347
T(rule)kies
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
347 points (100.0% liked)
196
16206 readers
2570 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I just... Told you I won't. Not here, at least. Just by being here I am already dancing on the knife's edge and, as this server very clearly states, authoritarian behaviour a bannable offense. I came here limiting myself to talk about history because I am not interested in breaking this place's rules. If you still insist in hearing what I have to say you are more than welcome to send me a private message.
You pretty much already gave the answer: Your interpretation wouldn't change, or at least you can't imagine it would.
The homework I'll leave you then, is simple: Analyse Singapore as-is, but with hammer and sickle symbolism and rhetoric. Compare it to your analysis of NK, and see whether any inconsistencies arise.
No I did not, and you are putting words in my mouth here. I said I refuse to talk about the specifics of North Korea in this place. But if you insist, I'll tell you that symbolism is meaningless by itself alone, and that a solid interpretation of a society can only come from a study of its structure seen from the lense of its history and its material conditions.
If you want a honest conversation without the restriction of moderation, once again, you are welcome to send me a private message. If not, there's nothing else to say.
What moderation could you possibly be afraid of if your interpretation were to meaningfully change and turn into a critique of authoritarianism?
Or is it that such an interpretation would get you banned from lemmygrad and you don't want to lose your cricket club?
My interpretation consists on actually attempting to explain how North Korea's apparatus works. I have no interest in critiquing "authoritarianism" (or in other words, the existance of a state) per se, as an idea of an entity above society and separated from it, independent of class struggle.
That's such a bizarre thing to say. The only thing it serves is to show you have absolutely no will to have a good-willed conversation.
The notion of state as inherently authoritarian is curious. Maybe read into anarchist critiques of ancaps (which aren't anarchists but neo-feudalists), the anarchist insistence on organisation and structure being necessary (Anarchism is Order is age-old doctrine), or, well, Kerry Thornley (which I already quoted): Nobody gives a damn about a state who busies itself with things like providing public transportation, general infrastructure, safety nets, conflict mediation, suchlike.
Nah what it shows is that I'm an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.
Good luck with your future trolling endeavours.