Korea, over the last hundred years, has been victimized by Japanese and American Colonialism, Imperialism, and has been split in half arbitrarily, been the focus of a brutal proxy war, had the entire peninsula bombed into oblivion, and families torn apart. There is a deep cultural desire among both sides of the 38th parallel to reconcile in some fashion. Economically, it would be nice for both sides to engage in trade with each other, but it isn’t the core of the matter, plus the DPRK is no longer in the serious “struggling phase” it was in in the 90s and 2000s, and is more like Cuba these days.

Yes, there are Communist supporters of the DPRK in ROK, but that’s not what’s at play here. President Yoon, the Incel King, is accusing the liberals opposing him in Parliament of being Communist sympathizers. Yoon himself has been saber rattling against the DPRK as well, but that again is not the crux of the situation here.

My understanding is that Incel King threatened to continue it but backed off after the vote anyways as it seemed like he wouldn’t have the continued support of the Millitary.

Yes and no. Being bound by “legal” means is a pretense for civility, ie the social contract, but the millitary in no way must follow this. The Republic of Korea has had several millitary dictatorships, from Park Chung-hee to Chun Doo-Hwan, and to think any system is immune to such circumstances is false thinking.

The only reason it worked is because the Millitary backed off after Parliament overturned it, despite the Millitary blocking access to the building from Parliamentarians. The Millitary isn’t bound by some electoral laws of the universe, they just as easily could have said the vote was illigetimate. This is a unique circumstance and cannot be used as universal.

Can you elaborate?

Wow, not once in your incoherent rant did you manage to do anything except beat a strawman to death. Not once did you speak anything truthful. Not once have I indicated that I’m an accelerationist, nor have I denied that Capitalism mechanically must decay. Bravo, I guess? I’ll mirror your words back to you:

I’m done with this. Keep cosplaying, you’re going to anyway. The grown ups will keep working on solutions that aren’t predicted on misery.

Good job cropping out the very next sentence.

It doesn’t change anything, even if I did include it. Electoralism in liberal democracy is not a measure of outright support for Socialism, given the abundance of liberals who would otherwise support Socialists voting Dem.

The organization isn’t there. I don’t see a fraction of the organization necessary for that. And we’ve been organizing for what, a century? How long until we’re sufficiently organized, another five centuries? 10? 100? I don’t even see a fraction of the theory literacy to so much as start the process.

FRSO, Red Star Caucus, PSL, and other groups are doing great org work. Imperialism has inflated living conditions for a long time, but even still conditions are deteriorating and Socialism is gaining in popularity among the advanced of the masses.

No, not really. Each of those steps follows naturally from the previous one.

They don’t. You added steps like “force worker ownership” where they are logical leaps.

And what of the hundreds of years of history proving revolution doesn’t work. The USSR? Nice idea, turned into authoritarian state capitalism, then straight up oligarchy inside of a century. The CCP? Authoritarian state capitalism, let’s see how long until oligarchy.

See, this “authoritarian state Capitalism” bit is exactly why you need to read theory. The USSR and PRC are both examples of Socialism, with huge public sectors and central planning. Can you explain how they are examples of “state capitalism?”

I’m sure you’re about to say “That’s just because the intelligence agencies leashed by American Capital interests interfered!”, as if they’re not way more likely to interfere with an American socialist revolution.

No, actually, though the USSR was invaded by 14 Capitalist nations at its founding. My point is that your previous paragraph is nonsense and devoid of knowledge of Marxism to begin with.

Starving 19-20th century peasants? Sure. 21st century Americans? Yeah they’re struggling, but they’ve got Amazon and fast food, not to mention propaganda telling them socialism will make their lives even worse. We’re not hitting revolutionary levels of desperation anytime soon. A quarter of the voters in this country voted for the poster child of the bourgeoise because they thought he was an everyman. Even more than that couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch. These are your radical revolutionaries. I’m not holding my breath.

Another quarter of voters voted for a different poster child of the bourgeoisie because they thought she was an everywoman. Electoralism isn’t a measure of revolutionary fervor, people abstained because Electoralism doesn’t work.

My concern is improving the material conditions of the working class, and elevating their voice and stake in the workplace. Maybe in another century they’ll have the class consciousness to act on revolutionary theory.

So tepid Capitalism until it crumbles as it inevitably will? You have no plans of substance.

I “bombarded” you with zero theory here, all of that was just Cowbee. You say you aren’t interested, but you’re more than happy to peddle nonsense.

Why do you think Marxists aren’t going to do anything in the US?

Most Communists agree that the Cultural Revolution was at minimum was misguided. The famines were avoidable, and government mismanagement was greatly to blame. However, ultimately the CPC ended famine and even under Mao, life expectancy doubled.

Secondly, the idea that it was the North Koreans doing the indiscriminate killings while the US bombed 85% of all buildings in North Korea and dropped more tons of bombs on it than the entire pacific theater of WWII, slaughtered countless villiahws of North and South Koreans, as well as the South Korean Dictator Chun Doo-Hwan murdering thousands of schoolchildren and college students for protesting for democracy is monstrous.

You really need to read up on your history.

I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.

You’ve stated this, yes, but have done nothing to respond to my valid critiques of communes and cooperatives potentially giving rise to Capitalism again, nor to my statement that corruption can be fought just like hunger and poverty.

Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”.

