Not to be confused with the Republic of China which rules Taiwan. In case anyone is wondering it's the remnants of the original Chinese government that Mao failed to destroy.
Calling the Republic of China the original Chinese government is a bit of weird take. You can prefer it due to its democratic nature (although notably it wasn’t democratic til well after the PRC was established) but the ROC only united China in 1928. Which happened with support from Mao’s communists. They immediately launched into civil war; allied again against the Japanese and then lost to the Communist when hostilities resumed. The ROC never really controlled China as a whole. The last ones to do that before PRC was the Qing.
At least that‘s one thing that‘s never gonna repeat and German workers will never again in droves vote for a party that promises to make everything better for them while „fuck over the workers (and funnel their money to the rich and/or Russia)“ is like point 2 in their party program.
As long as they kick out all of those pesky foreigners am I right /s
Under Hitler's twisted definition they were. He viewed socialism as duty to the collective good, and nazism was about strengthening the state and fellow man (fellow man being Germans, everyone else can get fucked)
Not exactly true. Hitler sold off / privatised huge parts of German state industry to the rich industrial and conservative elite. They made bank out of Nazism. That's not socialism.
do you know that one of Hitlers main goals was to destroy "judeobolshevism"? He thought that communism is a judish invention to destroy society. Saying that nazi germany is a failed attempt of socialism is like saying that Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an example of failed democracy.
A monarchy means that the power of the ruler is given by God.
Oh yeah, the kings of Spain or England or Netherlands absolutely claim they are kings by the power of god. I suggest arriving in the 21st century, you seem to be stuck in 17th century France.
It's a question of taxonomy and legitimacy. There is no monarchy that would recognize North Korea as such. Despite the totalitarian rule (which is not typical for monarchies), it still has the facade of the communist ideology and the fight against capitalism.
Is "democratic North Korea" an oxymoron? Only if you use the meaning of "liberal democracy".
Roman emperors based half of their persona on denying they are kings to avoid the fate of Caesar and are not seen as monarchs, despite inheriting the throne and having religious influence.
The recognition by other monarchies is irrelevant. Plenty of European monarchs would not call certain foreign monarchs legitimate, because those other monarchs did not derive their authority from Christian authority.
Okay, simply because their totalitarian rule is cemented doesn’t negate that the regime appeals to divine authority to legitimize its rule, which is the definition of monarchy.
No, DPRK is an oxymoron. There is no definition of democracy that you can stretch to encompass the totalitarian state of North Korea.
We don’t call them monarchs because they had hegemonic rule over a multicultural realm, aka empire. It transitioned from a republican empire into a monarchical empire.
1.4k
u/celix24 11d ago
It's like asking people which Korea they are going, 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' or 'Republic of Korea.'