S. Korean man defects to N. Korea: Pyongyang [Archive]

China studen

27th October 2009, 13:42

S. Korean man defects to N. Korea: Pyongyang

By Sam Kim
SEOUL, Oct. 27 (Yonhap) -- A South Korean man has defected to North Korea through the heavily armed land border between the two divided states, fulfilling his "longing" for the communist neighbor, Pyongyang's official media said Tuesday.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said it found "barbed wires cut open" at the border through which the 30-year-old man, identified as Kang Dong-lim by the North, may have defected.
The JCS said in the statement that Kang has been on a police wanted list since Sept. 25 for a beating incident earlier that month.
The North's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said in a report seen earlier in Seoul that Kang crossed the eastern side of the Demilitarized Zone on Monday.
Kang "is now under the warm care of a relevant organ," the KCNA said. "He is pleased with the accomplishment of his desire for defection."
"During the military service he made several attempts to defect owing to his longing for the northern half of Korea, but in vain," it said. Two years of military service is mandatory in South Korea.
A JCS official who spoke on customary condition of anonymity confirmed that the man had once served on the army base identified in the report.
According to the KCNA, Kang raised pigs on a farm in South Korea's southwestern region after quitting his job at a Samsung-affiliated semiconductor company.
Samsung Electronics Co. said Kang's name was not immediately found on its list of former workers.
The JCS said Kang had served from 2001-2003 at the border army base where the damaged barbed wires were found.
A 45-year-old South Korean man made it into the communist neighbor through the border between North Korea and China in 2007, but was expelled for reasons yet to be identified.
Last month, a 54-year-old man received a suspended prison term in South Korea for trying to defect to Pyongyang through a North Korean embassy earlier this year.
In March, a 40-year-old Japanese man apparently suffering from mental illness was taken into custody after trying to cut his way through barbed wires bisecting the Koreas.

http://blog.qooza.hk/chaoxian?eid=15896901&bpage=

pranabjyoti

27th October 2009, 16:12

Wonderful news! Let's mail it to Fox News and other imperialist bustards about that and see their reaction.

chegitz guevara

27th October 2009, 16:46

Man bites dog!

rednordman

27th October 2009, 17:26

Wonderful news! Let's mail it to Fox News and other imperialist bustards about that and see their reaction.They will probably just try and pass him of as some tragic naive idealist who will be appalled when he sees "what its really like":rolleyes: and want to come back to the "wonderfull freedom and liberty of the capitalist south":rolleyes: Sigh.

That aside. What an incredible story.

Lolshevik

27th October 2009, 17:31

I always wondered if it ever happened "the other way 'round..."

Reminds me of an old Simpson joke about a ballet trainer defecting *TO* East Germany, because he was so tough. :P

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 17:38

Wonderful news, now if only the other 50 million Koreans living in the South would do the same.

BobKKKindle$

27th October 2009, 17:48

That aside. What an incredible story.

It's not incredible at all. The only people who find one person managing to flee to an impoverished and authoritarian state incredible or interesting are the kind of people who find it difficult to face up to reality and persist in pretending that North Korea is a socialist country, in which the working class holds political power, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You only need to look at the numbers of people in North Korea who have tried to escape over the border to China, despite the dangers they incur by doing so, such as being caught by the Chinese police and executed once they end up back in North Korea, to see that almost anyone, given the chance, would want to live elsewhere, and rightly so.

bricolage

27th October 2009, 17:52

1 vs 14,000

spiltteeth

27th October 2009, 18:13

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/north-korea-is-best-korea.jpg

Pogue

27th October 2009, 18:26

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 18:31

It may only be one man, but I'm sure his actions reflect the ideas and wishes of many residents of the South. One defection is not huge, but it is indeed a wonderful victory.

rednordman

27th October 2009, 18:38

It's not incredible at all. The only people who find one person managing to flee to an impoverished and authoritarian state incredible or interesting are the kind of people who find it difficult to face up to reality and persist in pretending that North Korea is a socialist country, in which the working class holds political power, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You only need to look at the numbers of people in North Korea who have tried to escape over the border to China, despite the dangers they incur by doing so, such as being caught by the Chinese police and executed once they end up back in North Korea, to see that almost anyone, given the chance, would want to live elsewhere, and rightly so.:rolleyes:I meant incredible as in totally out of the ordinary and the opposite of what is expected at the dmz. I dont necersarily think its a good thing, just interesting because I wonder about what was going on it the mans head and the kind of conditions that he must have been living under to push him into this.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 18:40

It may only be one man, but I'm sure his actions reflect the ideas and wishes of many residents of the South. One defection is not huge, but it is indeed a wonderful victory.

