I've been speaking with other more informed communists and they've told me that none actually exist. Is this true?
China, Laos, and Vietnam: now notoriously capitalists. Workers work 12+ hours with no protection in horrible factory conditions. Suicide rates are so high that suicide nets are installed. The air is so polluted millions die from lung cancer, especially factory workers w/out basic masks. Corporations dominate
North Korea: Undemocratically ruled by the Kim dynasty. Jong un indulges lavishly at the expense of his citizens, ordering millions in fine wine and trips from Denis Rodman. They might be the most socialist though, as Juche seems to otherwise be democratic.
Cuba: Sanctions have taken a massive toll, but even taking that into account the country still has its own problems. They have massive food shortages and inventory probs and aren't self sufficient after 60+ years. Why couldn't they've use machinery imported from the Soviet Union to develop their agriculture and fishery? The Soviets supported them heavily. They seem to be incredibly mismanaged or corrupt
To answer this question, we have to dive into the meaning of the main terms. What does it mean for a country to be communist or socialist?
To start with the term communist: calling a country communist has meant it's run by a communist party, not that it has implemented communism as a classless, stateless society (which could not exist in the context of distinct nations in the first place, by definition). By this definition, China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam are communist countries.
PS, anyone saying something like "real communism hasn't been tried" doesn't even understand the words they're using and is not themselves a socialist or communist. Instead, they're a confused liberal.
Next, socialist, and the idea of a socialist country. There is actually not a shared and specific definition of what would make a country socialist per se, it's more of a project to deestablish the capitalist class and put the working class in power. Many socialists disagree with one another about whether a given country is socialist, and what is really underlying their thoughts is usually just whether or not they think a country is attempting to deestablish capitalism and/or is making sufficient progress in doing so.
In terms of your specific examples, I'll offer some critiques.
No socialist expects that the country they operate in after revolution will be free of having to work, for there to be no workplace abuses, for there to be no pollution or healthcare problems, or even for corporations to be immediately deestablished. In reality, what is expected is for the ruling party to begin a long process of undermining capitalist relations. One example is to place human needs into guarantees of the state rather than the whims of private corporations. Another is to quell the anarchy of the market through state controls on production. It is expected that the ruling party will rapidly address the key isy that drove the revolution, which has historically been land reform. An example of this in your list is that every person in Vietnam has a right to an amount of land to farm rice for themselves and their family.
You should also consider that these countries do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, they must fight to survive in a world dominated by extreme international violence, typically from capitalist countries. Therefore, countries like China and Vietnam have adopted specific strategies to deal with this intentional influence, i.e. to combat imperialists. China's example is one of economic entanglement and to allow private markets in special economic zones, which will allow tons of capitalist elements and social relations to exist there. This strategy is working out relatively well, however: China has advanced concentrated industry and imperialist countries (e.g. the USA) that usually bomb or sanction their way into countries premised on socialist projects cannot do so without devastating themselves. Vietnam was forced into a similar situation but with less leverage and concentration of industry. This is a result of the legacy of being genocidally bombed by the imperialist powers during their struggle for national liberation. They won that war but arguably lost much of the peace, as the imperialist countries, despite stealing so much from Vietnam, saddled them with large debts as a condition for ending the war. Such debts were used to force more capitalist relations, especially foreign ownership, into Vietnam. This is a common story around the world, where most countries are violently bullied into carrying large debts in order to lose control of their own countries' economies. With all that said, Vietnam is still riledy by a communist party and does distinguish itself from surrounding countries in how it pushes back against capitalist relations and prioritizes its people.
Nearly all of this is liberal fairytales with little basis. The Kims have high roles in the party but don't act like dictators, more like figureheads. The primary challenge for North Korea isn't the Kims at all, it's the continued occupation of South Korea by the imperialists. Did you know that the Korean War is ongoing and that America won't let South Korea end it? North Korea is brutally sanctioned at the direction of the United States, and this is where its poverty originates. NK outperformed SK for decades (SK was a military dictatorship at the time) and only ran into famine conditions when the USSR fell and the US imposed an all-encompassing, genocidal sanctions regime.
