Sounds like Kim Jong Il may be worm food soon. [Archive]

View Full Version : Sounds like Kim Jong Il may be worm food soon.

Os Cangaceiros

13th July 2009, 03:18

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6696778.ece

Pancreatic cancer, supposedly.

Revy

13th July 2009, 03:36

But gods like the Dear Leader don't get cancer. :scared: Who could live without him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Motherland_Without_You)?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

13th July 2009, 03:41

Sometimes I'm thankful terminal diseases still exist.

Incendiarism

13th July 2009, 03:56

Still, I don't think his death will be overwhelmingly positive. Does anybody know anything about his son, and do you really think under his leadership they can maintain a strong stance against western aggression?

scarletghoul

13th July 2009, 04:39

It will still be the same people in charge, its not like Kim made all the decisions alone so i dont think radical differance will occur immediately. But still this is interesting

Blackscare

13th July 2009, 04:43

do you really think under his leadership they can maintain a strong stance against western aggression?

Do you really think that Kimmy is some kind of one man army against the west? What makes you think his son will be any less 'effective'?

Seeing as none of us know too much about his son, and therefore can't really predict his performance, I can only guess that your comment is implying that there's something special about Kim that one just couldn't expect to find in another leader.

Os Cangaceiros

13th July 2009, 04:50

Regardless of who ultimately takes charge of the country in Kim's absence, I'm sure that he's utilizing only the best in "traditional medicine" to treat his unfortunate affliction.

gorillafuck

13th July 2009, 04:51

Is he also gonna pass his power on to his son?

Incendiarism

13th July 2009, 04:52

Red Rebel

13th July 2009, 06:05

My opinions of the guy aside, it is a rumor from SK. That is it. SK produces rumors of dear leaders demise on a daily basis. Did the same thing with Fidel as well.

LOLseph Stalin

13th July 2009, 06:13

Revy

13th July 2009, 06:59

It's hard to say if this is the truth or not, considering it's North Korea, but if it is the truth it'll be difficult to determine the future of the DPRK. I have heard rumors of Kim Jong-Il's son taking over after his father's death, but that raises more questions. Is the guy even experienced in politics or is he just being selected in an effort to continue the family line? Also, if he is inexperienced, will the economics and entire structure of the DPRK change? Who knows? Maybe he'll reform it and allow in Capitalism or something. That could lead to the same situation that China is in right now, Communist party rule and Capitalist economy. However, if there was to be social reforms it would be nice that the people have a bit more freedom. It's just the Capitalism I'm worried about...

Experienced in politics? Where's the politics in North Korea? I'm sure you mean experience in government administration. Kim Jong-il had plenty, of course, who wouldn't, when your father has that kind of power you can have any government position.

It doesn't really matter what the North Korean people do, because they have no voice and are too afraid to say anything about Kim. If there are social reforms that relieve North Koreans from the Dear Leader's crushing hug, it will come from the top. Any kind of mass uprising is inconceivable, at least at this point. However, like China, North Korea doesn't seem to care much about even its state capitalist economics, as evidenced by their reforms with private small business, as they do about preventing any kind of political changes which keep the North Korean working class from expressing themselves at all.

Chambered Word

13th July 2009, 10:32

OneNamedNameLess

13th July 2009, 10:58

Revulero

13th July 2009, 11:03

Lmfao worm food :lol:. I doubt there will be any change with his son taking over. My only fear is that he'll pull off a china and go free market. For now, since we know nothing about him, I'll try to remain or pretend to remain optimistic about his son being communist and following socialism instead of following his dad's and grandpa's Juche Kim Dynasty.

Robespierre2.0

13th July 2009, 15:17

Firstly, if capitalism was restored in the DPRK then I don't think it could be much worse than the current state capitalist system. Lastly, who gives a shit about NK's anti-imperialist position? Are we expected to give support to Kim simply because he is anti-imperialist? People in NK come second to militarisation and a nuclear weapons programme. Even at the zenith of colonialism some native populations were treated better than the people of North Korea. Still, your comments are not as bad as the usual nonsense such as "the USSR and the DPRK are the world's only real democracies".

Yes, capitalism is much worse, and yes, you should show support for the Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jong-Il. The militarization and nuclear program are necessary in order to preserve the DPRK's sovereignty.

Agrippa

13th July 2009, 21:02

the complete restoration of capitalism within north korea

North Korea is already capitalist.

or the weakening of its anti-imperialist position."anti-imperialism" ≠ isolationist capitalism

The militarization and nuclear program are necessary in order to preserve the DPRK's sovereignty.

That is the purpose of all capitalist militarization and nuclear weapons programs; to preserve the sovereignty of capitalist states.

Blackscare

13th July 2009, 21:12

Regardless of who ultimately takes charge of the country in Kim's absence, I'm sure that he's utilizing only the best in "traditional medicine" to treat his unfortunate affliction.

What exactly is this comment based on besides a generalization about Asians?

Revy

13th July 2009, 23:15

What exactly is this comment based on besides a generalization about Asians?

I believe they are referring to a policy within North Korea which moved toward herbal medicine. Some background information on the subject. (http://search.hankooki.com/times/times_view.php?term=north+korea++&path=hankooki3/times/lpage/opinion/200703/kt2007031914301954140.htm&media=kt)

Dimentio

13th July 2009, 23:27

Does his son have any political experience at all? As the article indicates he is just meeting with chinese officials, seemingly preparing to take his position in government without any real training. I don't want to see no puppets in charge, especially if it could lead to the complete restoration of capitalism within north korea, or the weakening of its anti-imperialist position.

/cue backlash

I do not give a damn really.

I would prefer to be a worker in South Korea before being a worker in North Korea. South Korea has a ruthless capitalist overclass, but also strong and militant unions. Moreover, South Korea could hardly be called an "exploited" country, but rather an "exploiting country" (North Korea has allowed itself to be exploited by the South through that industrial special zone).

