Post #1762443
2026-04-27 21:48 UTC
I feel like all your objections are just about the terminology used in an article I didn’t write. I wouldn’t use the term “bourgeois proletariat” for example, but the actual point that the article is making is correct and insightful.
It’s not like you couldn’t have made a comment on the publicly known biases of the sources in question
Neither is a credible source on haircuts in North Korea.
Yeah, no shit, that’s the point.
There’s people in here blindly believing this propaganda even when it comes from such a biased and unreliable source as the NYP. That’s not because of a failure of critical thinking or a lack of intelligence, it’s because they simply choose not to engage in critical thinking at all. Because, as I said, they don’t actually care whether it’s true or not, they just enjoy getting a chance to shit on the DPRK to feel better about their own lives and their own system.
I don’t see why you’re so offended by this idea.
Replies (1)
-
@Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 2026-04-28 00:59
You deferred to authority with your reference to a blog that defines classes of people as “westerners” and “proletariat bourgeoisie”. Those definitions are then used throughout the article as though they are commonly known entities, and even further entities that should be considered a lesser class. Regardless of the article you linked, the quotes that you selected use the terminology I am questioning. So I am asking to define what those classes are, and which people are bound to that definition? I own my house, but not my means of production; does that make me a “proletariat bourgeoisie” or just a modern peasant? What if someone owns a small business but rents an apartment?