It is not. My argument is that you can’t claim Anarchism “solves” anything until we see it in practice, if ever. I seem to have a better opinion of modern Anarchists than you do, as recognizing the failures and successes of former Anarchist movements is necessary to move on.

My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.

What do you mean by “failed?” Is it a failure to double life expectancy, as happened in the USSR and PRC? What about going from vast illiteracy to near 100% literacy rates, as happened in Cuba, the PRC, USSR, and many others? What about increased housing, free healthcare, lower working times, eradication of famine, or even now with the PRC being the largest economy in the world with respect to Purchasing Power Parity?

Moreover, you’re implying support for the Tsars, the fascist Batista, the agrarian Nationalist Kuomintang, the French Colonizers of Vietnam, and so forth. Would you tell the people overthrowing these regimes that they “failed?”

I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.

So if you’re not going to argue, but are going to take unsourced, unsubstantiated potshots and respond to no points, and moreover refuse to read theory out of principle, what’s your point? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is an essay, by no means a “long book,” so I am not even sure what you mean here. Do you expect to just have knowledge beamed into everyone’s heads? I tried to explain Marxism to you and you promptly ignored and took sectarian potshots.

Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.

Yes, safely inoffensive for not being threatening in any capacity to the Capitalist order, meanwhile much larger and more successful Marxist states like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and so forth continuously work to improve the lives of the whole of society. Silly.

You don’t need to do this sectarian nonsense.

Your first statement is pretty silly. For starters, Anarchists have had nowhere near the level of influence achieved by Marxists, so they haven’t even had a chance to make mistakes. Secondly, who are you referring to when you say Communists have “murdered millions?” Fascists? The Nazis during WWII, 80% of which were killed by the antifascist Red Army? The fascist slaver Batista and his goons? The landlords? Tsarists? Elaborate, because your only argument here is that Anarchists get to remain “pure” because they have never had widespread success. This is pointless sectarianism, Marxists are your allies.

Secondly, the Marxist conception of a State is not the same as the Anarchist conception. For Marxists, the State is a tool of class oppression, while for Anarchists the State is a monopoly on violence. Communism is a world Socialist Republic, because full public ownership eliminates class distinctions and thus the state. The State withers away as it gradually appropriates Private Property and folds it into the public sector.

When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

-Engels, Socialism and Scientific

Unions are good. Wholly insufficient by themselves for achieving Socialism, of course, but good nonetheless and an example of Worker Organization, the establishment of which can achieve Socialism. Your beginning few points on mild Social Programs in general, however, really doesn’t mean anything in this context. Everything approved under a Capitalist system is with the consent of the bourgeoisie.

You can link all the Marxist literature you want, it won’t get us closer to communism, or even socialism. This country will not vote for socialism anytime soon

Since when has Marxism been about voting for Socialism? Marx and Marxists have always been revolutionary. You’re right, even if everyone read theory we wouldn’t be closer to Socialism, it takes theory and organization to do so. That doesn’t mean revolutionary theory isn’t a requirement.

These policies are the first baby steps in a larger transition.

Can’t wait to see you finally elaborate on your plans.

First it’s unions and higher federal minimum wage, then it’s more robust worker protections and socialized healthcare so workers have mobility, then it’s enabling worker co-ops, then it’s encouraging co-ops, then it’s mandating exclusive employee ownership.

Quite a huge leap there, isn’t it? There’s hundreds of years of history proving why that hasn’t worked yet, just look at the Nordic Countries and their decaying conditions. You can’t establish Socialism by asking for it through purely legal avenues, the question of reform or revolution has been answered already and the answer is revolution. You’re asking the bourgeoisie to let their ground gradually whither without pushing the fascism button like which happened in Italy and Germany to much bloodshed to prevent what you’re speaking of from happening.

One step at a time, gradually demonstrating to the proletariat that these policies improve their lives and empower them, until they’re ready to support more dramatic change.

The Proletariat has historically proven to be far more radical than you give them credit for, if you refuse to analyze prior successful revolutions then you refuse to work with knowledge. You’re blindly guessing here when you don’t need to, we already know your method has no practical basis.

What’s your plan to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital?

I already told you, I’m a Marxist. You could read my list, even. Building up a revolutionary party operating on a Mass Line to overthrow the bourgeoisie. This is a protracted process, and requires combining legal and illegal work, working with trade unions and others to build up a mass movement. The Dems are not a part of this and have never been. We must look to what has worked and analyze what’s similar and what’s different about our own conditions.

Can you elaborate?

Not really.

How on Earth are mild social reforms under a dictatorship of Capital going to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital? What on Earth are you talking about? Here’s an intro to Marxism reading list I made, it would be a good place for you to start.

So again, conflating tepid social reforms with Leftist movement. You need to go back to the drawing board.

Yes, this is utterly unsupported by historical treatment of leftist movements by dems. The tepid institutionalism comes off when dealing with threats to Capital.

Incel King is going to end up like Park Chung-Hee if this continues. Bang Bang Day 2?

And yet you can’t explain how Dems are easier to overthrow than Reps. You keep saying that you can get minor concessions out of Dems, but that doesn’t mean they treat Leftists any less violently.

If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.

So you agree that both are hostile to the left, glad to see you come around.

I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions

Are meager, nominal concessions enough?

But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.

You haven’t explained how they are easier to defeat. The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.