So, are things bad there or good there? Because if your argument is that Western sanctions make it bad to be there, then why not lobby to push for the end of sanctions instead?
But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It feels like you are trying to have your cake and eat it. It is simultaneously a good place to be and suffering under sanctions, defectors are paid lots of money to exaggerate and live destitute lives to need that money.
Like, it feels like you are saying people like it there, which… Yeah, people generally like to be in places they’ve always been. But that doesn’t make it good there. There are people in the US that live in very poor conditions in cities and towns with access to poor water, poor education, poor nutrition, etc., and like it there. Does that mean it is actually good there instead? No, obviously. That is silly.
Like, I dunno, man. Any country that does military parades is immediately kind of a red flag for me. That gives me strong nationalistic and patriarchal vibes and is not a thing that makes me think unbiased.
I do push for an end to sanctions, I don’t know what you mean by claiming I don’t. I want the US Empire off the peninsula, and I want all sanctions to end. I think that’s the first step towards reunification without nearly as much bloodshed as any other outcome, maybe even none, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part to see a colonized and divided people heal.
Secondly, the DPRK is nationalistic. Nationalism in the context of resisting imperialism and colonization is entirely different from nationalism in the context of supporting imperialism and colonization. Nationalism in the global south is generally progressive, in that it directly opposes imperialism, while nationalism in the global north is dangerous because it perpetuates it. The global south has a national interest towards their liberation, the global north has a national interest towards perpetuating imperialism.
My point is that the DPRK is slowly but steadily recovering and improving, and isn’t the embodiment of Mordor that western orgs paint it to be. It’s much closer to Cuba, and the two countries have historically been firm friends.
I appreciate that you defended the nationalistic part, but I don’t appreciate that you glossed over the patriarchal part, but I digress.
Nationalism is just a crutch to bring support to the ruling class of any country. Saying that it is good if the ruling class is good or even just has good intentions is… Not good? I shouldn’t have to explain how that kind of fervor can be coopted. Nationalism doesn’t just disappear when it’s no longer needed.
But, personally, as a US citizen, I don’t think anyone I know thinks of North Korea as a hellscape. Media rarely portrays them as one, although it comes up more in Korean media, which does have some proliferation here. In the news, it’s just about the weapon capabilities, and the military parades, the former I don’t really care about as much coming from a country with an arsenal capable of destroying the world many times over and occasionally little hesitancy to do so, and the latter I very much do. Same with Cuba. If anything, American media tries to convince us of all African and sometimes South American countries are hellscapes. Mostly, we just get told Cuba has old cars and is poor and stuff about Fidel Castro, and North Korea is also poor and very militaristic and nationalistic. But, like, that seems pretty accurate from your replies?
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so my analysis of nationalism fits that. I’m a fan of Frantz Fanon’s work, especially The Wretched of the Earth. Nationalism in the global south must be correctly analyzed, and that involves class analysis, which you brought up. In a standard, colonized or imperialized country, the nationalist capitalists can ally with the working class against comprador capitalists and the imperialist countries. This has been the case in Algeria, Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Once free from the comoradors, next comes overthrowing the nationalist bourgeoisie.
The DPRK, however, performed land reform, effectively ending landlords as a class, and now has relegated the bourgeoisie to special economic zones like Rason, where trade with Russia and China is more common. The ruling class has been the working class. The DPRK has a strong sense of internationalism, it was one of the primary forces in liberating African countries from colonialism alongside Cuba. The “Non-Aligned Movement” was an internationalist and global-south focused coalition, of which the DPRK was a major player.
In its current context, the strong millitancy is a matter of survival against brutal sanctions and constant invasion threats from the US Empire. They are forced to be on-guard at all times, because the invasion drills practiced in the ROK might at any point become real. It’s a matter of survival.
As for depicting the DPRK as a hellscape, there are people that think smartphones don’t exist there, or that they are all eating rats and have to have the same haircut, etc. etc. They are poor, but they do well with what they have. Ending sanctions would probably see them thrive. Same with Cuba, which is portrayed as a totalitarian nightmare.
None of these countries are perfect utopias, but at the same time no utopia exists, and every country in the global south deserves to be treated with dignity.
I think there is a big difference between eating rats and having the same haircut in terms of propaganda angles. Like, I could believe the second one because a strong national identity tied to looking a certain way feels very in line with traditionally militaristic and patriarchal countries, but trying to tie that to eating rats is moat and baileying. Anyone that believes the eating rats is a small minority and would be given skeptical looks, especially without proof.
