• gowan@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You do not know what I do and do not know. I am aware that the theoretical path to communism is not the same for all but China keeps moving further away from ANY path to socialism or communism. Heck they really doubled down on authoritarianism when they allowed Xi to permanently hold office. Is a dictatorial state run for privately profit a path to socialism? Oh shit no it isn’t

    • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There really isn’t any democratic argument for term limits.

      “Oh but it will consolidate power”

      Do you think the voters are too uneducated to factor that into their voting patterns?

      “You can’t trust the masses like that!”

      Sounds kinda anti-democratic doesn’t it.

      • gowan@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No because he was elected. If he got the office right after TDR held it as the first POTUS and then it was passed to another Roosevelt then yes I would think he’s a dictator.

        Im unaware of ANYONE claiming DPRK has fair elections. If you have a valid source that makes this claim I would love to see it because on the surface they are clearly fraudulent.

        • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          OP is talking about how FDR was the first president to be elected for three terms, which is the same situation for Xi. Are you confusing the PRC and DPRK?

          I wrote something on the DPRK’s elections a while ago [link]—the “hereditary” (of which positions are diffused, with the SAC being a modern development of decentralization) succession is a product of extreme hardship from being bombed to shit and starved and occupied by the U.S, and deciding upon candidates that are seen as “successors” to the pioneer of the country/visage who defeated the imperialists; whether or not this is correct in your eyes means nothing.

          • gowan@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Im replying without the ability to place this in context as rn that button does not function fir me, so yes I believe I am confusing DPRK and PRC.

            In Xi’s case laws needed to be changed to give him the ability to run a third time. IMO moving towards a more authoritarian state is never going to result in a move towards socialism as it further entrenches power in an elite.

            The fact is DPRK has a hereditary leadership and the state seems to work to perpetuate that. The fact that there were historical justifications made for Kim Il Sung to pass it to his son is meaningless. DPRK has electoral turnouts that almost assure that the results are fake and it is hard to see an authoritarian state whose leadership has been inherited along family lines as anything other than the autocratic monarchy it is.

            • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              In Xi’s case laws needed to be changed to give him the ability to run a third time. IMO moving towards a more authoritarian state is never going to result in a move towards socialism as it further entrenches power in an elite.

              1. Authoritarianism (rule by authority) isn’t a valid concept (by which manner of authority? the authority of which class?). All societies are ruled by blind authority, but the status quo asserts itself as natural and everything against it becomes “authoritarian.” The immediate aim of the liquidation of the national bourgeoisie’s political power taken up by the dictatorship of the proletariat is not in any sense removed from bourgeois power elsewhere. This point manifests itself in the consideration of the state of the press, which has more and more become a close link between the capitalist class at large, a class that retains a political dictatorship over the majority of developed nations and several national dictatorships over their respective colonial shares of maldeveloped nations. Owing to the supreme authority of the world bourgeoisie, the proletarian masses who have consolidated political power domestically must suppress the siege on their delicate rule internationally. There are more prisoners per-capita and in total in the U.S. than in China, not to mention the clear difference in ownership of the factors of production, and yet this “authoritarianism” comes up again and again in rhetoric

              1. I explained the term limit change in my other reply to you [link]. There is no possible way to categorize this as “authoritarian” or “entrenching power in the elite.”

              2. This is an extreme non-reply. Leadership in the DPRK is diffused (explanation below). You never explain how “the state seems to work to perpetuate [hereditary succession, although succession is complex, as I already mentioned with the diffusion of power from Kim Il Sung].”

              The fact that there were historical justifications made for Kim Il Sung to pass it to his son is meaningless.

              Actually it explains the reason why voters might follow this pattern, and of course nothing in the article I wrote was addressed. As for “hereditary monarchy claims”, Kim Jong Un is General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea, and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission. These positions are elected by the WPK Party Congress and by the Supreme People’s Assembly respectively.