Again, one man? And you honestly think people want to move to a country with systematic oppresion, sporadic electricity and a total lack of democracy? I mean, seriously?

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 18:41

He clearly just liked the idea of job security, social housing, a liveable wage, a government which is of the people, and cool ass statues. All of these things can be found in the DPRK, so what better place to go? I'm sure he'll live a good life with his new Comrades.

rednordman

27th October 2009, 18:45

I think when you take this as some sort of wonderful victory you really are in a dire state politically.

BR (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=13175), hugs'n'marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=18594), Intelligitimate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=11655), Prairie Fire (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=12693), Red Son (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=25870), rednordman (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=16362), scarletghoul (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=18456), spiltteeth (http://www.revleft.com/vb/s-korean-man-t120788/member.php?u=25034)No offense, but what was the point in this? I havent even stated that I support NK or not? I am just spellbinded at the fact that despite every bit of properganda (quite possibly truth aswell), there are still people willing to risk their own lives to defect to a country that could so easy accuse the defectors of being spies and kill them on the spot? I simply beggers belief. This is an apolitical statement really.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 18:48

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2008/06/liberal_crap.jpg

Mate, you support Stalin, your just as bad as a fascist, do you really think calling me a liberal will offend me?

manic expression

27th October 2009, 18:54

Again, one man? And you honestly think people want to move to a country with systematic oppresion, sporadic electricity and a total lack of democracy? I mean, seriously?

Plenty of people endure great pains to move to capitalist countries that fit that description quite comfortably. Also, just out of curiosity, when was the last time you posted something that was over one line long?

Anyway, this is indeed interesting, and potentially helps us show that the issue is not as one-sided as the bourgeois media would have us believe. A Korean (apparently a working-class Korean) who had to go through incredible difficulties to get to the DPRK isn't something I'm willing to write-off as insignificant or unimportant, because it isn't either of those things. Let's see how this develops, and what the final result is.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 18:56

Plenty of people endure great pains to move to capitalist countries that fit that description quite comfortably. Also, just out of curiosity, when was the last time you posted something that was over one line long?

Anyway, this is indeed interesting, and potentially helps us show that the issue is not as one-sided as the bourgeois media would have us believe. A Korean (apparently a working-class Korean) who had to go through incredible difficulties to get to the DPRK isn't something I'm willing to write-off as insignificant or unimportant, because it isn't either of those things. Let's see how this develops, and what the final result is.

Got to anti-fascism and read my longer posts, you snide tosser.

hugsandmarxism

27th October 2009, 18:57

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=3991

Wanted Man

27th October 2009, 18:58

It may only be one man, but I'm sure his actions reflect the ideas and wishes of many residents of the South.
That's a big assumption. I would bet that most people realise that defection will not solve whatever problems they might have. They can weigh the pros and cons against each other, and the DPRK would probably only be preferred by a small group. According to the news report, this was a wanted man (not me, I'm still posting here), which might have influenced his decision. It doesn't say much about the DPRK itself, neither positive nor negative (the "if you don't like freedom, go to Russia" line).

It was kind of different in Germany, which I read an article about just today. Few people are aware that 500,000 people crossed from West to East Germany. Most were young men, aged 15-25, workers who preferred the social benefits of the GDR, or escape debts. Angela Merkel's parents were among the 500,000.

One defection is not huge, but it is indeed a wonderful victory.

How so? A victory would be if Korea was reunified and people would not have to cut wires to go where they want.