I don't think discussing Juche or the NK political system in general would mean anything until the core misunderstandings are dealt with.
Socialism is not when a country has no problems. Socialists are ruthlessly locked in on practicalies, not utopian wishes.
This is hardly independent of the sanctions regime and Cuba did not have food security issues for decades until, again, the USSR fell and the US instituted massively broadened sanctions.
They did. Who told you they didn't?
The Soviets traded with them when the imperialist powers were brutally sanctioning them. Cuba was not a client state being provided with alms. It was a recently decolonized country that had just survived a revolution and needed to build in the context of being treated like one big sugar plantation, brothel, and casino for Americans. They had to develop industry from the ground up and they routinely outperform the richest country in the world on health metrics, their healthcare system, and healthcare research.
According to who?
an org they cited has been awarded the Democracy Award and gets funded by the uhhh
the National Endowment for Democracy
lol that's how they get ya. Flooding the English language NGO SEO space with nonsense so that unsuspecting liberals get taken for a ride.
Then we get to deprogram them, kicking and screaming!
But they make it so easy, how did they find a fucking NED funded Korean org oml
I think it really is cynical SEO stuff. These groups write white papers that use very specific terminological tropes that help them pop up if you search for things like:
North Korea Human Rights
Is North Korea Communist?
Is North Korea a Dictatorship?
That kind of thing. Then they boost themselves into Wikipedia by taking to journos or sometimes just literally citing their white papers, which just amplifies the SEO.
We should take lessons from this stuff, lefty orgs can do the exact same thing by just using the right terms, making sites look professional/academic, and making friends with some journalists. Make the first search result for "Palestine is complex" be a site that says, "nope" in 30 different ways.
the problem is mostly google, they can just selectively suppress our articles or just keep making sure the usual are the only ones making the front page
They've rigged the game, although that doesn't mean we can't still try to play, just means we need to cheat somehow
That's true but I bet Wikipedia would be a good vector. Make them choose between suppressing the entire wiki article for a topic vs. showing everyone lefty stuff.
deleted by creator
Can you be more specific about which 10 principles? Bunch of different people claim to have such a thing.
I would head some things off in the last question, though. Why should we want a "normal" society? Shouldn't we fight for liberation, which necessarily falls outside current norms? Shouldn't we allow societies freedom to structure themselves in different ways under a framework of liberation? Imposing a "normal" society reminds me of Residential Schools, the attempt to destroy indigenous societies through Western indoctrination and removal from their families.
The other thing to think about is the meaning of democracy, as the term is laden with a huge amount of propaganda and weaponization of thought patterns. I see Westerners call projects they work on democratic because sometimes people get to vote on parts of it even though power truly rests with, say, the people funding it or the people using interpersonal influence to direct the actual work to the exclusion of the voters. I see those same Westerners use cliches of "authoritarianism" to describe countries that actually respond to people's needs while their own country ignores their own needs but buys their complacency with a limited voting system. I think we should question how the term is used and what we really mean by it, as well as whether our definitions of it mean that a space is actually made better through adopting allegedly democratic practices. Does it involve the people? Does it give them sufficient power? Does it defend against oppression? Is it a tool of oppression? These questions must be answered before a particular idea of democracy can be implicitly considered a good thing.
As an example, I don't remember voting to or otherwise being able to use the existing system to prevent the genocide the Palestinian people, but most people seem to be very comfortable calling the US a democracy. I do remember being taught white supremacist narratives in school as if they were fact - do my peers that got duped participate in a democracy if they have been throughly propagandized? What if they have no time outside of work to investigate anything? Etc etc.
So you do fundamentally agree that democracy is good, correct? And you would be opposed to a society where a ruling class pretended it was sanctioned by the working class, right?
Anyway, here are the 10 principles as they were originally written. How do you feel about them?
I don't think you really read what I wrote, lol. I said that the entire concept of what is democratic should be challenged and questioned.
