There are liberals on this board claiming the DPRK isnt socialist

kek, and you wonder why everyone finds you insufferable

I know you think that, chinaman.

this

DPRK isn't fully socialist. They have a collectivized economy, but that's pretty much it. They have officially done away with the Communist ideology and now are maintaining their national brand of illiberal democracy. And I mean democracy as a multi-party system since DPRK has 3, albeit as a part of a national front/coalition. Sauce (it's wikiped, but it's something): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Korea

All in all, worker's don't own the means -> not socialism

Juche is ultranationalist you pleb

Planned economy and socialism aren't exactly the same but they aren't two entirely different things

Well the basic definition of socialism according to orthodox Marxism is workers owning the means of production. Only that way class warfare will…

In know this is a shitpost, but a hereditary dictatorship isn't socialism, pal.

This. Planned economy is prominent in socialism, but a planned economy is only socialist of the workers control the means of production. So basically only glorious Yugoslavia was truly socialist.

USSR before Kruschev was pretty much socialist.

...

...

go eat a dick fagglet

None of that changes the fact that the USSR was never democratic, it was controlled by bureaucrats and party elite. Since he government controlled the means of production and the workers didn't control the government, then the workers didn't control the means of production.

DPRK is literally a monarchy though

a dick
not the whole bag you cockmunching fagglet

What leads you to believe I'm a trot?

trotfag shitposting

It's the truth.

Wow. Such freedom. Very democracy.

...

Marxist understanding of a state:

an institution whose purpose is to safeguard the interest of a class, namely the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie utilizes the state by exerting economic influence derived from its economic power.

A worker's state, however, ought to do away with the dynamics and mechanisms of a bourgeois state. Now, this is not something Marx explicitly stated and the following text is about that which he couldn't have anticipated either. The SU did not alter the nature of the state, for the proletariat was still subject to gov control without having any say in the political matters. The state continued to operate under previous relations where politicians decide on everything. The only thing that changed had been that the state was making decisions "in the interest of the proletariat" in addition to more repressive measures.
With workers having no political influence, there was no hope for the top-down system ever to reach communism, much less to deal with inherent inefficiencies and surviving the hostile international environment - global capitalism and imperialism.
In essence, what happened was not liberation and emancipation of the proletariat, but a mere substitution of masters, who were just more inclined towards their subjects, albeit in form and ideology only. That's why Khruschev and later Gorbachev happened, that's why modern China happened, that's why most of the 2nd world rolled back to capitalism and so on. I'm not saying anarchism is the solution, I'm saying that a post-revolutionary worker's state has to be different this time allowing the proletariat to emancipate themselves. This could be done by proper corresponding education, enabling working-place democracy, free press as in free from private money and capital, and finally, actually handing over the means of production to the workers. All this, I think, is possible alongside every repressive measure against capital and reaction traditionally undertaken by MLs.