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 18:59

Pogue, that was just out of order mate, as was calling a socialist a fascist, I think an apology is in order.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 19:03

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=3991

its raw :lol:

Pogue

27th October 2009, 19:05

Pogue, that was just out of order mate, as was calling a socialist a fascist, I think an apology is in order.

He glorifies a man who collaborated with Hitler in the carving up of Poland and murdered millions of working class people, and you expect me to apologise to him? Do you not realise your disgusting politics and glorification of torture, murder and the crushing of workers power fucking offends some of us?

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 19:08

How so? A victory would be if Korea was reunified and people would not have to cut wires to go where they want.
Oh, I definitely agree, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a supporter of the DPRK who doesn't also aim for a unified Korea, I support the DPRK, the Juche Idea, the Kims, and the concept behind One Korea. However, any victory is a victory, and in the long term I do hope Korea becomes one again, but I think that people crossing the border highlights the need for Korea to become one People's Republic.

rednordman

27th October 2009, 19:10

Pogue, that was just out of order mate, as was calling a socialist a fascist, I think an apology is in order.I have nothing wrong with people taking the authoritan socialist line when there is an increasing threat that the far-right is on the rise. Taring stalinists with the same brush as nazis may work well in theory, but in reality is probably only going to send them away from the left entirely. This is something none of us needs, especially if the feal alienated by the left and decide to go right instead (as in the BNP). This is something I am hearing alot of recently. Especially by former Labour supporters. When people are on our side, at least you can converse and express you opinions with them. When they are on the other side, you do not get that. AT ALL.

manic expression

27th October 2009, 19:12

Got to anti-fascism and read my longer posts, you snide tosser.

Translation: "I can only make feasibly in-depth/constructive comments about a single activity that's not even necessarily revolutionary. In addition, my automatic response to any criticism is some sort of personal insult, which only further underlines my all-too-obvious lack of political sophistication."

A simple link would have done the trick. I was actually genuinely curious when I asked, but your response tells me everything I need to know.

According to the news report, this was a wanted man (not me, I'm still posting here), which might have influenced his decision.

Yes, that is worth noting. Whether or not the charge was in any way justified is a big unknown as well.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 19:13

I have nothing wrong with people taking the authoritan socialist line when there is an increasing threat that the far-right is on the rise. Taring stalinists with the same brush as nazis may work well in theory, but in reality is probably only going to send them away from the left entirely. This is something none of us needs, especially if the feal alienated by the left and decide to go right instead (as in the BNP). This is something I am hearing alot of recently. Especially by former Labour supporters.

What are you on about? Who on earth would ever be attracted to Stalinism anyway? I mean, seriously? The Stalin Society? Fuck off! I can even understand why people would be attarcted to the Trot, but the Stalinists, come on.

khad

27th October 2009, 19:17

He glorifies a man who collaborated with Hitler in the carving up of Poland and murdered millions of working class people, and you expect me to apologise to him? Do you not realise your disgusting politics and glorification of torture, murder and the crushing of workers power fucking offends some of us?
So does nationalist Poland get a free pass for having a pact with Hitler since 1934 and grabbing a piece of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis annexed it?

What Stalin did was only logical geostrategy in taking out one fascist enabler state in order to gain more buffer space with Germany. And many Poles were able to flee to safety in the USSR as a result.

Stalin can be criticized in many, many ways, but I have to say that most of these ways do not involve taking into account any broader awareness of historical and political context.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 19:20

So does nationalist Poland get a free pass for having a pact with Hitler since 1934 and grabbing a piece of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis annexed it?

What Stalin did was only logical geostrategy in taking out one fascist enabler state in order to gain more buffer space with Germany. And many Poles were able to flee to safety in the USSR as a result.

So collaborating with Nazis in the massacre of civilians is justified because its 'logical'. Sure, for imperialist capitalist powers like the USSR all manner of things are 'logical', crushing workers revolts and revolutions are 'logical', for the maintenance of the pwoer of the ruling class.

manic expression

27th October 2009, 19:20

Oh, and I'd like to add the following; I hope the mods will forgive my pursuit of an off-topic discussion.

