You are also just rationalizing, that’s what I was responding to. I could’ve shifted to ways that we know their system works that could explain it, but I wanted you to just realize that you were doing it. You are rationalizing with an assumption that I reversed: namely, that constant agreement within a political is a sign of undemocratic principles. I think this is a bad assumption
I’ve found this site a helpful little picture to use in discussions! Site with flow
It seems to me that the democratic process, if done well, can be achieved in steps 1-11, and from there it be a more ceremonial role (which could be abused, I understand). There’s no reason for a logical system to still have disagreements and rejections at stages 12 onwards if the rest is functional and the parties are working together for the betterment. This plus the instant recall mechanism through the 50,000 people represented per representative, seems to me very democratic.
Is this the total reality there? Likely not, there’s always added cultural aspects that shift how something is done and interpreted, and it’s hard to know about the DPRK. But I will always push back when someone fills the gaps with assumptions based on how bourgeois politics wastes all previous steps by still doing bullshit fake politics within the assemblies. Any move away from that is positive
![[CW: Transphobia] Congrats to North Korea for winning the U-17 Woman's World Cup!](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/e0f95f39-e410-42a1-8130-454ce954a438.png){kind=link}
You are also just rationalizing, that’s what I was responding to. I could’ve shifted to ways that we know their system works that could explain it, but I wanted you to just realize that you were doing it. You are rationalizing with an assumption that I reversed: namely, that constant agreement within a political is a sign of undemocratic principles. I think this is a bad assumption
Frequent agreement is fine, but uniform agreement across decades is not the same thing.
Why would it be if all disagreement is worked out before this vote ever takes place? Then it’s just like signing an already hashed out contract.
Tell me about the decision-making.
I’ve found this site a helpful little picture to use in discussions! Site with flow
It seems to me that the democratic process, if done well, can be achieved in steps 1-11, and from there it be a more ceremonial role (which could be abused, I understand). There’s no reason for a logical system to still have disagreements and rejections at stages 12 onwards if the rest is functional and the parties are working together for the betterment. This plus the instant recall mechanism through the 50,000 people represented per representative, seems to me very democratic.
Is this the total reality there? Likely not, there’s always added cultural aspects that shift how something is done and interpreted, and it’s hard to know about the DPRK. But I will always push back when someone fills the gaps with assumptions based on how bourgeois politics wastes all previous steps by still doing bullshit fake politics within the assemblies. Any move away from that is positive