To be fair none of these countries is socialist or even communist. And we hardly have accurate statistics about north Korea. Not that I disagree with the underlying point.
Socialism is a transitional state between capitalism and communism, where the working class holds power in society but existing social relations have not been abolished. This is precisely what you have in China and DPRK. Both are genuinely socialist.
Both China and the DPRK are socialist countries. Public ownership is the principal aspect of their economies, and the working classes control the state.
Doubt all you like, but both the WPK and CPC are overwhelmingly proletarian parties in states where the commanding heights and backbone of the economy are publicly owned at a minimum.
Public ownership + a proletarian ruling party ≠ the working class controls the state.
State ownership is not automatically worker control. Even if a ruling party genuinely represents the working class, that does not by itself establish that ordinary workers possess meaningful power over the state or over the party leadership.
You’re drawing a hard line within a class, which is more of an obfuscation of class analysis than a coherence towards it. Further, yes, both the WPK and CPC do engage with and are representative of the broader working classes.
Both countries are run by ML parties following revolution and would therefore be designated both socialist and communist based on like 100 years of precedent.
The WPK is Kimilsungist-Kimjongilist, technically, though ML is accepted as the basis of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism, just with the juche idea added on top.
To be fair none of these countries is socialist or even communist. And we hardly have accurate statistics about north Korea. Not that I disagree with the underlying point.
to be fair, you should spend some time actually learning what socialism is before forming opinions
I did but i would be genuinely interested what you mean. Maybe I should have frased it as genuinely socialist or fully socialist I admit that.
Socialism is a transitional state between capitalism and communism, where the working class holds power in society but existing social relations have not been abolished. This is precisely what you have in China and DPRK. Both are genuinely socialist.
I think its not entirely false but more complicated. But this discussion is quite old. As I said i don’t disagree wit the underlying Point of yours.
Removed by mod
That’s literally the definition Lenin gave, but I’m sure an intellectual titan such as yourself knows better https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat
Both China and the DPRK are socialist countries. Public ownership is the principal aspect of their economies, and the working classes control the state.
X to doubt.
Doubt all you like, but both the WPK and CPC are overwhelmingly proletarian parties in states where the commanding heights and backbone of the economy are publicly owned at a minimum.
Public ownership + a proletarian ruling party ≠ the working class controls the state.
State ownership is not automatically worker control. Even if a ruling party genuinely represents the working class, that does not by itself establish that ordinary workers possess meaningful power over the state or over the party leadership.
You’re drawing a hard line within a class, which is more of an obfuscation of class analysis than a coherence towards it. Further, yes, both the WPK and CPC do engage with and are representative of the broader working classes.
Both countries are run by ML parties following revolution and would therefore be designated both socialist and communist based on like 100 years of precedent.
The WPK is Kimilsungist-Kimjongilist, technically, though ML is accepted as the basis of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism, just with the juche idea added on top.