He glorifies a man who collaborated with Hitler in the carving up of Poland and murdered millions of working class people, and you expect me to apologise to him? Do you not realise your disgusting politics and glorification of torture, murder and the crushing of workers power fucking offends some of us?

If Stalin wanted to carve up Poland, why did the Soviet Union reestablish Polish borders (and widen them significantly) at the end of WWII? That argument makes no sense given Soviet policy after the conflict ended. Further, if you want to criticize Stalin, there are specific, concrete and valid examples of questionable policies, but you have pointed out no such thing, making your argument nothing but hot air buttressed by Cold War mythology.

Congrats on making a two-line post outside of anti-fascism, by the way.

khad

27th October 2009, 19:22

So collaborating with Nazis in the massacre of civilians is justified because its 'logical'. Sure, for imperialist capitalist powers like the USSR all manner of things are 'logical', crushing workers revolts and revolutions are 'logical', for the maintenance of the pwoer of the ruling class.
There was relatively little combat in the Soviet sector (some 6,000 Polish KIA vs 60,000 KIA on the German front). Many Poles greeted the Red Army as liberators, and many saw the USSR as a safe haven for fleeing from the Nazis.

I would ask why you are so keen on defending a nationalist regime that had been partnering with the Nazis ever since they came to power.

Patchd

27th October 2009, 19:23

bailey_187

27th October 2009, 19:25

He glorifies a man who collaborated with Hitler in the carving up of Poland and murdered millions of working class people,

You always seem to post this in threads about Stalin and someone corrects you yet you carry on saying this

manic expression

27th October 2009, 19:32

Workers are being hit by recession and many many more are taking militant action against their bosses once again after a long period in which the workers' movement was stagnant ... and Stalinists get a boner over ... N.Korea.

Surprise? :rolleyes:

This topic is actually somewhat pertinent, because the situation in Korea does relate to the lot of workers around the world. First, the bourgeoisie is trying to discredit socialism and revolution by slandering the DPRK; this must be opposed and defeated if we are to promote socialism in imperialist countries. Second, the imperialist siege against North Korea is yet another example of capitalist aggression, and this must be exposed for what it is. Third, if we refuse to defend progressive societies simply because they are surrounded in every manner by the forces of reaction, then we would never get anywhere with workers or anyone else, as those who are unable to stand against imperialist propaganda are hardly equipped to fight imperialism itself.

rednordman

27th October 2009, 19:39

What are you on about? Who on earth would ever be attracted to Stalinism anyway? I mean, seriously? The Stalin Society? Fuck off! I can even understand why people would be attarcted to the Trot, but the Stalinists, come on.Im not saying that Stalinism is attrative by any sense. Its just that recently the amount of people I have spoken with who are now using the BNPs rehtoric is very scary. These are just ordinary working folk. Some of them are even mates of mine, and all the time I have known them, i would never of though they would fall for that BNP shit. Then low and behold, they may still hate the BNP, but they are now complaining about some the same things as the BNP (mainly immigration).

I suppose that what Im saying is that you may not like what happened in Stalins Russia, and fair enough, but just by completley shutting out followers of Stalinist theory, attacking them and saying that they are as bad as a fascist may well be counter-productive. Especially in times when people have more and more reasons to be political.

But then again, what the fuck do I know? Im only a warehouse labourer for heavens sake. Its not like I talk with any working class people is it? Sarcasm aside, I have to hear everything, warts and all. Its sometimes rather shocking aswell.

Sorry for going off topic, just its very annoying that there is so much arguing and sectarianism in the left at the time when its least needed. Anarchists are as bad as Stalinists for this aswell...But then again, isnt the word Stalinist simply a slur on marxist-leninist nowadays who do not like Trotsky?

spiltteeth

27th October 2009, 19:40

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

27th October 2009, 19:50

Mate, you support Stalin, your just as bad as a fascist, do you really think calling me a liberal will offend me?
Wow man, you've sriously crossed the line with this statement.
So-called "Communists" comparing Stalin to Hitler are simply sickening.

27th October 2009, 19:55

Crossing lines is all abound in this thread. Keep it civil folks.