Only because someone is an anti-imperialist does'nt per definition make them good.

In the 20's, German ultranationalists actually worked together with Indian, Afghan and Moroccan freedom fighters, as they saw Germany as an "exploited country". Not that the Indians, Afghans and Moroccans were fighting illegitimate struggles for their liberties, but the world is not black and white.

Chàvez who has been progressive in Venezuela is an ally of Ahmadinejad who is a reactionary. Kim Jong-Il is ruling over a starving East Asian Sparta where large parts of the population are repressed and most resources go to the military.

I think it is reprehensible, disgusting and creepy of self-proclaimed progressives to put their weight behind a dictatorship which is ready to pay millions of dead as a price of supporting their own class system. It is also reeking of reverse racism.

Sometimes, I wish the Kim apologists were flies, so I could drag their wings off and throw them on an anthill or in the toilet and then flush.

Agrippa

13th July 2009, 23:34

I believe they are referring to a policy within North Korea which moved toward herbal medicine. Some background information on the subject. (http://search.hankooki.com/times/times_view.php?term=north+korea++&path=hankooki3/times/lpage/opinion/200703/kt2007031914301954140.htm&media=kt)

It's telling that one of the few things North Korea gets mocked by RevLeft posters for is one of the few genuinely cool things about the regime.

Dimentio

13th July 2009, 23:40

It's telling that one of the few things North Korea gets mocked by RevLeft posters for is one of the few genuinely cool things about the regime.

Herbal medicine is good if it works. But we should aim to scientifically understand why it works, not just say that it is "cool" because it is sooo "unwestern" or "traditional". :lol:

Communist Theory

13th July 2009, 23:41

Whats the exact name of the thing they call that were they observe the movement of a leader to see whats wrong with them.
It started with the U.S. observing a USSR leader.
I can't remember.

Agrippa

13th July 2009, 23:51

Herbal medicine is good if it works. But we should aim to scientifically understand why it works, not just say that it is "cool" because it is sooo "unwestern" or "traditional". :lol:

I obviously agree. For example sheepskin condoms may be "cooler" and "more traditional" than latex, (and more ecologically friendly) but they're less effective. Vaccinations and synthetic anti-biotics are the only way to deal with powerful strains of tuberculosis (itself an inadvertent product of capitalism)

Ineffective herbal remedies were unlikely to be recorded in classical medical traditions due to the reliance upon memorizing verse as a means of transmitting information. (In other words, if the remedy was ineffective it was likely to be forgotten and wouldn't have been recorded) Fraudulent herbal remedies are mostly a product of capitalist hucksterism and sketchy New Age ecclecticism.

Dimentio

13th July 2009, 23:53

I obviously agree. For example sheepskin condoms may be "cooler" and "more traditional" than latex, (and more ecologically friendly) but they're less effective. Vaccinations and synthetic anti-biotics are the only way to deal with powerful strains of tuberculosis (itself an inadvertent product of capitalism)

Ineffective herbal remedies were unlikely to be recorded in classical medical traditions due to the reliance upon memorizing verse as a means of transmitting information. (In other words, if the remedy was ineffective it was likely to be forgotten and wouldn't have been recorded) Fraudulent herbal remedies are mostly a product of capitalist hucksterism and sketchy New Age ecclecticism.

Yet, the Romans used lead to cure constipation for five hundred years, despite that the patients always died a short time after...

JimmyJazz

14th July 2009, 00:13

It's telling that one of the few things North Korea gets mocked by RevLeft posters for is one of the few genuinely cool things about the regime.

Mocking North Korea for any reason is childish. You may think you can laugh at it and distance yourself from it, and therefore brush aside any objections from someone who tries to use North Korea to prove that you are foolish for being a communist. But it isn't going to convince many people if all you can do is make jokes.

A mature response, otoh, is not to condone what North Korea is, but simply to try and explain how it got that way. Which can be done, using a little theory and a lot of history.

eta /bobkindles

scarletghoul

14th July 2009, 00:18

Anyway, back on topic. I wonder if he really will become worm food or if his corpse will be embalmed like his father's

Pogue

14th July 2009, 00:22

Anyway, back on topic. I wonder if he really will become worm food or if his corpse will be embalmed like his father's

It should be hung from a lampost like Mussolini for the suffering he has let his people endure.

Vincent P.

14th July 2009, 00:23

The Kim dynasty of monarchist North Korea is likely to survive its current leader anyway. I have no hope for North Korea anytime soon.

scarletghoul

14th July 2009, 00:24

... Do you have any idea what fuedalism is?

Vincent P.

14th July 2009, 00:42

Sorry, monarchy may be a better word. But still NK's obsession with military-first philosophy can be refered as a form of modern feudalism, with the military and their family being given many advantages and well-being the common worker lacks.

The Ungovernable Farce

14th July 2009, 01:12

Does his son have any political experience at all? As the article indicates he is just meeting with chinese officials, seemingly preparing to take his position in government without any real training.
I think the relevant point here is not whether his son will be a bad leader or a good leader, but that IT'S HIS FUCKING SON THE MAN LITERALLY HAS NO QUALIFICATIONS AT ALL BEYOND THE FACT THAT HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE RIGHT SPERM IN THE RIGHT OVARY AT THE RIGHT TIME. Seriously, what the hell does monarchy have to do with communism?

you should show support for the Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jong-Il.
The only support the Darling Leader Lil Kim deserves is the kind that you get from a tree and a sturdy rope.

Mocking North Korea for any reason is childish. You may think you can laugh at it and distance yourself from it, and therefore brush aside any objections from someone who tries to use North Korea to prove that you are foolish for being a communist. But it isn't going to convince many people if all you can do is make jokes.

