymore? 2. What would that documentation be? Finally, evidence from a Marxist. I can’t wait. 3. You are free to give up, I’m asking different direct follow ups every time. You are the one I keep having to repeat questions to.

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

1. “Ideal world” claims to have read Marx yet is asking a materialist about idealist views 💀. 2. Look at any example of an isolationist country opens up and tell me how they change politically. 3. You are free to give up, It must be hard to reword the same questions I’ve already answered 🥱

1

Anonymous OP 1d

So someone seeking to solve North Korean food shortages should spend little, maybe even no time figuring out what the current policies even are? You skipped all my agricultural questions again Why are state capitalist mixed economies necessary? When does Marx discuss them?

0

Anonymous OP 1d

This is the entire point im trying to convey. Of course we can predict the class character of the stage beyond socialism (communism) but asking for a detailed account of what such a society looks like when we have never progressed that far yet is silly

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I don’t think more arable land would fix the issue, why would it?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

1. I never claimed I’m hell bent on solving their food shortages and constantly researching them. My whole point which you glossed over is that the policies are irrelevant when there isn’t enough arable land. 2. See #1 3. Lenin discusses them in his writings on the NEP 🥱 Mr “I’ve read all of Marx” sure you have, now try Lenin

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

All right you got me, good troll had me going 8/10

1

Anonymous OP 1d

How do you know communism will eventually happen if I support your movement

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

lol nice try I already figured you out 8/10 💀

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Nvm he was troll 😞💀

2

Anonymous OP 1d

I mean you did give a detailed account of that society lol I was asking for an explanation of the transition from state to stateless, which does exist, you just can’t provide it

0

Anonymous OP 1d

So you don’t have an answer?

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

You made very good work of making your point difficult to ascertain or I would have answered it, but you gave your troll away so this is goodbye 😍

1

Anonymous OP 1d

You don’t seem very interested in solving food shortages because you might be more concerned with achieving a specific political outcome, regardless of whether there are or are not food shortages

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

As for your answer (I can’t resist) you need to read Lenin on the withering away of the state. Mr. “I’ve read all of Marx” 🤭

1

Anonymous OP 1d

When has production been in the hands of the proletariat? Marx said human nature was not individualistically competitive, but was cooperative, and who people are comes from their history and society. Our labor power makes us unique. Under capitalism, workers are alienated from labor, creative production, other workers, and their nature

0

Anonymous OP 1d

Cope

0

Anonymous OP 1d

How often do you get so confused explaining communism that you have to give up

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

My guy I checked your post history too you know 🤭 hard to troll when you have it all documented

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Well I gave you an answer (see below), I just figured out your schtick 🤭

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I mean I oppose communism, that’s not a troll I purposely have everything visible in my post history

0

Anonymous OP 1d

Aw why don’t you explain it, you were doing such a good job

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Jesus titty fucking Christ, if you are serious and not a troll, idk what to say honestly 💀

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

I will when you read Marx beyond the ai overview of economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 (like ya did to get the answer of my alienation question 😉)

1

Anonymous OP 1d

1. I’m asking about your position on whether you support the Mim family dictatorship or not 2. Do you not have an example? 3. Do you think Marx would agree with Lenin’s NEP

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Call it a mulligan, I only remembered half of them

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I am not a communist, I oppose communism, like most people who have lived under it

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 23h

Well, they’d have more food and fuel lol. Not even engaging with the previous response lil bro

1

Anonymous #8 16h

I wish smh

1