NecroCommie

27th October 2009, 20:04

I'll now say that I like north korea, and I will proceed to laugh insanely at the countless anarchist responses which will be angrily piling due to a post that took me seconds to type.

MUAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

Lumpen Bourgeois

27th October 2009, 20:10

Actually, I heard the autumn season is the best time to go to North Korea, especially for the beautiful foliage, so I don't understand why everyone's so uptight.

mosfeld

27th October 2009, 20:17

Again, one man? And you honestly think people want to move to a country with systematic oppresion, sporadic electricity and a total lack of democracy? I mean, seriously? YES BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW SOUTH KOREA HAS NONE OF THOSE FEATURES :laugh:

liberal

revolution inaction

27th October 2009, 20:24

I don't really care that some one ran to hide in north korea, although it is amusing that the only way some will chose to go there is if they are on the run from the police.

I just want to say The Fight Against Fascism Begins With the Fight Against Bolshevism (http://libcom.org/library/fight-against-fascism-begins-with-fight-against-bolshevism-ruhle).
Stalinist are not the the allies of communists, and nor is north Korea, both are enemies of revolution.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 20:26

YES BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW SOUTH KOREA HAS NONE OF THOSE FEATURES :laugh:

liberal

scum

scarletghoul

27th October 2009, 20:28

:laugh:

Patchd

27th October 2009, 20:28

YES BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW SOUTH KOREA HAS NONE OF THOSE FEATURES :laugh:

liberal
Well that makes it all better now doesn't it. South Korea is also shit ... your point?

chegitz guevara

27th October 2009, 20:34

Sporadic electricity is not a comment I generally hear about South Korea.

http://offtopic.kimcm.dk/Images/KoreaByNight.jpg

South Korea does not have a total lack of democracy and its oppression, while severe, is nothing like that of the North.

Partizani

27th October 2009, 20:50

I dont think this can be hailed as a victory, agreeing with Pogue's original point of it being only One guy versus the thousands that defect to the South.
South Korea has the fastest Internet in the world, have made amazing technological achievements.
Yes its a long shot off paradise (infact its a capitalist paradise) but they must have more rights in the South than they do in the North. The DPRK is a dictatorship, something which i believe we can all agree on (except maybe the stalinists). No Dictatorship, whether communist/fascist is good, No one man should ever hold that much power.

Patchd

27th October 2009, 20:50

But comrade chegitz, your comments about North Korea only further the cause of the KKKapitalist Imperialist pig swines of the United $naKKKe$ of AmeriKKKa. I hope you will one day realise that North Korea really is a Socialist haven, with golden fountains, plentiful harvests and workers' control, hail our Dear, Great, massive balls leader Kim Jong Il, that photo is obviously a fake produced by the Imperialist dog hounds of the CIA ... oh wai-

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 20:53

Well, actually, there is a FANTASIC documentary about an american who defected to N. Korea, the crew managed to get into N. Korea and interview the guy.

I really feel people ought to check it out to see the real deal, which isn't black OR white.

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZtkHUkZ8Rg&feature=PlayList&p=6721FF213DAD486D&index=0
This is a great documentary, it's called Crossing the Line and it's on torrents. A must see.

manic expression

27th October 2009, 20:55

Sporadic electricity is not a comment I generally hear about South Korea.

On that map, IIRC, that imbalance is mostly because the DPRK is practically cut off from the vast majority of energy sources it needs. Imperialist countries of course embargo the country, while the PRC has also cut off trade in that area. I'll try to get some links on that in a bit.

Also, from everything I've seen and heard, getting one's utilities shut off is common in working-class areas in capitalist societies, so the definition can still apply in that sense.

spiltteeth

27th October 2009, 20:55

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/633557902098942146-electricityclear.jpg

But seriously, North Koera is extremly poor, and they've pretty much been at war - an economic war, but war by another name is still war - with the most powerful nation on the planet.
Yes, it is very rigid, the goverment even tells you what kind of haircut to get, but this is because the USA has nuclear weapons pointing at it perpetually from off the cost, thousands of troops in japan and S.Korea just waiting for the order to invade, the USA labled it an axis if evil, Coilin Powell said the US would "burn North Korea to a charred crisp" with bombing, and embargoes have crippled its people, they can barely get medicine...

so,

Considering ALL this, although I crititcize the lack of free speech, the excessive propaganda, and the lack of peoples democracy, I can understand how such things are virtually nessasary UNLESS they wish to be a pupet state ruled by the US.
This is the real world and these are the two choices.