A mature response, otoh, is not to condone what North Korea is, but simply to try and explain how it got that way. Which can be done, using a little theory and a lot of history.

eta /bobkindles
The two responses aren't mutually exclusive. You aren't going to convince many people if all you can do is make jokes, but people will be more willing to listen to you if you can make jokes and not just give them humourless lectures. Mussolinis, Stalins, Kims, Bushes and Browns always tell us that we should take them seriously; I don't see why we should give them the honour. If you can read that wiki article on "No Motherland Without You" that was linked to earlier in the thread without wanting to laugh, there's something wrong with you.

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 01:20

... Do you have any idea what fuedalism is?

Not all monarchies have been feudalist.

We have had:

Tribal monarchies (Saudi Arabia is one modern example)

Elective monarchies/De-facto republics with an elected king (Sweden 1200-1523, Poland 1650-1795)

Despotic monarchies (Ottoman Empire, Muscowy 1533-1684, the various Chinese dynasties, The Roman and Byzantine Empires 284-1453)

Administrative monarchies (Sweden 1523-1718)

Absolute monarchies (France 1665-1789, Russia 1684-1905)

Constitutional monarchies

De-facto monarchies (Roman Empire 27 BC - 284 AD, modern Syria and Egypt)

I would claim that countries like Egypt, Syria and North Korea are de-facto monarchies.

In North Korea's case, I would say that it most closely resembles a despotic monarchy, where the unifying figure is the sovereign.

scarletghoul

14th July 2009, 01:29

He edited his post, it used to say feudalist instead of monarchist

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 01:30

He edited his post, it used to say feudalist instead of monarchist

Ohh, but I like to lecture :(

scarletghoul

14th July 2009, 01:31

:( sorry. Have some rep

Vincent P.

14th July 2009, 01:38

Yes sorry for the edit. I should have broaded the terms or something.

Robespierre2.0

14th July 2009, 01:42

It should be hung from a lampost like Mussolini for the suffering he has let his people endure.

Oh, look at you, Mr. High-and-mighty moralist! I bet you want everyone to pat your back for making such a bold statement.

Guess, what! I can throw around thoughtless polemic statements, too!
All anarchists should join the U.S. military if they're so keen on 'fighting evil dictators'

...because, by definition, any country that does not see eye-to-eye with the U.S. is headed by an autocrat who hoards wealth while the people suffer. Also, said autocrat will curiously become more or less of an evil, autocratic baby-eater depending on whether the U.S. feels like picking a fight with them or not.

Pogue

14th July 2009, 01:45

Oh, look at you, Mr. High-and-mighty moralist! I bet you want everyone to pat your back for making such a bold statement.

Guess, what! I can throw around thoughtless polemic statements, too!
All anarchists should join the U.S. military if they're so keen on 'fighting evil dictators'

...because, by definition, any country that does not see eye-to-eye with the U.S. is headed by an autocrat who hoards wealth while the people suffer. Also, said autocrat will curiously become more or less of an evil, autocratic baby-eater depending on whether the U.S. feels like picking a fight with them or not.

Jesus fucking christ you should mind what pills your popping chum cos you just came at me like a rhino on speed.

Why would I join the US military? I oppose the US state, like I oppose all states, as well as opposing invading other countries to shoot people.

I don't know where the rest of your shit came from, but grow up please. I wasn't attacking Kim Jong Il from a pro-US position so stop being a cretin.

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 01:49

Jesus fucking christ you should mind what pills your popping chum cos you just came at me like a rhino on speed.

Why would I join the US military? I oppose the US state, like I oppose all states, as well as opposing invading other countries to shoot people.

I don't know where the rest of your shit came from, but grow up please. I wasn't attacking Kim Jong Il from a pro-US position so stop being a cretin.

If Hitler had come to power today and he had happened to be non-white, I a sure he would get supporters amongst anti-imperialists. Sometimes, it fells like many anti-imperialists are more motivated by their hatred of America and the west than by genuine concern for the oppressed third world nations.

Pogue

14th July 2009, 01:51

If Hitler had come to power today and he had happened to be non-white, I a sure he would get supporters amongst anti-imperialists. Sometimes, it fells like many anti-imperialists are more motivated by their hatred of America and the west than by genuine concern for the oppressed third world nations.

i dont understand the confused nutters who have substituted kim jong il with the working class but i'd wish they stopped playing with my communism

scarletghoul

14th July 2009, 01:54

He is the new Hitler now ? loolol
And of course you are correct, the only reason we don't join you in your lame insults of North Korea is because Kim is non-white

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 01:54

i dont understand the confused nutters who have substituted kim jong il with the working class but i'd wish they stopped playing with my communism

I understand them perfectly. That is why I am loathing them.

khad

14th July 2009, 02:04

He is the new Hitler now ? loolol
And of course you are correct, the only reason we don't join you in your lame insults of North Korea is because Kim is non-white
If Kim Jong-Il is the new Hitler, then what does that make Kim Il-Sung? Satan incarnate? Because one was pure badass and the other is a pampered pile of goo.

:laugh:

BobKKKindle$

14th July 2009, 02:06

It's important to point out that many posters in this thread have repeated a common mistake when discussing North Korean, which indicates that they have accepted the narrative of the imperialist powers. They have assumed that Kim Jong-Il currently occupies a hegemonic and omnipotent position within North Korea, and can act independently of broader class interests. This is false. North Korea, like every other capitalist state, is governed by a ruling class, which, by definition, commands exclusive control of the means of production. Kim Jong-Il is merely the foremost representative of this class, and his actions are bound by the interests of the class of which he is a member, in much the same way as political leaders in other states, as well as the constraints that can be imposed by other actors at the apex of North Korea's political system, including the leaders of the military. If you attribute such great importance to Kim Jong-Il that you feel it is necessary to speculate over his "successor" and assert that North Korea is a "monarchy", you are rejecting one of the basic principles of Marxism - that history is driven by class struggles, and not the arbitrary decisions of individuals.