You'd have to make this coherent with a class analysis. If the ruling class is pretending to have the support of the working class, i.e. is not itself of the working class, then what class is ruling? There is no general answer to this question, you must apply it to a real country with its class divisions.
They make me feel... bored? They were/are a line taken against perceived discontent factions, with the figure of Kim Il-Sung used as a cudgel to say, "shut the fuck up". I guess they also remind me of the silly things that ignorant Westerners believe about North Korea and of the power of choosing words during translation.
Can you be specific about what fundamental principles of democracy you question? You just said America doesn't really have a democracy, so you were implying that more democracy would be a good thing.
So you don't actually believe that? And if that's the case, why did you signal as if you did? It seems pretty disingenuous to me
I already wrote some out in my first reply to you. Do you have any thoughts on them?
Incorrect on both counts. What I did was say that the language and concept itself are laden with propaganda and selective or incomplete application, raising serious doubts about what it even means.
An interesting aspect to your responses here is that you're repeatedly reading things that I didn't say while not recognizing the things I did say. This is very relevant my attempt to head off simplistic acceptance of, say, "democracy". The point is that there are a lot of propaganda narratives and unjustified (implicit) assumptions that tend to get made and your inability to have a conversation with me is a good example of this. You're clearly trying to slot what I'm saying to you into your existing framework, a precious epistemology, even when it doesn't really make sense. This is another thought pattern you'll have to leave behind if you want to have correct opinions or even just be capable of talking to other humans about politics.
Having made no effort to understand my pretty simple and direct statements, you're deciding to blame me for your confusion, lol.
This situation is fairly simple: you think you're here to "own" your perceived enemies and are now reaching at straws because it's not going the way you hoped. Gotta find some way for me to be the bad guy, eh kid?
Okay, so regarding democracy, when you said you didn't vote to allow a genocide in Gaza, were you saying a vote should have been taken, thus making the United States a more democratic country?
If that's the case, then we agree that more democracy is good. If that's not the case, why did you bring it up?
I was giving an example to challenge common presumptions about what is democratic and what something with that labels can then be used to justify. The idea is to get you to think critically and ask your own questions about what the true meaning of that label is by how it gets applied. It's not about what is simply true democracy and what is not. It's what function the term and concept serves in our societies, particularly Western ones where it is used chauvinistically and is full of contradictions. Nothing can be more "authoritarian" (the other half of this concept's dichotomy) than inflicting mass death and disposession and there isn't even a fig leaf of requiring informed consent from the people of the state that's supporting the genocide you see happening right in front of you. At the same time, the label of "democracy" is used everywhere to justify these dehumanizing, racist actions. Have you ever heard, "only democracy in the Middle East"? Have you ever wondered what makes an apartheid settler ethnostate democratic? What does it really mean?
The goal is to get you to critically engage with the tropes and thought-controlling cliches at work here. Your questions are full of them. It's clear you've never really questioned hegemonic thinking and at the moment you're being combative towards the idea of applying a little critical thinking or, God forbid, answering my questions or statements.
That last question is the only thing you should've said in reply to my first comment. An attempt to understand rather than an attempt to eagerly dismiss what you have never investigated.
I have answered that question twice now, though.
I would love to see an example of your own critical thinking:
Would you have preferred a vote, instead of the United States government unilaterally deciding to support the ethnic genocide of Gazans by Israel?
I will wait for you to reply to the things I've said.
You simply can't answer, can you. Why so scared?
Me: writes paragraphs explaining my thoughts and answering your questions and ask a few questions, all of which you ignore.
You: write 1-2 sentences in response, usually just asking new questions rather than engage.
Sure buddy, I'm the scared one.
Would you have preferred a vote? Yes or no?
Brainless bluster just makes you look smart to stupid people.
How novel: ignore what I say, ask a question.
Would you have preferred a vote? Yes or no?
Nobody should trust your advice on critical thinking if you can't even reach a simple conclusion.
"Would you have liked to vote on whether to have a genocide?? It's a simple question, coward!"