As a people who have decided to stand against the most powerful nation on the planet, they've accomlished some pretty dam impressive things, though yes, at ENORMOUS sacrifices.

LeninBalls

27th October 2009, 21:02

DPRK is ok, never been a huge fan, but he's ok.

NecroCommie

27th October 2009, 21:18

All oppinions aside, N-Korea does have electricity. Just so little that they cut it off during night, rendering night photos look as if they would not have electricity at all.

bcbm

27th October 2009, 21:25

Well, actually, there is a FANTASIC documentary about an american who defected to N. Korea, the crew managed to get into N. Korea and interview the guy.

I really feel people ought to check it out to see the real deal, which isn't black OR white.

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZtkHUkZ8Rg&feature=PlayList&p=6721FF213DAD486D&index=0

interesting link. best part was that it linked to the vice guide to north korea, which includes one of the vice guys singing anarchy in the uk at a north korean karaoke bar. fucking classic.

#FF0000

27th October 2009, 21:37

Protip: Outlining the good things about North Korea is more effective than trying to argue that their problems are non-existant or unimportant.

Just saying.

khad

27th October 2009, 21:50

Protip: Outlining the good things about North Korea is more effective than denying that their problems are non-existant.

Just saying.
So people are saying that their problems exist, but you contend that they do not?

#FF0000

27th October 2009, 21:52

So people are saying that their problems exist, but you contend that they do not?

Whoops. Fixed it.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th October 2009, 21:57

http://offtopic.kimcm.dk/Images/KoreaByNight.jpg
Check this out: South Korea is so awesome that they have built giant city-sized lights in the middle of the Sea of Japan.

Seriously, look at it: that picture has giant lights in the sea. Right off the East coast of South Korea. The cluster of magical sea-lights is as bright as several cities and about as long as the Korean peninsula is wide.

So, umm, I think it's safe to say there is something very, very wrong with the picture.

Demogorgon

27th October 2009, 21:57

I think it is worth drawing people's attention back to the fact that he is wanted by the police in South Korea over a "beating incident", in other words he was looking like he might go to jail for assault. South Korea's prisons are not known for their pleasant conditions and it is not unheard of for people to try to defect to avoid them.

That point made, I have to role my eyes in exasperation at those who persist in their claims that there is anything defensible about North Korea. Just how desperate do you have to be for a working model of socialism to kid yourself that North Korea has anything in common with such a thing?

I have seen people say the most extraordinary things on the subject on this board up to and including extremely racist comments about South Koreans, claiming they are illiterate peasants who can only dream of the free healthcare and education enjoyed in the North.

Get a grip people.

Patchd

27th October 2009, 22:05

Check this out: South Korea is so awesome that they have built giant city-sized lights in the middle of the Sea of Japan.

Seriously, look at it: that picture has giant lights in the sea. Right off the East coast of South Korea. The cluster of magical sea-lights is as bright as several cities and about as long as the Korean peninsula is wide.

So, umm, I think it's safe to say there is something very, very wrong with the picture.
Dear oh dear, I hope you're not being serious. Those are fishing lights, they use bright blue lights to attract squid at night.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th October 2009, 22:08

Dear oh dear, I hope you're not being serious. Those are fishing lights, they use bright blue lights to attract squid at night.
Fishing lights are as bright as whole cities...? And they cover an area about 1/8 the size of South Korea?

They must be catching a lot of squid...

Patchd

27th October 2009, 22:13

Fishing lights are as bright as whole cities...? And they cover an area about 1/8 the size of South Korea?

They must be catching a lot of squid...
They do catch a lot of squid, and those lights really are that bright (remember that the lights you are seeing on land are only as bright as street lamps).
In addition, please use your head, do you think that the whole of South Korea at night time is illuminated also? When photos like that are taken, there is some light 'pollution' to an extent, which makes the area of illumination look bigger than it actually is. In reality, those lights should be more spaced out, but because of the nature of how those photos were taken, they aren't.

