SpookyGenderCommunist [they/them, she/her]

The Great Male Renunciation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

Love me some Milt Jackson! The soft tones of that vibraphone are great for background music while studying

https://youtu.be/Fvmv7MCsCP0

Yo, that’s rad as fuck! Does anyone have a source for that quote?

Mayo, or vinegar

Ketchup fucking sucks

Richard Nixon’s head in a jar, from Futurama

So, I want to engage in as good of faith possible, here.

The content of North Korean doctrine seems particularly discomforting to people here, lol. Not sure why this is the country people feel the need to stand up for.

It’s not about whether it’s discomforting, it’s about whether or not what you’re saying is even true. I have zero reason to believe what you posted has any basis in fact. You initially copy/pasted it with no citation.

Now, the links you’re giving are decidedly not Korean. The DPRK puts out works of theory and the like, fairly readily. All I’m asking for is a primary source for this.

But let’s assume it’s 100% true, for a minute.

Even if it is, and Korean socialism does look the way that these 10 points describe, why might that be? What would drive such an insular, personality-cult driven, set of doctrine?

Could it, perchance, be the fact that the United States set about occupying half of the Korean Peninsula? Reinstalling many of the Japanese colonial administrators the Korean people had just spent decades trying to kick out?

Might it have something to do with the fact that the US bombed the entire peninsula so heavily, that US pilots complained that they were no more targets, and that Koreans literally began living in caves and a result?

If you actually care about Koreans, and are unsettled by the centralization of power in the DPRK, then you ought to recognize that it’s US imperial policy that has irrevocably shaped the destiny of the Korean peninsula.

If there’s any reason to “Stand up” for the DPRK, it’s for the exact reasons you’ve laid out. If a society is too heal, and overcome the sort of backward despotism you’ve presented, then the answer is surely to not isolate it more. To not continue to fuel the siege mentality that drives the state ideology. But rather, to work for peace and unification, so that the whole of Korea might, once again, be able to shape its own destiny.

Can you provide a source for this? No use in responding if we don’t even know if it’s real

If you’re using Sync for Lemmy, you can filter stuff by instance, and a bunch of other criteria.

Maybe, maybe not. But that statement is going to be deeply confusing to the average American for whom “liberal” is synonymous with “left”.

Note that they said “Most involved” Russia, for instance, has always been the modern “Sick man of Europe” since the fall of the USSR. It’s imperial aspirations don’t extend as far. And it’s relationship to the historic Core of the US and Western Europe, is as a semi-peripheral nation trying to coalesce a regional sphere of influence with itself as the center of gravity. None of that makes it a Core country though.

Maybe if the current world system collapses, and it filled that vacuum. But that hasn’t happened.

Imperial Core refers to the World Systems Theory of International Relations, first put forward by Immanuel Wallerstien. I would suggest you read up on the topic before making half-baked responses like this.

No problem!

Liberalism has a couple of different definitions. The one you’re thinking of is the one in US politics where “Liberal” is synonymous with "Left’. This isn’t how it’s being used here though.

Liberalism, as a broad ideological trend that came out of the enlightenment, contains within it, Conservatism. Conservatism was theorized by people like Edmund Burke who, seeing that the previous feudal hierarchy was dying off, sought to preserve it, at least as much as was possible, by accepting Liberal notions of property rights and capitalism.

So, instead of a social hierarchy being ordained by God, it’s decided by the market, and social conflict is meditated through the liberal, Lockean, Republic.

So when we call Trump a liberal, we mean it in this broad sense. He’s still a conservative, but conservatism is a subset of capital L Liberalism.

This is in contrast to Leftism, which also contains a lot of things within it, but breaks from a lot of the philosophical assumptions that undergird Liberalism.

I genuinely would like to understand what you guys at hexbear are about

Well, I’d be more than happy to have a good faith discussion with you. No dunking, I promise 🙏

“imperial core” isn’t a phrase we made up. It refers to World Systems Theory, a theory of international relations invented by a guy named Immanuel Wallerstein which argues that imperial “Core” countries (think the traditional “developed” or “first world” countries. Mainly the US and Europe) have a particular extractive, colonial relationship with “Periphery” countries (think poor, raw material exporting, rentier states like Kyrgyzstan or Nigeria).

Then there are semi-periphery countries which are still tied into the imperial core in some way, but have enough sway economically and geopolitically to kind of stand on their own. They have a different kind of relationship to the imperial core, compared to the periphery (these would be the BRICS countries, largely).

That’s a gross over simplification, but hopefully that answers your question.

Edit: Here’s a really good explanation of World Systems Theory that goes into more depth

They were very obviously being facetious…