How is Maoo's answer to this completely made-up, idealist scenario supposed to prove or communicate anything? You might as well ask him what his opinion on unicorns is, and if he refuses to engage with that question you'll once again have caught him being scared!
You're phrasing a stupid question to make some incorrect critique of his point. How the fuck is anyone supposed to pose that genocide should have been debated as a vote.
Voting under a socialist organized society would be inherently making far more sane decisions. The wider thing Maoo was trying to say was that larger decisions of government should be made with the direct approval of the people. A socialist government, something the US is far from. And are you stupid enough to think the US is a democracy?
Do you believe North Korea is a direct democracy?
who the hell said anyone gets a direct democracy?
Ever heard of a Council Republic?
I'll answer it.
You're missing the point. You are equating "democracy" as "good". Your question is not relevant to the point being made. They are asking, what is good? What is democracy? And you're responding with "you must agree democracy is good".
Regarding your complaint about the 10 principles, can you demonstrate that they were not translated to your personal preference? And does that mean, as they are written, you do object to them?
I understand that their existence is extremely inconvenient to you, as you are attempting to fall back on liberal identity politics in order to ignore them. But I would prefer it if you didn't attempt to dodge the question.
I didn't list a complaint. I'm just familiar with the fun that Westerners have with, for example, using the term "worship" when it is just as validly (arguably more valid given the lack of religious implications in general) translated as "respect" or "admire". Westerners are very gullible, you see, and love to think of themselves as superior to the Asian hordes, which includes constructing cartoonish ideas of designated enemy countries.
None of that list is inconvenient for me, lol. You seem to be talking to yourself and hyping yourself up because you think you have a slam dunk and in the process are failing to read or understand what I've written. Remember, my answer to your question of how I feel about them is that it makes me bored. Perhaps you should take a little more time to read what is written before claiming anyone is dodging, lol.
It looks like you're spamming this same question to others, seemingly without it being relevant to what they're talking about. Have you considered addressing anything I wrote in the comment you initially replied to? You didn't actually do that, you know.
In other words, you would have a problem with the country telling its people to worship a strong man, but you wouldn't have a problem with a strong man in general being put at the head of a state?
Do you believe the working class, in general, requires paternalism in order to correctly flourish?
Do you believe vocal criticism of a country's leader should be allowed or not?
"Strong man" is another thought-terminating cliche used to denigrate designated enemy countries, or at least ones at which Western chauvinism is to be directed. Do you believe in Iraqi WMDs and justifying the US war of aggression there? Because you sound like the people who said "they hate us for our freedom", and so on. The point I keep making is that a more critical and informed approach must be taken in order to understand these topics.
I reject the premise of your question.
I don't know what those things mean without a concrete grounding in real situations, like an example country. I've said this before, actually, and you didn't respond to it.
I think such questions serve to obfuscate rather than clarify precisely because they rely on abstractions into which hegemonic biases can be inserted.
Sure why not. Do you have any real questions about things?
That's great. Because you dodged the first two questions and only answered the third, can you tell me how the CCP, the North Korean dictatorship, and any other nominally socialist country that you want to include handles vocal criticism?
I haven't dodged any questions, lol. I'm being very direct with you. You may want to take a moment to ask whether you are projecting, as your pattern in this conversation has been to ignore basically everything I say and literally every question I've asked and to instead try to belabor the point you really want to make, thigh you're too afraid to state it directly. It's very clear that you want to stay in your comfort zone, which is apparently silly tropes about North Korea, and no realities or other humans you're talking to are gonna get in the way of that!
You might as well just talk to yourself, since it's only your voice you want to hear.
Nope you have shown yourself to be here in bad faith and I'm not going to explain such a large topic to you until you figure out how to be honest with me (and probably yourself). Or maybe you can pay me to tutor you - combative, ignorant students cost extra btw.
Before you reach for your crutch of a "dodge", remind yourself that at no point have I offered to do the thing you seem to feel entitled to, which is for me to answer all of your questions while you ignore everything I tell you. I'm not your parent or your teacher, I'm not obligated to share knowledge that you refuse to digest.