              • Sidenote: parties are elected by the people every five years (under the DFRF), the WPK isn’t permanently leading [other parties include the KSDP and the CCP]

              If Kim Jong Un didn’t wish to continue to hold his positions, one of the Vice-Chairpersons would take his place temporarily, and a successor would be discussed and elected at the next party conference, also likely a Vice-Chairperson. For example, Kim Jong Il was elected into the Party Central Committee in the 70’s, and in 1974 was elected as the successor to Kim Il Sung. Jang Song-Thaek was elected to succeed Kim Jong Il, however, he wanted to reform certain areas, thus debate regarding his intentions and whether he was a revisionist or not ensued; the party then switched and had Kim Jong Un succeed Kim Jong Il. Jang Song-Thaek then staged a coup in an attempt to consolidate power by force (confirming his intentions were not pure and that he was likely a revisionist in the intent of his “reform”). He was executed thereafter. It’s important to mention Jang Song-Thaek to show that a successor to Chairman of the SAC doesn’t have to be a direct child of the former. So, if Kim Jong Un were to retire, or wish to discontinue his positions, it would be somebody in the Politburo, or a Vice-Chairperson of the State Affairs Commission, to succeed him. However, there currently isn’t an elected successor appointed, because likely odds are that he isn’t retiring or dying in the near future. Kim Jong Un is not actually in total control of the DPRK; the Supreme People’s Assembly has, by far, the extreme majority of control over the latter. Kim Jong Un has never been in either the Supreme People’s Assembly or its respective Standing Committee. Premier is the second top rank within the SPA, currently held by Kim Jae Ryong [not related]. President of the Standing Committee (Presidium) is the top position within the SPA, a position held by Kim Yong-Nam [not related] until April 2019, where Choe Ryong-Hae thereafter was elected. That isn’t to say that Kim Jong Un holds no power within the DPRK, but anyone within the SPA certainly has more legislative authority. Each person within the SPA, including Premier and Head of the Presidium, is elected (and thus their power is temporary and can be removed at any time). The closest thing to a dictatorship (so to speak) in the DPRK is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a determining class dictatorship of the majority which governs the state. The only of the Kim family members (remember this is a common Korean surname, I am referring to the lineage of Kim Il Sung) to have an SPA position was Kim Il Sung, and he abolished his position. The “next in line” leader in the WPK is likely not to be a descendant of Kim Il Sung either.

              • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I want to keep on insulting the man good cop bad cop style, but now I’m learning, and I’m content to let him keep saying vapid bullshit if it means you keep posting bangers.

                Thanks for your contributions.

    • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You do not know what I do and do not know.

      I know that you misunderstood the comment on liberalism (which I corrected), I know that your understanding of “socialism vs. mixed economy” is fundamentally nonsense, of course you didn’t bother to respond to any of this.

      To respond to this new comment, China is under PSS, which means that the incorrect policy of over-nationalization was corrected and the country was opened up; prior to the centennial goal of developed socialism (2049/2050, precursor to communism), the purpose of state planning is to expand the productive forces to prepare for the elimination of private property. This is where you find a path seemingly “away from” socialism, but its purpose is specifically complex and not observable as such. I’m unsure how you ascertained this trend, and since you provide no examples, there’s nothing to respond to. Read this thoroughly sourced essay (and this as well) on China’s economy disproving your assertion, if you have any specific grievances not addressed then list them and I can respond.

      As for “authoritarianism”, the National People’s Congress (which elects the president) is composed of delegates elected by the people. Xi could hold office for a long time, but his terms are five years long after which the president is elected again (and the NPC can depose him at any time by popular vote in the case of emergency). What you’re referring to is a decision by the NPC to remove term limits (whose purpose in this case is only undemocratic and limiting of the people’s will), so that a president could extend beyond the prior decided two-term limit if voted for a third (which in the first place is only a decision to correct the discrepancy between CPC gensec and president). Is this authoritarianism? As for “dictatorial state” (your only evidence is not indicative of this), the central government and CPC have majority support according to Harvard with lower majority support as well in local governments because of infrastructure and public enrichment programs. The CPC comprises of 10% of the eligible population and is a mass party which is not run for “privately profit [sic]” here’s another article on the class character of the people’s gov..