But still NK's obsession with military-first philosophy can be refered as a form of modern feudalism, with the military and their family being given many advantages and well-being the common worker lacks.No, it can't. Feudalism is a specific mode of production that precedes capitalism, under which the ownership of land is the most important form of wealth, and the mass of the working population, i.e. the peasantry, is bound to a particular lord, all of whom owe their allegiance to a monarch whilst operating relatively autonomous estates, with these peasants being forced to offer military service, and hand over a given percentage of their agricultural output to the manor, in exchange for protection. These characteristics do not exist in North Korea as the dominant social relation is wage-labour, whereby those who lack access to the means of production - unlike peasants under feudalism - sell their labour power as a commodity to the ruling class, which takes the form of a bureaucratic state apparatus in North Korea, due to the formal absence of private property. It would actually be impossible for a feudal economy to support the current level of industrialization and technology in North Korea, if we adopt a Marxist understanding of what causes social relations to change over time. The dominance of the military as a political force is by no means specific to feudalism and can also be seen in a whole range of other capitalist states, including South Korea, where military service is mandatory, as well as Singapore, and Israel, to name but a few.

Kim Jong-Il is ruling over a starving East Asian Sparta where large parts of the population are repressed and most resources go to the military.North Korea is not an "East Asian Sparta" because it is not a slave-based economy, unlike Sparta and other ancient civilizations. In other words, there are no people in North Korea who are legally owned by the state or individual bureaucrats - rather, as noted above, wage-labour is the dominant social relation. Using this term - "East Asian Sparta" - smacks of the view that North Korea and other Asian countries are somehow "backward" and need to catch up with "the west". North Korea is a mature capitalist state.

I think it is reprehensible, disgusting and creepy of self-proclaimed progressives to put their weight behind a dictatorship which is ready to pay millions of dead as a price of supporting their own class system.This seems to imply that if the bureaucratic ruling class of North Korea decided to give up its own class system - which would presumably take the form of North Korea opening itself up to the capitalist world-system by privatizing state corporations, and abandoning controls on trade and investment, as well as the state-centered planning system - it would have been possible to avert famine, and the quality of life would improve for North Korean citizens. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't quite support your chauvinist assertion. When the USSR experienced a shift to market-based capitalism, by 1999 a third of the urban labor force in Russia was effectively unemployed; 75 percent of the population was living below or barely above subsistence level and 15 million were actually starving. Life expectancy had fallen dramatically and now stands at a mere 57 years for men, more than a decade after the events of 1991, below what it was a century ago, while the overall population actually declined by three and a half million from 1992 to 1997. This is not to say that the USSR was any kind of socialism but it does give us reason to believe that if North Korea did undergo a similar transition - which seems increasingly likely to be carried out with the support of the bureaucracy, and not, contrary to your allegations, as a way of overturning the current class structure, given the increasing proliferation of SEZs - the results would not be beneficial for the working class.

There would be even greater famine and devastation in North Korea, and for this reason I recognize that the recent hardships of North Korean workers derive primarily from the isolation imposed by the imperialist powers in the form of blockades, and the threat of military incursion, as well as other factors that lie beyond the control of the bureaucratic regime, such as the poor weather conditions of the 1990s, the collapse of the rest of the state-capitalist bloc and the resulting loss of guaranteed markets, as well as North Korea's natural topography, which is not suited to agricultural production. If you mistakenly assert that the regime can be held responsible for the famine, then the logical implication of that position is to support political and economic change in North Korea by any means necessary, including imperialist intervention, because rejecting the role of external factors necessarily entails the view that anything would be better for North Korea workers than the status-quo - i.e. a state-capitalist regime which, despite its repressive political system, involves a series of progressive features, including full employment, the provision of healthcare and education, and a degree of social equality for women. Trotskyists reject this view and, in the event of an imperialist invasion, would actively call for the defeat of the imperialist powers, whilst also calling for the overthrow of the North Korean bureaucracy by the working class, as part of an international socialist revolution.

Killfacer

14th July 2009, 02:07

letters such as g, o, o and d come to mind.

Pogue

14th July 2009, 02:18

It's important to point out that many posters in this thread have repeated a common mistake when discussing North Korean, which indicates that they have accepted the narrative of the imperialist powers. They have assumed that Kim Jong-Il currently occupies a hegemonic and omnipotent position within North Korea, and can act independently of broader class interests. This is false. North Korea, like every other capitalist state, is governed by a ruling class, which, by definition, commands exclusive control of the means of production. Kim Jong-Il is merely the foremost representative of this class, and his actions are bound by the interests of the class of which he is a member, in much the same way as political leaders in other states, as well as the constraints that can be imposed by other actors at the apex of North Korea's political system, including the leaders of the military. If you attribute such great importance to Kim Jong-Il that you feel it is necessary to speculate over his "successor" and assert that North Korea is a "monarchy", you are rejecting one of the basic principles of Marxism - that history is driven by class struggles, and not the arbitrary decisions of individuals.

No, it can't. Feudalism is a specific mode of production that precedes capitalism, under which the ownership of land is the most important form of wealth, and the mass of the working population, i.e. the peasantry, is bound to a particular lord, all of whom owe their allegiance to a monarch whilst operating relatively autonomous estates, with these peasants being forced to offer military service, and hand over a given percentage of their agricultural output to the manor, in exchange for protection. These characteristics do not exist in North Korea as the dominant social relation is wage-labour, whereby those who lack access to the means of production - unlike peasants under feudalism - sell their labour power as a commodity to the ruling class, which takes the form of a bureaucratic state apparatus in North Korea, due to the formal absence of private property. It would actually be impossible for a feudal economy to support the current level of industrialization and technology in North Korea, if we adopt a Marxist understanding of what causes social relations to change over time. The dominance of the military as a political force is by no means specific to feudalism and can also be seen in a whole range of other capitalist states, including South Korea, where military service is mandatory, as well as Singapore, and Israel, to name but a few.