PS I've said basically nothing about the CPC. I would recommend that you figure out how to communicate around one topic before expanding them. You already can't keep track of what I've said about North Korea or>!!< democracy.
Stop being disingenuous. "I am personally offended and I refuse to answer your question" is a dodge, not a response.
You just said you were okay with vocal criticism of the government, so how about it? To what degree should people be allowed to vocally criticize their government?
lol, you think I'm offended? I'm really just bored. I've been giving you chance after chance to engage just in case, but it eventually gets tedious - and indicates that good faith is not something you respond to. You seem to engage much more directly with people in this thread that you think you have bothered. Ask yourself if that's a healthy thing to do.
It's funny that you haven't learned that I don't actually care about your attempts at goading, either. Refer to my previous response to your question.
And I've given you a chance for you to explain how you are okay with criticism of the government, but when it comes to North Korea and the CCP you have suddenly gotten quiet.
Do you want to walk back your statement, and say that you are against criticism of the government? That is probably more in line with your actual beliefs.
Consult my previous answer, as you seem to have had trouble reading it.
You never answered.
Oh I did, just not with the kind of answer you wanted. Poor baby.
You dodged the question so hard you would make a politician blush. If you're afraid of the questions, just say so.
You've got such Reddit brain that you think someone directly telling you no is a dodge, lol
What happens in the North Korean dictatorship when you criticize the strongman Kim Jong-Un? Can you point me to some vocal critics in that nation?
Yawn
Do you have anything better to say
you are bad at this
its a decent attempt ill give them that. They cited 2 sources!
from the CIA, so yeah its also really shit
You are bad at sex
who told you that true thing
Yawn
you are being a wall, read and internalize instead of bleat and bitch
How old was Stalin's wife
the ages of stalin's wives when he married was 22 for the first and 18 for the second
what kinda gotcha are you trying to pull?
Lida is who?
I just want to make fun of your gods, as you appear to be a cultist and not a leftist
Who the fuck is Lida
are you a moron who believes stalin married a preteen? Go ahead and show your ass, its the only thing you're capable of doing.
Tell me more about this Lida.
Is it okay if he doesn't marry her
you said wives, and now youve just made up a phantom that doesn't exist
are you going to cite the CIA? Maybe Mossad this time!
The story is that he had a kid with her in exile, not that they were ever married, moron
never has, never will, socialism hasn't had such a thing in its history. unless you change the definition to whatever you want.
no not if people like you are doing it. Make an actual criticism instead of being a chauvinist .
Interesting. Can you define the chauvinist you wish to censor?
like a specific type like some fucking pokemon? You are the Chauvinist I wish to censor, if you think I have a problem with censorship you're a funny fuckin toddler.
I understand you don't have a problem with censorship. You are right wing.
"only right wing censor people because thats what fits my pop culture view of politics"
What criticism of mine scares you so much that you want it silenced?
Scares me? You mean the debunked crap you've been spewing? Your only tactic since being shown to be a CIA parroting dronie has been the infantile method of calling everyone a bigoted nazi.
I honestly just get satisfaction from seeing libs and fascists thrown in prison. Also anyone who parrots CIA nonsense like you have.
Denounce the CIA citation and we'll talk.
"debunked"?
Okay... Then show me where it was debunked. And make sure you only reference sources that you would trust if I use them of a similar caliber.
Citing the CIA, an organization dedicated to destroying all communist projects since it was created, I feel debunks your korean thread immediately (due to it being the only source you provided besides one with no sources of its own)
Show any evidence for the Stalin 'kid wife' one, primary sources please. I need you to provide your proof first.
thats literally the only things you have in this thread.
A common conspiracy theorist tactic is confusing claims with evidence. They think that they can debunk things by simply making more claims about them.
That's what you're doing. If the document has been debunked, it must be debunked on its own terms.