But seeing you do that at the same time you tie North Korea to Cuba feels like that’s the point? You see why I am skeptical of your premise. You keep pointing at eating rats and imperialism like it shields you from the other issues you don’t address.
In my experience, the people who believe the rat stories are the most common. Further, the haircut story is also false, propagandizing against the DPRK takes on many forms.
I addressed everything you said. The DPRK is poor, yes. It’s also heavily sanctioned, but despite that the economy is growing and it’s getting better. The DPRK is nationalistic, yes, but that isn’t a bad thing, and it’s extremely internationalist in foreign policy. It is millitaristic, yes, by necessity for its position as a nation under constant threat.
The DPRK isn’t a perfect country, nor is it a paradise. It also isn’t the saturday morning cartoon villian like the media portrays it to be, as constantly threatening to nuke everyone or enforce the same haircuts. That’s my point.
How can you tell me it is false at the same time you tell me there’s not a lot of information passing between the two? These statements are in contention. But, like, I wouldn’t even think they literally all have the same haircut. I would think there is a prevalence to have similar hairdos. Because nationalism is like that. You idolize the military, you get people trying to look like the military. It’s not rocket surgery.
This is a weird misinformation combat strategy, where you tell me something isn’t true that is for sure not true, and then point to something that might or might not be true and say that it is the same thing. Because they’re not. If anything, it makes me feel like the opposite. Heck, I can even say that someone eating rats isn’t particularly crazy when you make me think about it. I’ve seen some poor conditions, and eating squirrels and rabbits isn’t that different from eatings rats, and there are people that do that here in America. Like, is eating a rat even that bad? It feels kinda like shaming someone for trying to survive. And I didn’t even really care about the haircut thing! Omg!
The idea of state-mandated haircuts is false. I never said people only have different haircuts.
I think you’re getting lost in the sauce here, a bit. I’ve given common examples of widely spread stories, such as people eating rats or being forced to get one of only a few types of haircuts, etc. There are other stories too, like the idea that whoever stops clapping for Kim Jong-Un first is executed. People do believe these stories, even though we know they’re fake, because of cultural hegemony.
I am not saying these are all the “same thing.” They have differences in severity, yes, but they are all real examples of real news stories that have been debunked. Recently, there was even a story of banning hamburgers and hot dogs for being too American, which, wouldn’t you know, was also fake.
Real information from the DPRK is neither impossible to find nor what’s out in the open. It does exist, but it’s primarily not in English, and English-speaking news is flooded with tall-tales and clickbait to overwhelm the real information.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to say, here. I’ve made my position clear several times now.
Real life is never so simple as to be either good or bad. Are things good in the country you live in? Are they bad? Can you really pick one or the other, when it highly depends on personal views and priorities? For you it may be good, and for others it may be bad. Especially considering we know so little about countries like DPRK.
I think the main point here is that, whatever it’s currently like inside DPRK, it’s being actively made worse by outside entities, notably the American Empire. And the information we have available is extremely unreliable.
Like, I dunno, man. Any country that does military parades is immediately kind of a red flag for me.
I don’t have an issue with having an issue with all existing countries. Why would I? It doesn’t defend your point to say “oh so you hate when other people do it?” Yes! Obviously! I think military parades are bad, specifically because it glorifies violence and promotes a national identity around use of that violence to keep people insular. Like, if you dislike imperialism, you kinda should dislike nationalism, even when used in self-defense because it is a huge double-edged sword.
Real life is never so simple as to be either good or bad. Are things good in the country you live in?
Good and bad are comparators. Some places are better, some are worse. But the argument indicates that we should treat an unknown as better than a known, and that the red flags are just flags. I like the optimism, truly, but I would rather see evidence for it.
I don’t have an issue with having an issue with all existing countries
Fair. I was just unsure whether you really did mean all countries.
Some places are better, some are worse.
And some places are better for some people, while being worse for other people. Not necessarily always, but sometimes it’s a matter of preferences. One person may choose to live in a country with fewer liberties due to preferable climate. For them that would be a good choice, but for you it may not be.
But the argument indicates that we should treat an unknown as better than a known, and that the red flags are just flags.
You never elaborated on why nationalism in the global south against imperialism is a bad thing, you just ignored it. Nationalism is bad when it’s reactionary, ie reinforces imperialism, but nationalist movements can be good, like Palestinian liberation. Further, I never said information on the DPRK was impossible, just difficult, and explained why there’s a big misinformation campaign. I never said unknowns are better than knowns.