North Korea is not an "East Asian Sparta" because it is not a slave-based economy, unlike Sparta and other ancient civilizations. In other words, there are no people in North Korea who are legally owned by the state or individual bureaucrats - rather, as noted above, wage-labour is the dominant social relation. Using this term - "East Asian Sparta" - smacks of the view that North Korea and other Asian countries are somehow "backward" and need to catch up with "the west". North Korea is a mature capitalist state.

This seems to imply that if the bureaucratic ruling class of North Korea decided to give up its own class system - which would presumably take the form of North Korea opening itself up to the capitalist world-system by privatizing state corporations, and abandoning controls on trade and investment, as well as the state-centered planning system - it would have been possible to avert famine, and the quality of life would improve for North Korean citizens. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't quite support your chauvinist assertion. When the USSR experienced a shift to market-based capitalism, by 1999 a third of the urban labor force in Russia was effectively unemployed; 75 percent of the population was living below or barely above subsistence level and 15 million were actually starving. Life expectancy had fallen dramatically and now stands at a mere 57 years for men, more than a decade after the events of 1991, below what it was a century ago, while the overall population actually declined by three and a half million from 1992 to 1997. This is not to say that the USSR was any kind of socialism but it does give us reason to believe that if North Korea did undergo a similar transition - which seems increasingly likely to be carried out with the support of the bureaucracy, and not, contrary to your allegations, as a way of overturning the current class structure, given the increasing proliferation of SEZs - the results would not be beneficial for the working class.

There would be even greater famine and devastation in North Korea, and for this reason I recognize that the recent hardships of North Korean workers derive primarily from the isolation imposed by the imperialist powers in the form of blockades, and the threat of military incursion, as well as other factors that lie beyond the control of the bureaucratic regime, such as the poor weather conditions of the 1990s, the collapse of the rest of the state-capitalist bloc and the resulting loss of guaranteed markets, as well as North Korea's natural topography, which is not suited to agricultural production. If you mistakenly assert that the regime can be held responsible for the famine, then the logical implication of that position is to support political and economic change in North Korea by any means necessary, including imperialist intervention, because rejecting the role of external factors necessarily entails the view that anything would be better for North Korea workers than the status-quo - i.e. a state-capitalist regime which, despite its repressive political system, involves a series of progressive features, including full employment, the provision of healthcare and education, and a degree of social equality for women. Trotskyists reject this view and, in the event of an imperialist invasion, would actively call for the defeat of the imperialist powers, whilst also calling for the overthrow of the North Korean bureaucracy by the working class, as part of an international socialist revolution.

holy shit

o shit

So there I was. It was 2:16am and I was having some casual revleft fun because I'm too much of a geek to go to bed, everything was light heartened and easy to deal with despite the fact I've had a quart of whiskey and then

OMG SHIT

Bobkindles comes in with a deeply theoretical chapter of a book I swear he must be writing.

warn us next time!

:lol:

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 02:23

North Korea is not an "East Asian Sparta" because it is not a slave-based economy, unlike Sparta and other ancient civilizations. In other words, there are no people in North Korea who are legally owned by the state or individual bureaucrats - rather, as noted above, wage-labour is the dominant social relation. Using this term - "East Asian Sparta" - smacks of the view that North Korea and other Asian countries are somehow "backward" and need to catch up with "the west". North Korea is a mature capitalist state.

North Korea is not built on wage labour, but on mandatory labour. There is no one unemployed, because most of the population are either conscripted in the army or toiling in the factories or fields.

I am also amused by your habit of using the wording of those who you disagree with to try to paint them as racists. I think that North Koreans, like all other peoples, deserve to rule their means of production themselves, and to be able to build a future where the fruit of the working people is going to the working people.

While I do not endorse imperialist intervention in Korea, I would certainly support the Korean people to overthrow their dictatorship of the bureaucracy and military, and urge all other progressives to not accredit any legitimacy whatsoever to the monarchy.

This seems to imply that if the bureaucratic ruling class of North Korea decided to give up its own class system - which would presumabely take the form of North Korea opening itself up to the capitalist world-system by privatizing state corporations, and abandoning controls on trade and investment, as well as the state-centered planning system - it would have been possible to avert famine, and the quality of life would improve for North Korean citizens. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't quite support your chauvinist assertion. When the USSR experienced a shift to market-based capitalism, by 1999 a third of the urban labor force in Russia was effectively unemployed; 75 percent of the population was living below or barely above subsistence level and 15 million were actually starving. Life expectancy had fallen dramatically and now stands at a mere 57 years for men, more than a decade after the events of 1991, below what it was a century ago, while the overall population actually declined by three and a half million from 1992 to 1997. This is not to say that the USSR was any kind of socialism but it does give us reason to believe that if North Korea did undergo a smilar transition - which seems increasingly likely to be carried out with the support of the bureuacracy, and not, contrary to your allegations, as a way of overturning the current class structure, given the increasing proliferation of SEZs - the results would not be beneficial for the working class.

There would be even greater famine and devestation in North Korea, and for this reason I recognize that the recent hardships of North Korean workers derive primarily from the isolation imposed by the imperialist powers in the form of blockades, and the threat of military incursion, as well as other factors that lie beyond the control of the bureucratic regime, such as the poor weather conditions of the 1990s, the collapse of the rest of the state-capitalist bloc and the resulting loss of garuenteed markets, as well as North Korea's natural topography, which is not suited to agricultural production. If you mistakenly assert that the regime can be held responsible for the famine, then the logical implication of that position is to support political and economic change in North Korea by any means necessary, including imperialist intervention, because rejecting the role of external factors necessarily entails the view that anything would be better for North Korea workers than the status-quo - i.e. a state-capitalist regime which, despite its repressive political system, involves a series of progressive features, including full employment, the provision of healthcare and education, and a degree of social equality for women. Trotskyists reject this view and, in the event of an imperialist invasion, would actively call for the defeat of the imperialist powers, whilst also calling for the overthrow of the North Korean bureaucracy at the hands of the working class, as part of an international socialist revolution.

