216
Protestation (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 8 months ago by [B] to c/communism@lemmy.ml
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

Is it not? Foreign trade is also connected to the DPRK's economy. It isn't a hard line, but blurry. Not either-or, but both-and. Dialectics helps us see the interconnection, the link between the general and the particular.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    @Cowbee [he/they] Well, if we take that to its natural conclusion, then no country can possibly be socialist because the global economy with which all countries trade and interact is broadly capitalist. Same reason that Korean teams working in Siberian lumberyards doesn't make Russia more socialist, the DPRK trading with capitalist countries doesn't make it more capitalist. Yes, there are connections, but as the world exists, with hard borders and economic measurements and ownership in terms of nationhood in most cases, the line is quite clear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    That's an example of the wrong lesson. I agree that we need to be careful with the general and the particular, but we cannot cleanly sever them. Again, it isn't either-or, but both-and, and we identify the nature of something by identifying its principal aspect. The DPRK is socialist because public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. The USSR was socialist even when it was under the NEP, and even when it had black markets. Cuba is socialist despite having private property, same with China and Vietnam.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent