this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
471 points (98.8% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3203 readers
12 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Better than the US, for the most part
I mean that in every definition of the word "better" possible
Can I get a source?
I'm so glad you asked.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/literacy-rate-by-country
There's also the global freedom index
I really enjoy rubbing it in the faces of conservative 'Muricans, or idiots in my country who crow about how the US is the "land of the free"
You'd think it would matter, but it doesn't. Reality is not the flex it should be. They live in delusion (hence why many Republican men think Trump could beat them in a fight). They have layer upon layer of cognitive dissonance and though they constantly discuss things that are fact -based like the facts matter, the facts really don't matter to them.
Republican men think Trump can beat them in a fight? You're kidding, right?
Way too many think that, yeah. The muscle bound AI images of Trump are actually how they view him.
Oh geez, that's ridiculous. The only way Trump could win a fight is if he can somehow get on top of you. No way most people can lift that weight, they'll be crushed.
But other than that, even if you don't have any considerable physical strength, you can literally just circle around him and he'll collapse eventually. There's no way Trump actually has any endurance, right?
Source lists NK as 100%. Complete bullshit.
Compulsory education provided to all people is a communist staple, to the point right-wingers tend to point to this fact as to why the US shouldn't fund public education, since that's communism.
NK under went the single largest reduction in population of any country in world history during the war, thanks to the ridiculously violent and thorough bombing campaign from the invaders in the south. This massive reduction in population plus total state control of remote villages for security (due to constant incursions from the South necessitating security in all remote areas) means getting supplies to those areas becomes a priority, and there aren't many supplies needed to accomplish goals like the massive education and literacy programs of the 1970s and 80s that, for a time, accelerated past China's own accomplishments, and by percentage of population beat the USSR's record.
Or, if you want the neoliberal explanation, it is easier to brainwash those poor wittle villwagers if they can read the pwopaganda and not just listen to it.
It's not possible to hit 100% without lying
Do you think the children in labor camps because their grandparent did something can read as well?
A) It's perfectly possible, Literacy rates are generalized to adult populations, if you teach every single child reported as being alive to read, then every single child you have accounted for will be able to read. Is it possible there are feral children in the woods of North Korea that exist? Sure. Is it possible there are some 90+ year old deserters living in the mountains of NK that never learned how to read under the imperial government? Sure. Is it likely? No, not really.
B) Fun fact with those 'labor camps' (aka prisons on par with the US, not a high bar, sure, but on par with them.) No evidence has ever been found by UN investigators that 'generational' punishment has happened. Ever. Not one single survivor has testified to this under oath in international court. Not one single log book has ever been found, not one single visit to the prisons has ever revealed this. This is mostly a myth created by the South Korean Government, who pays defectors for life (or imprisons them for life) depending on how willing they are to tell stories about their life to international media. The defectors that disagree with the SK narrative are usually imprisoned for life (legally they are all enemy combatants/rebels according to SK law, even the civilians, they have no rights). The ones that agree get media contracts they have to fulfill, or its off to jail. This is often why their stories are so over the top and make no logical sense.
See: Yeonmi Park as an example of someone whose entire life story has been debunked multiple times, and who has become a meme because of how incredibly easy it is to debunk any thing she has ever stated about North or South Korea. I mean the lady literally said it's illegal to criticize the North Korean Government in South Korea...
You realize a non negligible portion of any population will be mentally unfit or have conditions (genetic or otherwise) which leave them illiterate? Claiming 100% while ignoring that may as well be saying "everyone who can read and write is literate".
If you're taking an honest measure and still claiming it's possible to approach anywhere near 100% literacy you must be advocating for some impressive eugenics programs.
...Or you could just admit the country with (totally not dynastic) heads of state claiming to win 99.93% of the vote might be lying through their teeth...
While conditions like that can and do exist, you are vastly over estimating their prevalence in small populations, or vastly overestimating the total population of NK.
Additionally Kim Jong Un is not the head of state and never has been, and given he's not voted on by the public it's never been claimed he has won an election by that percentage.
Wtf does population size have to do with it? It's a percentage of any population, unless you think smaller populations are magically more mentally and physically fit
Sorry my apologies, he's only General Secretary of the only party in the country [which unilaterally decides who's name appears on NK's single candidate ballots] and President of State Affairs. His duties include:
But totally not the head of state. Would you also like me to specify that Starmer isn't technically head of state?
