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.

[–] Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You pretty much already gave the answer: Your interpretation wouldn’t change, or at least you can’t imagine it would.

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.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What moderation could you possibly be afraid of if your interpretation were to meaningfully change and turn into a critique of authoritarianism?

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.

Or is it that such an interpretation would get you banned from lemmygrad and you don’t want to lose your cricket club?

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.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

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.

The only thing it serves is to show you have absolutely no will to have a good-willed conversation.

Nah what it shows is that I'm an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.

[–] Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 years ago

Nah what it shows is that I’m an incorrigible, smug, edgelord.

Good luck with your future trolling endeavours.