So, are things bad there or good there? Because if your argument is that Western sanctions make it bad to be there, then why not lobby to push for the end of sanctions instead?
But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It feels like you are trying to have your cake and eat it. It is simultaneously a good place to be and suffering under sanctions, defectors are paid lots of money to exaggerate and live destitute lives to need that money.
Like, it feels like you are saying people like it there, which… Yeah, people generally like to be in places they’ve always been. But that doesn’t make it good there. There are people in the US that live in very poor conditions in cities and towns with access to poor water, poor education, poor nutrition, etc., and like it there. Does that mean it is actually good there instead? No, obviously. That is silly.
Like, I dunno, man. Any country that does military parades is immediately kind of a red flag for me. That gives me strong nationalistic and patriarchal vibes and is not a thing that makes me think unbiased.
I do push for an end to sanctions, I don’t know what you mean by claiming I don’t. I want the US Empire off the peninsula, and I want all sanctions to end. I think that’s the first step towards reunification without nearly as much bloodshed as any other outcome, maybe even none, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part to see a colonized and divided people heal.
Secondly, the DPRK is nationalistic. Nationalism in the context of resisting imperialism and colonization is entirely different from nationalism in the context of supporting imperialism and colonization. Nationalism in the global south is generally progressive, in that it directly opposes imperialism, while nationalism in the global north is dangerous because it perpetuates it. The global south has a national interest towards their liberation, the global north has a national interest towards perpetuating imperialism.
My point is that the DPRK is slowly but steadily recovering and improving, and isn’t the embodiment of Mordor that western orgs paint it to be. It’s much closer to Cuba, and the two countries have historically been firm friends.
I appreciate that you defended the nationalistic part, but I don’t appreciate that you glossed over the patriarchal part, but I digress.
Nationalism is just a crutch to bring support to the ruling class of any country. Saying that it is good if the ruling class is good or even just has good intentions is… Not good? I shouldn’t have to explain how that kind of fervor can be coopted. Nationalism doesn’t just disappear when it’s no longer needed.
But, personally, as a US citizen, I don’t think anyone I know thinks of North Korea as a hellscape. Media rarely portrays them as one, although it comes up more in Korean media, which does have some proliferation here. In the news, it’s just about the weapon capabilities, and the military parades, the former I don’t really care about as much coming from a country with an arsenal capable of destroying the world many times over and occasionally little hesitancy to do so, and the latter I very much do. Same with Cuba. If anything, American media tries to convince us of all African and sometimes South American countries are hellscapes. Mostly, we just get told Cuba has old cars and is poor and stuff about Fidel Castro, and North Korea is also poor and very militaristic and nationalistic. But, like, that seems pretty accurate from your replies?
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so my analysis of nationalism fits that. I’m a fan of Frantz Fanon’s work, especially The Wretched of the Earth. Nationalism in the global south must be correctly analyzed, and that involves class analysis, which you brought up. In a standard, colonized or imperialized country, the nationalist capitalists can ally with the working class against comprador capitalists and the imperialist countries. This has been the case in Algeria, Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Once free from the comoradors, next comes overthrowing the nationalist bourgeoisie.
The DPRK, however, performed land reform, effectively ending landlords as a class, and now has relegated the bourgeoisie to special economic zones like Rason, where trade with Russia and China is more common. The ruling class has been the working class. The DPRK has a strong sense of internationalism, it was one of the primary forces in liberating African countries from colonialism alongside Cuba. The “Non-Aligned Movement” was an internationalist and global-south focused coalition, of which the DPRK was a major player.
In its current context, the strong millitancy is a matter of survival against brutal sanctions and constant invasion threats from the US Empire. They are forced to be on-guard at all times, because the invasion drills practiced in the ROK might at any point become real. It’s a matter of survival.
As for depicting the DPRK as a hellscape, there are people that think smartphones don’t exist there, or that they are all eating rats and have to have the same haircut, etc. etc. They are poor, but they do well with what they have. Ending sanctions would probably see them thrive. Same with Cuba, which is portrayed as a totalitarian nightmare.
None of these countries are perfect utopias, but at the same time no utopia exists, and every country in the global south deserves to be treated with dignity.
I think there is a big difference between eating rats and having the same haircut in terms of propaganda angles. Like, I could believe the second one because a strong national identity tied to looking a certain way feels very in line with traditionally militaristic and patriarchal countries, but trying to tie that to eating rats is moat and baileying. Anyone that believes the eating rats is a small minority and would be given skeptical looks, especially without proof.
