what exactly is your point? the fact that korea suffers inhumane sanctions imposed by the us empire with the goal of punishing the korean people for resisting their imperialism?
wrong. back when the ussr was still a thing the dprk had a pace of development matching, or in parts even exceeding that of the south, and that even with only minimal soviet assistance post 1965, as korea stayed neutral in the sino-soviet split.
the prc on the other hand not only complies with the sanctions that were unjustly imposed on the dprk, but was instrumental in bringing them about in the first place. the reason for this is that china, since dengs betrayal of socialism, tries to integrate with the western dominated world market, something an extremely belligerent anti western dprk is not useful for. this is why the dprk currently tries to develop ties with bourgeois russia, as they are at least somewhat serious about fighting the west.
Here, “nation states” does not refer to the actual landmass their borders engulf, but rather to the abstract concept of differentiating between human populations on the basis of laws that merely exist within our minds and areas of land based on virtual lines that equally only exist in our minds
It’s a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “not care about any concept of nationality,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
Ok, let me do the same thing you just did to show you that your argument doesn’t make any sense:
Capitalism is a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “simply let the markets regulate everything,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
My point is, capitalism means way more than that. Everyone who claims that capitalism merely means “let the markets decide” obviously does not know what capitalism is. Same applies to anarchism.
Capitalism is a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless.
I mean… yeah, that’s exactly what capitalism is. The people who dpn’t want to do X (X = free markets) want to regulate them, which is like, anyone who supports labor laws, anti-monopoly regulations, etc. Socialists, basically; precisely because everyone doesn’t believe in capitalism.
The only difference is that more people are willing to believe in free markets than in total deregulation, so a capitalistic society is a more likely / stable philosophy than an anarchic one.
You still seem to think that “anarchism” means total abolition of rules and order, but that is simply not what it means. This confusion with what it’s actually called, anomia, is so common, that Wikipedia even mentions this right in the beginning of their respective articles
Counterpoint:
How beautiful is the north Korean sky? I bet it’s unmatched
I’ve never thought about that. It’s probably pretty good
what exactly is your point? the fact that korea suffers inhumane sanctions imposed by the us empire with the goal of punishing the korean people for resisting their imperialism?
What the fuck are you talking about. NK’s biggest allies have always been the second-biggest economy in the world, first the USSR, now the PRC.
They’re poor af because their “allies” prefer it that way
wrong. back when the ussr was still a thing the dprk had a pace of development matching, or in parts even exceeding that of the south, and that even with only minimal soviet assistance post 1965, as korea stayed neutral in the sino-soviet split.
the prc on the other hand not only complies with the sanctions that were unjustly imposed on the dprk, but was instrumental in bringing them about in the first place. the reason for this is that china, since dengs betrayal of socialism, tries to integrate with the western dominated world market, something an extremely belligerent anti western dprk is not useful for. this is why the dprk currently tries to develop ties with bourgeois russia, as they are at least somewhat serious about fighting the west.
Removed by mod
I think it was meant to be a light-hearted joke.
Here, “nation states” does not refer to the actual landmass their borders engulf, but rather to the abstract concept of differentiating between human populations on the basis of laws that merely exist within our minds and areas of land based on virtual lines that equally only exist in our minds
It’s a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “not care about any concept of nationality,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
Ok, let me do the same thing you just did to show you that your argument doesn’t make any sense: Capitalism is a nice thought, but it’s an “if everyone did X there wouldn’t be any problems” solution, which can be generally dismissed as useless. Here, “X” is “simply let the markets regulate everything,” which is one of the biggest stretches I’ve ever seen this technique used for.
My point is, capitalism means way more than that. Everyone who claims that capitalism merely means “let the markets decide” obviously does not know what capitalism is. Same applies to anarchism.
I mean… yeah, that’s exactly what capitalism is. The people who dpn’t want to do X (X = free markets) want to regulate them, which is like, anyone who supports labor laws, anti-monopoly regulations, etc. Socialists, basically; precisely because everyone doesn’t believe in capitalism.
The only difference is that more people are willing to believe in free markets than in total deregulation, so a capitalistic society is a more likely / stable philosophy than an anarchic one.
You still seem to think that “anarchism” means total abolition of rules and order, but that is simply not what it means. This confusion with what it’s actually called, anomia, is so common, that Wikipedia even mentions this right in the beginning of their respective articles
If there’s that much confusion, how are you so sure your definition is correct?
But, I’m interested. What is the real definition that you use?