Oh Hi, I did not see you there, I was just celebrating the Day of the Foundation of the Republic for the DPRK. Sense you are here you might as well stick around and join us for this time honored tradition of our group, the weekly discussion thread.
• Matrix homeserver and space
◦ Theory discussion group on Matrix
• Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna’s Archive, libgen
Damn the theme for this comment chain really is that you all use esoteric definitions of terms haha
I’ll try to read State and Revolution (that’s the one by Lenin right? I think I already had it on my list)
As for hypermilitarism, I think ingraining military prowess into the national ideology would count. Tying national identity to military dominance does not seem healthy for a society. Furthermore, bragging about one’s military prowess also seems unhealthy for a society and pointedly against international peace / cooperation.
The definitions of militarism I think of when I hear the word are typically “Glorification of military,” “Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.” And “The view that military strength, efficiency and values should dominate the country’s public policy choices and take precedence over other interests.”
Personally the definition: “The policy of maintaining a large military force, even in peacetime” falls more on the “hypermilitarism” side of things in my mind. However, I do understand that desire in countries that have been colonized and repeatedly attacked.
Anyway the DPRK seems to fit all those definitions and from what I’ve read (don’t worry I’m reading more) those definitions are ingrained in the ideology of Juche.
Also my questions don’t involve the US at all. The US is a clear example of militarism and definitely takes the cake as the most hypermilitarized country. That being said, the US hypermilitarism arises from the prevalent corruption in it, whereas the militarism of DPRK is a foundational element of Juche. <- this is not to say the US is better in any way, only to illustrate that what I dislike is not specifically that the DPRK is hyper militarized but that its founding principles require it to be and that seems flawed.
Regardless, trying to say something is good because another thing is worse is a fallacy. I’m not interested in American corruption I’m interested in opinions on elements I view as flaws in the ideology of the DPRK.
I also realize that you are probably used to dealing with trolls being antagonistic on purpose, but I really am just trying to learn.
None of us are deliberately being antagonistic or trolls. The others who have already tried to help you were far nicer than I’m willing to be.
You said earlier in your comments that you weren’t as careful with your words as you’d like to be. I think you have a long road to recovery ahead of you in that sense. If you’re going to deliberately enter a space populated by marxist leninists than it would probably be a good idea to do a little bit of homework and make sure that the actual terms and language you’re using are based in reality with clear definitions ie. marxist leninist.
Second point: you claim to want to somehow totally disentangle the United States of America from this conversation…about North Korea. Do you understand why it’s a little strange to only want to talk about one without the other? Other commenters have already pointed out to you that it was they who destroyed their country, infrastructure, and way of life. It’s really just silly (and honestly a little bit suspicious) that you want to “analyze” NK “fascism” without talking about the American fascism that resulted in their state existing at all. That isn’t analysis. It’s just a weird thought experiment where you rank a nation in isolation based on stats like it’s a fighting game character or something.
Also why aren’t you interested in what you call “American corruption”? What you’re describing is American imperialism which is responsible for the vast array of crises that afflict all of us right now in the modern day. It is the biggest contradiction of our times. If you’re not interested in it that’s fine but you can go splash in the political kiddy pool on .world or reddit or something.
You THINK that having clear definitions for these things is somehow salami-slicing but it is incredibly important. I understand that in your worldview (probably lib) Opinions are the most important thing in politics and it’s all of our responsibility to tiptoe around each others individual definitions, but that’s just not reality.
I’m really not interested in continuing to bicker about whatever it is you think militarism is but every description you’ve given of it applies to the US at at least some phase of it’s history. Trying to ascribe some kind of rank to how “militaristic” a society is useless. Why not also rank nations based on how “attractive” they are while we’re at it? It’s the same type of immaterial mumbo jumbo based on colonial thinking.