There is a conflict, like in all other states with similar characteristics, between softliners and hardliners. The soft-liners would like to open up North Korea to the west and turn it into another Russia, China or Turkmenistan, while the hardliners fear that the ruling class will lose its power if the system opens up.

North Korea is also characterised by the fact that it is an extreme police state where even the elites are constantly threatened by informers and guardians within their midst. The Kim Dynasty is in itself a prisoner of the Potemkin Scenery it has helped to erect during the last decades of autarchy.

What disturbs me about you, Bob, is that while you call for the "overthrow" of the bureaucracy, you still defends its "progressive gains". Even the theocracy of Ancient Egypt gave substantial and quite equal redistribution of the results of the crops to the people. Would that mean that the Pharaoh "gave the people more control over their lives"?

But I do not blame you. Rather I pity you. It must be quite hard to be a member of a party which combines trotskyist calls for world revolution with anti-revisionist calls for national liberation and anti-imperialism. That demands a pretty high level of argumentation, and I think you completely rocks at that (apart from your disgusting repetition of Godwin's law, which is like strowing a delicious cookie with rat-piss as cream).

When you are saying "surely the workers do not control their means of production, but they have at least free schooling and healthcare", you act as an apologist for the North Korean regime. A regime which would not just turn you trotskyists unemployed and socially isolated as in for example America, but would probably remove quite a lot of things which are inside and outside of your bodies before finally removing you.

The status of the North Korean worker is de-facto on par with the nations of the world were workers has least status. At least in South Korea, they have a chance to fight to improve their conditions and gain working class conciousness. But in the North, they are subjected to the demands of a military state.

When I called North Korea a "Sparta", I do not mean that it is underdeveloped. I mean that it is a military state at best and an example of "The Village" played out for real at worst.

n0thing

14th July 2009, 02:28

Oh it's very easy to support the North Korean regime from over here in the west isn't it?

I wonder how long you middle class kiddies would last; scrounging for food on the North Korean streets, whilst Kim mopes around in his palace.

Much easier to just occasionally look up from your high-definition computer screen to remark on how terrible capitalism would be for North Korea, and how necessary it is to make sure our standards of living never see the light of day there.

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79337 Doesn't this sound lovely?

ZeroNowhere

14th July 2009, 02:47

BobKKKindle$

14th July 2009, 03:28

North Korea is not built on wage labour, but on mandatory labourWage-labour is mandatory in every country insofar as people who lack the means to accumulate income in the form of profits or rents - something which depends on them owning part of the means of production - are forced to sell their labour-power in order to survive. This is the reality for every worker around the world, and in this context the fact that employment is guaranteed in North Korea is progressive because it means that workers will never find themselves unemployed, and will always be able to enjoy an income (however meager) as long as they are willing to work, whereas workers in other countries do frequently experience unemployment, especially during periods of recession, and in countries where most economic activity occurs on an informal basis, as is common throughout the developing world, of which North Korea is most certainly a part. The issue here is that North Korea is simply not feudal in any meaningful sense, and any attempt to describe it as such is indicative of chauvinism.

While I do not endorse imperialist intervention in KoreaIf this is the case then you must recognize that imperialist intervention would not be progressive from the viewpoint of the North Korean and international working class, and would exacerbate problems that already exist, such as famine and general poverty. However, this is inconsistent with what you asserted in your last post - that the North Korean government is solely or primarily responsible for the famine, as is evident from your assertion that the North Korean ruling class is "ready to pay millions of dead". Either you condone imperialist intervention on the grounds that it would remove the main agent of repression and exploitation - the North Korean government - and allow for famine to be resolved through North Korea being integrated into the world economy, or you accept that the hardships of North Korean workers are the result of a range of factors, most of which are connected with the role of imperialism, for which the government cannot be held responsible, as I have always argued, in which case you should be ready to call for the defeat of imperialism in the event of a military conflict.

There is a conflict, like in all other states with similar characteristics, between softliners and hardliners.Indeed, but it is evident that, as in every other state-capitalist country, including China, the reformists/"softliners" are winning, in that North Korea has already opened up a series of SEZs, which allow South Korean and Chinese firms to take advantage of low labour costs by situating their production inside North Korea, with the government receiving greater income as a result. This is significant because it indicates that the progressive gains currently existing in North Korea - which were introduced both as a result of pressure from below, and as a way of generating a healthy and educated workforce, capable of accumulating capital, and raising the productive forces - will ultimately only be saved through the action of the working class, and the bureaucracy is the primary agent of market reform. This calls your assertions into question because it indicates that the bureaucracy is not sacrificing millions of workers simply to maintain the traditional planned economy - it is an accomplice of imperialism.

What disturbs me about you, Bob, is that while you call for the "overthrow" of the bureaucracy, you still defends its "progressive gains"The progressive gains do not "belong" to the bureaucracy, but are being threatened by it, which is why I have no illusions in the class interests of the bureaucracy. Nonetheless, I recognize that, given the experiences of workers in other countries which have come under the control of the imperialist powers as the result of a military conflict, such as contemporary Iraq, as well as countries in which the government has introduced market reforms, the invasion of North Korea would not be progressive, and so, in the event of a conflict, I would support the defeat of imperialism, regardless of whether the imperialist powers are defeated by the working class, asserting itself as an independent and progressive force, or the North Korean state. I stand with people who are fighting against imperialism regardless of their politics and without preconditions because every defeat for any imperialist power is a victory for the international working class, whereas the logic of your positions is support for imperialism.