Otherwise, you are saying the exact same thing as the Nazi who insists that the CIA cannot be trusted because it is run by Jews, and Jews are known to be tricksters since the beginning of time. Do better than the Nazis.
If you can.
Literally what you've done the whole thread. Give me a non CIA source.
Controlled by a CIA organization dead set on lying about communism, its debunked on everyones terms.
You must have an ideology made of glass if you react to everything with screaming that they're anti-semetic for doing the normal action of verifying sources
if you are so superior, manage to find an actual source.
God why am I arguing with this ideological child?
What sources do you trust?
Non CIA sources or Western Government sources on matters of communism.
Do you also distrust CCP state news, Vietnamese state news, Syrian state news, Russian state news, etc?
adding on to the other comment I replied to saying this
what the fuck does syrian news have to do with anything
the only one of those that is relevant in any way to the situation is the CPC (the proper translation, btw) state news and the vietnamese state news. Neither of these are terrorist organisations built to destroy an ideology, they are news ran by a government.
Now you think the South Korean organization is controlled by Americans? Why are you so racist
how is it racist when the SKorean project as a whole was built by the Americans and is directly controlled by america. This is in their own history and accessible documents. There isn't an argument.
And now you've moved to "You're also just racist for thinking the CIA doesn't work anywhere but white countries"
Coincidentally making a racist statement that only whites are capable spies
Okay fash
"fascism is when people disagree with me" - an idiot (you)
weren't these made during a liberation war?
That's weird they wrote em in English
No, what's weird is you won't answer my question.
Perhaps you know that on one hand, if you condemn these, you will have become an apostate in the eyes of North Korea stans...
Condem what?, I have no idea what this is, or how it applies to DRPK governance. Some of the language is kinda sus but again its just standing alone out there, translated by whomever, and most importantly not written as legal language. Next you'll be wanting me to condemn the word authority or some such nonsense. You keep posting this like it's some sort of gotcha. The us constitution read uncritically seems nice but it is real shit.
Here read this for some commie law writing:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm
Unless you are admitting to not reading any of the previous posts before you replied, you know exactly what it is.
Instead of deflecting, let's talk about the 10 principles and whether you find them acceptable or not. I understand this might cause some discomfort for you, because for some reason, many leftists like to treat the doctrine of many countries like holy scripture that must not be condemned, or must be interpreted in a certain way. I'm not that kind of religious person, though.
It looks like you copy and pasted something from Wikipedia. If you could link the full translated legal document I'd be happy to look at it. Like the constitution I linked you, that's a document ratified by a Democratic body. The whatever you pasted is not anything really.
The ten principles of Communism as I know them are as follows. Spoiler cause its long:
spoiler
Do you believe Hitler ordered the Holocaust? Because you're starting to remind me of people who deny that.
Do you want to end the conversation by trolling? Is that your signal that you no longer wish to participate in it, as you are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the fact that you can't deny the existence of North Korea's cultlike laws?
There's lots of paperwork that indicate that he did so I don't know what your point is
Please just provide an original source so I can engage with your issue. As of now it seems like you're the one trolling.
I don't see why I should go out of my way to post documentation a second time for an internet troll who thinks pictures of animal genitalia is an argument.
You're continuing to dodge the content of the 10 principles. If you don't like the translation, post your own. But tell me whether you support them or not.
Were these 10 principles ratified by any governing body in the DRPK? How were the codified? Is it literally just something from wikipedia?
Please tell me the garbage you posted is anything other than that.
Okay, I'm getting curious now because you are using Nazi talking points. You said you believe Hitler ordered the Holocaust because of the documents proving it... Can you show me your standard for evidence by producing these documents, so I can know how to better suit your requirements?
💬
Hey, I think you're onto something there. Where is the fascism in that logic? I think you're really close to understanding an important point here.
Remember the good faith.
silly
love's asking for basic evidence on the existence and implementation of such rules. Their existence does not mean anything without the context.
Still waiting you for you to post the paperwork in a capacity that someone with your ideology would not immediately dismiss
And I'm still waiting for you to comment on the majesty of the pig popping on its own balls. With out acknowledging its grace how can I know you're acting in good faith?
