you know what? i'll just say it (unpopular opinion!)
north korea/the dprk should've been a de leonist country - if the soviet union DIDN'T go for kim il-sung, they should've went with someone else (regardless of whether or NOT they favor de leonism). seriously!
EDIT: what i mean is that north korea should've been a de leonist country to begin with (from the 1940s). seriously!
thelastaxolotl [he/him] - 2w
hard to have de leonism (ideology based on worker unions) on an semi feudal ex-colony, it was a country made up by a majority peasant class with little to none proletariat class
25
LeninWeave [none/use name, any] - 2w
Based historical materialism understander, history is not driven by people having the right ideas at the right time, it's driven by the interactions of material forces/conditions.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx
Capitalism did not emerge in England because philosophers there invented it, it emerged in England because the conditions for it to emerge existed there.
23
Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them] - 2w
Incorrect. History is like a Paradox map painting game and you're supposed to pick the social virtues and governments that give your faction the biggest buffs. The DPRK had +15% loyalty bonus with Kim Il-Sung, sure, but if they had a trade unionist with good stats they could've gotten a really high industrialisation bonus and developed more efficiently. SMH, these communists states not even min/maxing their builds properly.
10
thelastaxolotl [he/him] - 2w
Leninism wouldnt have been as popular in Eurasia (USSR, China, Korea, etc.) if it didnt solved the peasant question, because none of those countries were in the imperial core were labour power was centralised so they have very little proletariat population.
10
LeninWeave [none/use name, any] - 2w
because none of those countries were in the imperial core were labour power was centralised so they have very little proletariat population.
It's actually very interesting that all existing Marxist revolutions occurred in countries that were largely agrarian/semi-feudal economies, contrary to Marx's prediction of needing a well-developed proletariat. IIRC he did mention at some point the possibility of Russia as a special case with an alliance between the peasantry and the proletariat, but I don't think that was really expanded on until Lenin (as you say).
11
thelastaxolotl [he/him] - 2w
even the more successful anarchist/non marxist revolutions happen outside the core (Catalunia, EZLN, etc.) and also did involved the peasant/rural populations. i think it has to do with the way the proletariat classes in the core are closely related to the imperial spoils, like in that slammer meme i like posting about england, the english class can be made to go against it interests as long as the treats flow
8
LeninWeave [none/use name, any] - 2w
even the more successful anarchist/non marxist revolutions happen outside the core (Catalunia, EZLN, etc.) and also did involved the peasant/rural populations.
IIRC the EZLN emerged partly from previous Marxist groups so I'm sure their analysis is materialist. I think almost every revolutionary group after Marx adopted a materialist analysis even if they weren't Marxists because it's genuinely baffling not to.
i think it has to do with the way the proletariat classes in the core are closely related to the imperial spoils
like in that slammer meme i like posting about england
Marx failed to consider the JDPON.
10
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 2w
i mean if north korea is a de leonist country from the 1940s. seriously!
2
purpleworm [none/use name] - 2w
Everyone understood what you meant and that's why they reject it. Post-WWII Korea was a semi-feudal ex-colony. Aside from syndicalism being a completely inadequate ideology anywhere, they are right that it's farcical in this context. Next, shall we say that the Ikko-Ikki or Thomas Müntzer or Spartacus should have been De Leonists?
I can't tell if this is a bit account. If so, it's not a tasteful joke. seriously!
13
LeninWeave [none/use name, any] - 2w
I can't tell if this is a bit account. If so, it's not a tasteful joke. seriously!
I think this is a young user. They've made quite a few posts that seem sincere, and repeatedly denied doing a bit. They're not acting combative or toxic, so I think there's no harm in them asking questions like this here and getting answers. We all learn somehow. Agreed that it wouldn't be tasteful as a bit, though.
17
purpleworm [none/use name] - 2w
I certainly agree that that's what they are if they are sincere, I just find certain elements like the density of repetition in phrasing and such kind of strange, along with posting a fair bit but without replying very much even to people who are nice, or so it looked in the other thread.
Anyway, I agree that it's better regardless to treat them as sincere.
13
buckykat [none/use name] - 2w
OP has also stated that they are neurodivergent in another of their threads a while back, iirc.
I also think the "seriously!" endings started about then too, after so many people accused them of doing a bit.
6
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 2w
my point is that north korea should've been leftcom to begin with. seriously!
1
purpleworm [none/use name] - 2w
I'm pretty sure leftcom is seriously incompatible with De Leonism/syndicalism in the sense that leftcom, while also silly, is revolutionary. It comes across like you're just kind of stringing words together. Can I suggest reading a book on leftist theory instead of trying to stitch things together from the incoherent patchwork of Wikipedia?
7
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 2w
are there any ways i can read leftist theory without losing focus quickly?
4
corgiwithalaptop [any, love/loves] - 2w
asking for "leftist theory" is a really broad question. What is it you want to focus on?
2);If youre having trouble engaging with the typical texts, like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and so on, there are plenty of more modern writers who have explained, elaborated on, and brought the ideas to the 21st century. For instance, if you are having trouble with a particular Lenin work, maybe look up some newer writers who have dissected what youre reading.
theres also communities on hexbear dedicated to theory questions and discussions, that could be a help.
7
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 2w
i WOULDN'T focus on stalin - i prefer the usual stuff; marx, lenin, trotsky, de leon, any socialist theorist!