Even the theocracy of Ancient Egypt gave substantial and quite equal redistribution of the results of the crops to the people. Would that mean that the Pharaoh "gave the people more control over their lives"?This just says it all really. We are not talking about Ancient Egypt. We are talking about imperialism, which is a stage in the development of capitalism, and specifically its role in North Korea.

anti-revisionist calls for national liberation and anti-imperialismThere is nothing "anti-revisionist" about anti-imperialism, as we can see from the comments of CM and others who regard North Korea as a legitimate example of a socialist society, as well as the historical record of some Stalinists in relation to national-liberation movements, such as the struggles of the Afghan people against Soviet imperialism in the 1980s. I take Trotsky's position on the national question, which is summarized thus, focusing on a repressive political regime:

"In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!"

Anti-Imperialist Struggleis Key to Liberation, An Interview with Mateo Fossa, (September 1938) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm)

The status of the North Korean worker is de-facto on par with the nations of the world were workers has least status.
It's only correct to compare North Korea with other countries at the same level of economic development and with a similar GDP/Capita, given that the current living standards of South Korea have been made possible by continuous funding and other forms of economic support from the United States, in order to provide a favorable comparison with North Korea, and to undermine the support base of the revolutionary left. North Korea currently has a GDP/Capita of around $1,700, which is approximately the same as Chad, and Cote d'Ivoire (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html)) but whereas North Korea has a literacy rate of 99%, with parity between men and women, Chad has a total rate of 25.7%, with the rate for women being, 12.8%, and Cote d'Ivoire has a slightly better total rate of 48.7% (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html)). If we look at life expectancy where you might expect North Korea to do poorly given the long-term effects of famine and associated diseases we find that for the entire population the figures show that life expectancy in North Korea is 63.81 years, compared to 47.70 and 55.45 for Chad and Cote d'Ivoire respectively (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html)). This indicates that your assertion that North Korea is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of the "status" of workers is invalid and once again affirms the need to combat the threat of market reforms, which entails fighting both imperialism in the form of the United States and the reformist currents amongst the ruling class. As for South Korea, you would do well to examine the legacy of anti-communist and anti-worker repression in that country, as described in this (http://kctu.org/?mid=documents&page=2&document_srl=3205) report by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, this (http://www.workers.org/2005/world/gwangju-0526/) article on the 1980 Gwanju Massacre, and this (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA25/003/1999) discussion on the National Security Law, which has led to the South Korean section of the IST being banned as an illegal organization. South Korea is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for communists, but of course I don't expect you to know much about that.

I mean that it is a military state at best and an example of "The Village" played out for real at worst. I don't know what a "military state" is and I don't base my political analysis on poorly-made films.

Agrippa

14th July 2009, 04:37

Sorry, as much as I hate to say it, I gotta side with the Trots on this issue. We have a perfect historical example of what would happen to North Korea if it was further opened up to the international market in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although I agree 100% with CCPQR that this cannot be used to justify the North Korean state, in any sense, I feel Bobkindles' analysis is ultimately correct

Also, CCPQR, do you have a source on that Romans using lead as medicine thing? The Roman Empire was basically a proto-capitalist state, with a highly decadent culture, so I don't uphold it as any example, but it doesn't seem likely (from a realpolitikal, cost-benefit analysis perspective) that they would continue to use medicine they could easily observe to be not only totally ineffective, but lethal. Also "hundreds of years" is a much shorter timescale than the timescales it usually takes to develop systems of traditional medicine. Regardless, whatever medicine Kim is using, I'm sure he's got the best of it.

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 08:38

I did not say an introduction of capitalism would'nt be catastrophic for the DPRK. It would be quite disastrous and probably lead to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. But that in itself is hardly an argument for supporting the Kim Dynasty, or calling it socialist or "progressive".

As for South Korea, I know that class struggle is fierce there. But South Korean workers do have an elbow space to have life standard improvements. I think it was in year 1996 when they got a sudden wage increase of 900% after a general strike.

Moreover, the South Korean economic reforms under the dictatorship, while brutal, turned the south into a corporatist, industrialised economy. North Korea used to be wealthier than the South until 1975. A lot could of course be explained with US Aid, but I think South Korea is the evidence that third world nations do not necessarily end up as being exploited. Some could even join the club of imperialists (not that it is right, it is merely an analysis)!

BobKKKindle$

14th July 2009, 11:12

in itself is hardly an argument for supporting the Kim Dynasty, or calling it socialist or "progressive".That's fine, because neither myself nor other Trotskyists support the Kim "dynasty", any more than we support the Bush or Clinton "dynasties", or the al-Assad "dynasty" in Syria. I have stated throughout this thread that, in addition to the threat of imperialism, the central agent of reactionary reform in North Korea is the ruling bureaucracy, just as bureaucrats are responsible for introducing market reforms in Cuba and China, and for that reason we should give full support to all struggles from below directed against the bureaucracy just as the SWP gave support to workers in eastern Europe when they took action against their respective puppet regimes in the 1980s and early 1990s, because we recognized that these struggles allowed workers to extract democratic gains from a process that might otherwise have led to repressive governments being able to maintain their monopoly on political power whilst also carrying out market reforms, which is what has happened in China today. However, unlike you, we do not buy into the popular myths and distortions that have been spread about the origins of famine in North Korea, as the position that you have taken - that the famine can be seen solely as a consequence of the government and specifically the class interests of the ruling bureaucracy, neglecting the role of imperialism, and the division of the peninsula into two states, one of which lacks arable land - necessarily leads to support for imperialist intervention, or at best a confused understanding of the issues

I did not say an introduction of capitalism would'nt be catastrophic for the DPRK.Then this conflicts with your earlier assertion that the government is responsible for millions of people dying because the bureaucrats want to maintain their own class system (whatevever that means) as I've already noted - this is why you have a confused line of argument. Either you acknowledge that there are progressive aspects of North Korea which would be destroyed as a result of market reform - which in turn is most likely to come about as a consequence of imperialist intervention, something you would therefore be compelled to oppose - or you remain consistent with your initial assertion, in which case the logical implication is to support imperialist intervention, because this, by sweeping away what you regard as the main cause of recent hardships, would be progressive from the viewpoint of the North Korean people. Also, it's not a matter of capitalism being introduced, because capitalism already exists in North Korea, and has done for some time, since the period of Japanese occupation, but a transition to a market-based form of capitalism would have negative consequences in terms of employment, economic stability, and access to basic goods, as is clear from the experiences of workers in the former USSR. You don't seem to have given up the chauvinist position that North Korea somehow operates under a feudal mode of production.