Why would you expect them to answer your questions? I was talking to you, not them.
deleted by creator
can you stop being a bleating goat or will you finally grow your own brain?
I understand that you use the same logic as Sartre describes in other bigots, so I don't expect you to engage with the 10 principles and simply attempt to deny them, deflect from them, call the sources Zionist propaganda, etc.
Would you like to engage in good faith, or am I 100% correct in my assessment of you
im a trans woman but yeah sure im a bigot because some white toddler got his politics from a youtube video and apparently the CIA
Im not a nice one, im here to call you a bitch.
Why are you bringing up your identity?
Since you want to do that, would you rather live in a country with LGBT policies like Russia, or one more like Sweden?
you seem to be casting my identity as a bigot, I responded.
Russia isn't socialist, Sweden has a terrible record for handling autistic people, of which I am among.
Oh... So you believe Blair White is not a bigot.
We can talk about the CCP and how it disappeared one of its most substantial LGBT activists. Or the laws against girly men on TV.
Oh... So you believe Blair White is not a bigot.
We can talk about the CCP and how it disappeared one of its most substantial LGBT activists. Or the laws against girly men on TV.
Oh... So you believe Blair White is not a bigot.
We can talk about the CCP and how it disappeared one of its most substantial LGBT activists. Or the laws against girly men on TV.
Oh my God fuck off back to reddit nerd
Whatever you say fash
You are made of stupid
Drone, you multiplied, please clean yourself up
Good response
babe you've been unable to do anything but call anyone who calls out your CIA sources a nazi. You've not given a single good response this whole thread.
Even LiberalSocialist wasn't this bad lol.
You are also using an ad hominem fallacy, you are also lying about the source, but you clearly don't care about any of that because you are not a leftist, and you do not value rationality or truth
logical fallacy
whataboutism
strawman
Wow cool so we know you're from reddit now.
and how am i lying about the source, its funded by the NED and even awarded the Democracy Award by it in 2018. It is a CIA front org.
Doubling down on the logical fallacy, and introducing a second ad hominem, doesn't fix your argument. If anything, it makes you look more desperate.
Why are you so terrified of this document? It's like telling a Scientologist that Hubbard isn't God, and the Scientologist insists that I shouldn't bring up their irrationality, and that anyone who disagrees with them is the real cultist.
Do you believe the 10 principles don't exist?
Reddit brain, also you've been doing the same shit calling others nazis and making out everyone who disagrees is anti jew. Very lib of you.
Terrified? Of something that isn't verified to be real? You dronies always seem to be projecting.
I do, but give me the real 10 principles. Korean speakers here or from DPRK sources can translate.
Denounce your CIA source and then I'll deign to care about your childish words.
You just contradicted yourself. First, you said the 10 principles aren't real, and now you are claiming they are real but you need somebody of a particular ethnicity to read them to you. Seems kind of racist.
But hey, we can simply go through the principles one at a time. I will write them out, and you will tell me whether or not they should be condemned.
First and foremost, do you believe a country should establish a singular, monolithic political party, and imprison or disappear anyone who dares to criticize it?
Cite where I said they weren't real
renounce your CIA citation and I'll give a shit
did you genuinely just sit down, type that out, look at it and think it was something even worth reading, let alone writing? How tf do you expect to unironically say that and be taken seriously, like just fucking look at it for a good ten seconds and then honestly tell me that this doesnt just sound like the average stereotype of the dorky as shit debate bro redditor
Quit jerkin us around and post hog already
lmao I can't imagine getting paid to post shit this terrible and if you're freelancing get a life
Please be more specific, and remember to engage in good faith
No, you obviously haven't, so I won't. Renounce the citation of the CIA and we can discuss again.
How do you feel about the 10 principles? Are they something that a normal, democratic society would adopt?
Did anyone leave behind a child? We've got a lost kid here, very confused and scared.
you're doing the thing again, you aren't clever, come back here
cum