48
nK bAd!!!
(lemmy.ml)
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 19 Apr 2026
48 points (61.2% liked)
Memes
55540 readers
885 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Thanks.
I'll have to read more about Korean Nationalism. As to poverty, you make fair points. As to universal conscription, I object to it in all circumstances regardless of wartime vs peace, as it is literally slavery. Other countries doing it doesn't make it better.
As to Democracy, I am confused by the claim
When the source later says
I fail to see the "direct election" in this process. It seems like a committee that theoretically takes into consideration debate and opinion but which then makes a unilateral nomination, who runs unopposed. Am I missing something?
Again, universal conscription cannot be removed from its necessary context: the DPRK is under constant threat. It isn't literally slavery, it's a policy that has important context, and isn't done for profit but to satisfy the justified need for security and deterrence.
As for direct democracy, the DPRK has approval based voting. Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a "yes/no" basis. Elections are not treated like political theater, there's a comprehensive candidate selection system in the Democratic Front, with direct elections from bottom to top at the approval level. I recommend reading more from the linked book, the snippet I showed is just a tiny portion.
How would you define slavery? Do you see it as only applicable in the context of commodity production?
I may look more into the book. Curious if you know of any data on how common it is for candidates to lose an election once nominated? I have to say, even the Yes/No voting is done properly, the lack of an open primary or similar seems to preclude the idea of "direct elections".
Slavery is largely forced labor to achieve economic ends, universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies, or how doctors and other educated fields are sent to rural and underdeveloped areas in socialist systems upon graduating. There isn't a class of exploiters and exploited, it's the proletariat organizing itself in self-defense during the passive phase of an active war. Calling it slavery equates it to slavery in the Statesian south, where slave owners brutally exploited a class of slaves. The reason I bring up other countries is to show that this isn't simply a policy preference, but something decided upon because of its practical necessity in real, existing conditions.
As for stats on those who lose elections, I don't have any. I wouldn't imagine it would be a high number given that it's essentially an approval round for candidates, rather than their first exposure.
I recognize the difference you are making, but this seems like huge a stretch. Children's lack of knowledge requires some degree of restriction on autonomy at least to a certain age, in the interest of preparing them for life. Personally I think school mandates are excessive in most countries, but it is still very different from a mandatory activity for adults. Moreover, the military represents a far greater risk of personal harm. As to the idea that it is self-organizing, the degree to which that is true rests heavily on the democracy question.
In an ideal world, no country would even have a reason to have universal conscription. We do not live in an ideal world, though, we live in the era of dying imperialism, where the US Empire could lash out at any moment. In these circumstances, the decision to implement universal conscription is entitely rational. Further, I am not purely speaking of children, but also full adults getting their medical degrees and having to give back to the system by going to the areas most in need for a time.
As for democracy, the book I linked is the best source I've found.
I definitely oppose that. It might just be a difference in values.
You may oppose it, but you also likely do not live in a socialist country. Understanding why socialist countries have the policies they do requires understanding their situations. For example, in Cuba, sending doctors to the rural areas helped provide medical access to people who never had it before. These programs are not at all comparable to slavery, but are pro-social policies decided within a class, not imposed by one class onto the rest.
I actually live in a country that claims to be socialist, but I'm not sure they have gone very far to earn that label.
AFAIK no one is forced to become a doctor in Cuba
Not sure what you mean, if you don't live in China, Vietnam, Laos, the DPRK, Cuba, or potentially Venezuela, then I don't think your country is really socialist. Either way, my point is that universal conscription isn't at all the same as slavery.
Me either
I can't imagine why you oppose that. In fact, I think it should be mandatory in all countries. If your education is paid for by the state of the proletariat, then you HAVE to pay back to society.
I think this might be one of those individualistic vs collectivist moral thing.
In my country, if the state pays for your education, then you're mandated to do service for a few years to the underprivileged sections of society. Because it was THEIR money that paid for your education. I would never vote for anyone trying to change this.
All of us owe a debt to society because our lives are made possible by it. All of us owe something to our fellow humans.
I do have individualistic values, in the Marxist sense. I oppose a society oriented around the individual, but I do value individuality and the encouragement/development of it.
I find the concept of debt problematic, especially one that is not taken by choice. As to serving the state in return for education, that's more of a gray area if you still have the option to not accept the education.
You're not forced to become a doctor. But if you do, and you do so not in isolation but with the resources provided for the state, resources that include efforts and labour by the proletariat of the state, then you're expected to give back to those that will come after.
I truly don't understand how that concept is so difficult to understand.
Debt to society is a figure of speech, not a material debt. It's about participating in society that enables your life. If you don't want to, you can always move to the woods and live in a cabin away from civilization and do everything yourself. But if you want the benefits of society and civilization, then you have to realize that you need to give back as well. It's literally not that difficult a concept to understand, I'm not sure what's confusing you
By direct election, what's meant is that all levels of government, from the local, to national level, are elected directly by the people.
Contrast this with it's neighbor China, where local level positions are directly elected, but by the time you get to the national level, positions are elected, indirectly, by the directly elected representatives from the lower levels. The DPRK doesn't have that same sort of insulation at the national level.
Candidates, meanwhile, are decided through mass meetings. This is a very loose comparison, but imagine something roughly akin to the caucus system in some USAmerican primary elections. But instead of boiling it down to two candidates, it gets boiled down to one. The final vote where you cast your ballot is essentially a ratification vote of that 'primary' process, where you vote "yes" or "no", but that doesn't mean the process which preceded it wasn't competitive.
Thank you for clarifying. Voting directly in this sense is perhaps more democratic than delegation. Whether this system is democratic, though, really comes down to how the committees are run. Before having read the book mentioned, I am skeptical that a "democratic" process should rely so heavily on something as imprecise as a committee.
It's a bit difficult to say how institutionally robust these meetings are, simply because the DPRK is so artificially closed off from the world.
The Cuban electoral system works roughly similar, with direct elections at all levels of government, mass meetings narrowing down to one candidate, and ratification votes at the end of the process. And we have a much better window into how those work.
Obviously that's a country on the other side of the world, so we can't just graft the Cuban experience onto the DPRK, but it can help us be more informed in our speculation