Zurdito

14th July 2009, 11:22

A lot could of course be explained with US Aid, but I think South Korea is the evidence that third world nations do not necessarily end up as being exploited. Some could even join the club of imperialists (not that it is right, it is merely an analysis)!

I don't agree that S.Korea is an example of this. It is one country out of over a hundred third world countries, and in the context of sharing a border with a stalinist state - not at all representative!

We might as well use the example of a tiny number of people from humble backgrounds to say that "the poor do not necessarilly end up being exploited". But the system needs both exploited workers and countries, even if there are a tiny number of exceptions.

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 11:25

I don't agree that S.Korea is an example of this. It is one country out of over a hundred third world countries, and in the context of sharing a border with a stalinist state - not at all representative!

Malaysia and several other East Asian nations, including several which have had tense relationships with the west, are emerging as industrial nations. I would say that South Korea is quite representative for that region, even though the growth have been kind of particular there.

Zurdito

14th July 2009, 13:42

Malaysia and several other East Asian nations, including several which have had tense relationships with the west, are emerging as industrial nations. I would say that South Korea is quite representative for that region, even though the growth have been kind of particular there.

I remember you quoted Malaysia to me once before, and I disagreed with you then as I do know.:p Who owns the most efficient industry? What is the GDP per capita? Is it an importer or exporter of capital? Does it have an internal market on a level necessarry for a first world country?

Also growth is not the only question, you can have high growth and be structurally dependent.

Agrippa

14th July 2009, 18:38

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 20:32

In another thread I got a lot of scrutiny for saying Brazil is developing into a minor imperialist power, but I think I draw the line at Malaysia.

The argument over whether or not workers have more rights in North or South Korea completely misses the boat. Sometimes regimes where workers have less rights are better, because they force the workers into accepting the desperation of the situation. I can see both Dimentio and the Trots' sides of the argument. I think the further assimilation of North Korea into the global market would be disastrous, but that's not because North Korea is "progressive" in any way, any more so than the US or South Korea is "progressive" because of their social reform policies. I certainly wouldn't be rooting for the North Korean state in a war against the US, South Korea, and Japan, but I would understand the Koreans desire to kick the soldiers out of their country by any means necessary.

Most imperialist or capitalist countries once were either exploited countries or wholly outside the world market. Malaysia is not an imperialist power, but I would claim that its bourgeoisie more or less are turning into a part of an emerging imperialist bloc.

Moreover, in the age of globalisation, it feels like we must review our analysis on imperialism. For example, the owners of the IBM are Chinese, yet the USA still reaps most of the benefits of the company. Indian and Chinese billionaries are also buying themselves into European large companies.

Zurdito

14th July 2009, 22:00

Most imperialist or capitalist countries once were either exploited countries or wholly outside the world market.

Which?

Moreover, in the age of globalisation, it feels like we must review our analysis on imperialism. For example, the owners of the IBM are Chinese, yet the USA still reaps most of the benefits of the company. Indian and Chinese billionaries are also buying themselves into European large companies

In China for example, virtually none of the most productive industry is owned by Chinese, productivity of industry is very low, and GDP per capita is pitiful. Event he IMF is begging China to increase its internal market - and the Chinese elite do not want to because this will cost their balance of payments.

Dimentio

14th July 2009, 22:08

Which?

In year 1850 basically every country in the world except England.

In China for example, virtually none of the most productive industry is owned by Chinese, productivity of industry is very low, and GDP per capita is pitiful. Event he IMF is begging China to increase its internal market - and the Chinese elite do not want to because this will cost their balance of payments.

I know, but none could claim that the Chinese bourgeoisie is in any way opposed to the bourgeoisie of developed nations, that it is a "national bourgeoisie".

Zurdito

14th July 2009, 22:17

In year 1850 basically every country in the world except England.

But they weren't in a comparable position to thrid world countries today...all you are telling me is that capitalism did not always exist.

I know, but none could claim that the Chinese bourgeoisie is in any way opposed to the bourgeoisie of developed nations, that it is a "national bourgeoisie".

I agree and so did Trotsky. :p(with the overall sentiment - in some ways it is "opposed", but not to the system overall)

Outinleftfield

26th July 2009, 09:21

Sadly I think the current regime in N. Korea will survive.

If it was in that much danger they'd just do like in Moon Over Parador and have someone pretend to be Kim Jung Il after he dies. Given the amount of secrecy the government could keep it a secret easily.

Hiero

26th July 2009, 10:19

I know, but none could claim that the Chinese bourgeoisie is in any way opposed to the bourgeoisie of developed nations, that it is a "national bourgeoisie".

I would say comprador bourgeoisie.

But what you mention earlier were the highest managers of the bourgeoisie class, not really means of production owning memebers of the bourgeoisie.

pastradamus

26th July 2009, 10:37

If this is true than good riddance to bad rubbish.

scarletghoul

26th July 2009, 10:45

I was reading some of KJI's writing recently, its pretty cool. He really likes the arts

Dr Mindbender

26th July 2009, 16:18

I was reading some of KJI's writing recently, its pretty cool. He really likes the arts

if by the arts you mean hollywood movies, then yeah.

As far as America-phobes go he's the least successful.