But seeing you do that at the same time you tie North Korea to Cuba feels like that’s the point? You see why I am skeptical of your premise. You keep pointing at eating rats and imperialism like it shields you from the other issues you don’t address.
In my experience, the people who believe the rat stories are the most common. Further, the haircut story is also false, propagandizing against the DPRK takes on many forms.
I addressed everything you said. The DPRK is poor, yes. It’s also heavily sanctioned, but despite that the economy is growing and it’s getting better. The DPRK is nationalistic, yes, but that isn’t a bad thing, and it’s extremely internationalist in foreign policy. It is millitaristic, yes, by necessity for its position as a nation under constant threat.
The DPRK isn’t a perfect country, nor is it a paradise. It also isn’t the saturday morning cartoon villian like the media portrays it to be, as constantly threatening to nuke everyone or enforce the same haircuts. That’s my point.
How can you tell me it is false at the same time you tell me there’s not a lot of information passing between the two? These statements are in contention. But, like, I wouldn’t even think they literally all have the same haircut. I would think there is a prevalence to have similar hairdos. Because nationalism is like that. You idolize the military, you get people trying to look like the military. It’s not rocket surgery.
This is a weird misinformation combat strategy, where you tell me something isn’t true that is for sure not true, and then point to something that might or might not be true and say that it is the same thing. Because they’re not. If anything, it makes me feel like the opposite. Heck, I can even say that someone eating rats isn’t particularly crazy when you make me think about it. I’ve seen some poor conditions, and eating squirrels and rabbits isn’t that different from eatings rats, and there are people that do that here in America. Like, is eating a rat even that bad? It feels kinda like shaming someone for trying to survive. And I didn’t even really care about the haircut thing! Omg!
The idea of state-mandated haircuts is false. I never said people only have different haircuts.
I think you’re getting lost in the sauce here, a bit. I’ve given common examples of widely spread stories, such as people eating rats or being forced to get one of only a few types of haircuts, etc. There are other stories too, like the idea that whoever stops clapping for Kim Jong-Un first is executed. People do believe these stories, even though we know they’re fake, because of cultural hegemony.
I am not saying these are all the “same thing.” They have differences in severity, yes, but they are all real examples of real news stories that have been debunked. Recently, there was even a story of banning hamburgers and hot dogs for being too American, which, wouldn’t you know, was also fake.
Real information from the DPRK is neither impossible to find nor what’s out in the open. It does exist, but it’s primarily not in English, and English-speaking news is flooded with tall-tales and clickbait to overwhelm the real information.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to say, here. I’ve made my position clear several times now.
No worries, you explained it well. People will grasp at straws to dismiss any argument if they aren’t ready to examine certain convictions.
Real life is never so simple as to be either good or bad. Are things good in the country you live in? Are they bad? Can you really pick one or the other, when it highly depends on personal views and priorities? For you it may be good, and for others it may be bad. Especially considering we know so little about countries like DPRK.
I think the main point here is that, whatever it’s currently like inside DPRK, it’s being actively made worse by outside entities, notably the American Empire. And the information we have available is extremely unreliable.
So basically all countries on the planet?
I don’t have an issue with having an issue with all existing countries. Why would I? It doesn’t defend your point to say “oh so you hate when other people do it?” Yes! Obviously! I think military parades are bad, specifically because it glorifies violence and promotes a national identity around use of that violence to keep people insular. Like, if you dislike imperialism, you kinda should dislike nationalism, even when used in self-defense because it is a huge double-edged sword.
Good and bad are comparators. Some places are better, some are worse. But the argument indicates that we should treat an unknown as better than a known, and that the red flags are just flags. I like the optimism, truly, but I would rather see evidence for it.
Fair. I was just unsure whether you really did mean all countries.
And some places are better for some people, while being worse for other people. Not necessarily always, but sometimes it’s a matter of preferences. One person may choose to live in a country with fewer liberties due to preferable climate. For them that would be a good choice, but for you it may not be.
Personally I didn’t get that impression.
You never elaborated on why nationalism in the global south against imperialism is a bad thing, you just ignored it. Nationalism is bad when it’s reactionary, ie reinforces imperialism, but nationalist movements can be good, like Palestinian liberation. Further, I never said information on the DPRK was impossible, just difficult, and explained why there’s a big misinformation campaign. I never said unknowns are better than knowns.