1
PaulSmackage [he/him, comrade/them] - 2w
Is there someone you forgot to ask?
1
purpleworm [none/use name] - 2w
That depends a lot on the specifics of your own proclivities. I personally really like audiobooks and that helped me get into things. My favorite is this reading of Socialims: Utopian and Scientific.
It's also not the most satisfying answer, but it's worth noting that keeping one's focus is a skill and it will improve at least a little as you attempt to exercise it, even if you "fail".
3
Sickos [they/them, it/its] - 2w
Adderall
1
thelastaxolotl [he/him] - 2w
but how different would it be tho? the leonist DPRK now elects people to the goverment via votes from union members instead of votes from people assembles?
4
infuziSporg [e/em/eir] - 2w
you have earned One Extra Free Spin on the wheel of ideology
DylanMc6 in main
you know what? i'll just say it (unpopular opinion!)
north korea/the dprk should've been a de leonist country - if the soviet union DIDN'T go for kim il-sung, they should've went with someone else (regardless of whether or NOT they favor de leonism). seriously!
EDIT: what i mean is that north korea should've been a de leonist country to begin with (from the 1940s). seriously!
hard to have de leonism (ideology based on worker unions) on an semi feudal ex-colony, it was a country made up by a majority peasant class with little to none proletariat class
Based historical materialism understander, history is not driven by people having the right ideas at the right time, it's driven by the interactions of material forces/conditions.
Capitalism did not emerge in England because philosophers there invented it, it emerged in England because the conditions for it to emerge existed there.
Incorrect. History is like a Paradox map painting game and you're supposed to pick the social virtues and governments that give your faction the biggest buffs. The DPRK had +15% loyalty bonus with Kim Il-Sung, sure, but if they had a trade unionist with good stats they could've gotten a really high industrialisation bonus and developed more efficiently. SMH, these communists states not even min/maxing their builds properly.
Leninism wouldnt have been as popular in Eurasia (USSR, China, Korea, etc.) if it didnt solved the peasant question, because none of those countries were in the imperial core were labour power was centralised so they have very little proletariat population.
It's actually very interesting that all existing Marxist revolutions occurred in countries that were largely agrarian/semi-feudal economies, contrary to Marx's prediction of needing a well-developed proletariat. IIRC he did mention at some point the possibility of Russia as a special case with an alliance between the peasantry and the proletariat, but I don't think that was really expanded on until Lenin (as you say).
even the more successful anarchist/non marxist revolutions happen outside the core (Catalunia, EZLN, etc.) and also did involved the peasant/rural populations. i think it has to do with the way the proletariat classes in the core are closely related to the imperial spoils, like in that slammer meme i like posting about england, the english class can be made to go against it interests as long as the treats flow
IIRC the EZLN emerged partly from previous Marxist groups so I'm sure their analysis is materialist. I think almost every revolutionary group after Marx adopted a materialist analysis even if they weren't Marxists because it's genuinely baffling not to.
Marx failed to consider the JDPON.
i mean if north korea is a de leonist country from the 1940s. seriously!
Everyone understood what you meant and that's why they reject it. Post-WWII Korea was a semi-feudal ex-colony. Aside from syndicalism being a completely inadequate ideology anywhere, they are right that it's farcical in this context. Next, shall we say that the Ikko-Ikki or Thomas Müntzer or Spartacus should have been De Leonists?
I can't tell if this is a bit account. If so, it's not a tasteful joke. seriously!
I think this is a young user. They've made quite a few posts that seem sincere, and repeatedly denied doing a bit. They're not acting combative or toxic, so I think there's no harm in them asking questions like this here and getting answers. We all learn somehow. Agreed that it wouldn't be tasteful as a bit, though.
I certainly agree that that's what they are if they are sincere, I just find certain elements like the density of repetition in phrasing and such kind of strange, along with posting a fair bit but without replying very much even to people who are nice, or so it looked in the other thread.
Anyway, I agree that it's better regardless to treat them as sincere.
OP has also stated that they are neurodivergent in another of their threads a while back, iirc.
I also think the "seriously!" endings started about then too, after so many people accused them of doing a bit.
my point is that north korea should've been leftcom to begin with. seriously!
I'm pretty sure leftcom is seriously incompatible with De Leonism/syndicalism in the sense that leftcom, while also silly, is revolutionary. It comes across like you're just kind of stringing words together. Can I suggest reading a book on leftist theory instead of trying to stitch things together from the incoherent patchwork of Wikipedia?
are there any ways i can read leftist theory without losing focus quickly?
2);If youre having trouble engaging with the typical texts, like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and so on, there are plenty of more modern writers who have explained, elaborated on, and brought the ideas to the 21st century. For instance, if you are having trouble with a particular Lenin work, maybe look up some newer writers who have dissected what youre reading.
i WOULDN'T focus on stalin - i prefer the usual stuff; marx, lenin, trotsky, de leon, any socialist theorist!
Is there someone you forgot to ask?
That depends a lot on the specifics of your own proclivities. I personally really like audiobooks and that helped me get into things. My favorite is this reading of Socialims: Utopian and Scientific.
It's also not the most satisfying answer, but it's worth noting that keeping one's focus is a skill and it will improve at least a little as you attempt to exercise it, even if you "fail".
Adderall
but how different would it be tho? the leonist DPRK now elects people to the goverment via votes from union members instead of votes from people assembles?
you have earned One Extra Free Spin on the wheel of ideology