My apologies, his party won 99.93% of votes for parliament (with near 100% turnout). He personally was elected with 100% parliament's vote (no abstentions).
Here's a totally normal, completely not staged, photo of his voters dancing after casting their votes.
...Statistics. The number of people mentally impaired enough to no longer be able to read, which is a ridiculously intense and rare mental disability, is close to 1 in 100 million. There are not 100 million North Koreans. All 'common' disabilities would still allow literacy to international standards.
So why'd you post a paragraph of a position Kim Jung Un DOES NOT HOLD, according to your own information? He's not the president. He's not the head of state. He is the head of the military, appointed by congress. There are no public votes for any title he holds. His position is voted on by congress, which is voted on by the people.
His role beyond his military duties is mostly ceremonial. He does not appoint officials beyond military roles, and given it's not a military junta by anyone's claim...
'Single Party' also doesn't mean 'single choice,' it means 'singular goal.' If your goal is something other than communism, you're not allowed to hold elected office in any communist country. Just like communists are not allowed to hold political office in the United States, and fascist party members aren't allowed to hold office in Germany, theoretically.
The 'Single party' is communism. There are multiple factions on how to achieve that, which generates the multiple candidates which are on the ballots.
Edit: also this photo has nothing to do with voting. Please stop reading 'RadioFreeAsia,' they are not a news source.
Gonna go ahead and discard any further discussion; you've proven you don't comprehend the topic at the most basic level. Claimed literacy rate, measured as a percent of population , can be compared directly against the percent of incapable population.
Raw numbers have jack shit to do with it, you should probably go back to stats class if you think they do. The odds of 20+ million people all being literate is vanishingly small, the only reason to accept that statement is believing the probability of NK press lying to be 0.
The fucking voting system is yes/no on a single candidate, who's chosen for the ballot by a party committee. They made headlines by allowing party primaries in limited districts recently, the first time multiple people are on the ballot since 1948. Truly a bastion of democracy when they let you choose from two apparatchiks!
It's shocking you're going to bat for NK without even understanding the basic political landscape. He is the PRESIDENT of the State Affairs Commission. Which part of those duties sound any different than any other president or prime minister? Pedantics over title (President/Chairman, NDC/SAC) or the specific electoral process does not change the powers of the role.
This is basic shit, you can just go look up from any source instead of making up DPRK fanfic.
That does track for you people.
Except statistics are pointless in a vacuum. If you have a chance of 1 in a million, it is vanishingly unlikely that 100 chances hits that one in a million. This is especially true when speaking about disabilities, most of which are genetic (which means most populations do NOT have the same chances), most of which do not impair literacy. Period.
If you have an accurate accounting of the population, and an accurate method of ensuring that population becomes educated, then grats, you get 100% literacy in a small enough population.
The exceedingly few disabilities that would cause illiteracy, literally only a handful of which exist period and the total number of humans that have them is less than 7 figures world wide, do not occur in most populations frequently enough to apply to ANY GIVEN GROUP of people under 100 Million.
Practically no disability stops literacy entirely (that isn't unbelievably expensive to keep the subject alive), and the few that do, again, are so impractically rare it'd be surprising if there are a handful of those individuals on the Asian continent.
If Irony were a disability you'd be disabled.
Gooooooooo baaaaaaack tooooooo schooooooooooool 🤡
Edit: of your "1 in 100M" people literally incapable of learning to read, I've personally met 4. What are the odds in a country of less than 400M?...
*Source: your ass 😂
"Buhbuhbut the population is smaaaaaaall (lets ignore that that also means less schools, teachers and resources...)"
Again the irony is painful. Take your own advice, liberal.
Not really a source just a bunch of numbers. I don't have any confidence that however these numbers are gathered isn't done the same way as test scores.
There's the small matter of the fact that there is no evidence that will satisfy you, because you're not actually open to having your opinion changed
Your lack of punctuation also makes me inclined to believe that you're one of the people at the lower end of the literacy curve, so I doubt you're worth engaging with
I don't really have an opinion. I don't know where the numbers are actually at. I just understand how easy it is to lie with statistics. The U.S. is low on the list in test scores because it actually educates all children until adulthood. Europe's are higher because they don't let students who don't score well on tests take them.
Also my grammar is fine fuck you.
Europe stops kids from taking tests?
All of "Europe"?
Like it's one, monolithic, place?
You're an idiot. One with poor punctuation and grammar too.