Jigging is widely used to capture squid. A jig is a type of grapnel, attached to a line, which may be manually or mechanically jerked in the water to snag the fish in its body. Jig fishing usually happens at night with the aid of light attraction.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th October 2009, 22:20

I have a different theory. I think that after the picture was taken, South Korean lights were made to look much brighter than they should - resulting in a ridiculous degree of illumination over the sea - and North Korean lights were darkened out of existence.

Perhaps this was done before the country borders were superimposed on the picture, so the person who did it wasn't aware that the lights on the right side were out at sea.

Your explanation is not enough to convince me that there really are some fishing lights brighter than any part of South Korea other than Seoul. No matter how much distortion is inherent in the method of taking the picture, the distortion should be the same everywhere if the picture wasn't doctored. Absolute brightness may be misleading, but relative brightness should still be accurate. And the "fishing lights" have a greater relative brightness than any part of South Korea other than Seoul.

Wanted Man

27th October 2009, 22:20

interesting link. best part was that it linked to the vice guide to north korea, which includes one of the vice guys singing anarchy in the uk at a north korean karaoke bar. fucking classic.

I googled that and watched the first part. I don't get it. First the guy is visiting South Korea and he's like: "It's impossible to visit North Korea, nobody can get in there." Then in the next scene, it turns out that it is possible. Then there's a lot of footage of the fat guy sitting in his hotel room looking for bugs. There is nothing in particular going on, and he's like: "Holy shit this is so fucking weird." Then they get shown around the USS Pueblo: "Wow, they're so anti-American!" Then he goes to the tea house and plays pool and ping pong with the girl, and again it's like: "Wow, this is so weird." Meanwhile, nothing exciting or out of the ordinary has happened. :confused:

I don't think I'll be watching the other two parts, although your description sounds interesting.

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 22:37

I've watched the whole thing before, it's quite interesting but yeah they really overstate how hard it is to get into North Korea, considering there is a travel agency dedicated to trips into the North.

27th October 2009, 22:40

Dear oh dear, I hope you're not being serious. Those are fishing lights, they use bright blue lights to attract squid at night.

Here's one from South America:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/09/squids_and_light_pollution/squid%20fisheries.jpg

Dimentio

27th October 2009, 22:46

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp7RkdvyDDI

And yes. I am ironic here.

North Korea's regime is not socialist. It is a dictatorial joke for a regime.

The fun thing is that some people here are rushing to its defence using the "deformed worker's state" argument. Those same people are generally becoming so angry that they are fuming when someone is not exceptionally angry about some demonstration being broken up in the USA or in France.

It is not anti-imperialist to support or being against North Korea. It is a matter of time before the regime will collapse or turn into another Vietnam.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 22:47

that video just changed my opinion

cb9's_unity

27th October 2009, 22:48

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 23:17

hugsandmarxism

27th October 2009, 23:31

Who the fuck cares about the lights in the sea? Shouldn't we be having a constructive debate about how glorious the Great Leader Comrade Kim il-Sung is? I dunno it just seems pointless talking about lights for some reason.

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/jump_the_shark.png
This thread's jumped the shark already. No point in trying to fix it now.

Panda Tse Tung

27th October 2009, 23:35

1 vs 14,000

It's more then 1. But anyway, I'm no super-duper fan of North Korea. But aside from that i would like to mention that almost all of those 14,000 have fled in the last 10 years and the vast majority are from the poorest parts of the country. So some nuance is in place.

Revy

27th October 2009, 23:40

I'm not impressed, and it proves nothing about the situation in North Korea.

Panda Tse Tung

27th October 2009, 23:42

I'm not impressed, and it proves nothing about the situation in North Korea.
It proves people are fleeing due to the poverty of the past 10 years, lots of starvations etc... before that North Korea was relatively benevolent and almost no people fled. Thus the entire story of 'people fleeing for the evil tyrant' is bullshit.

Jethro Tull

27th October 2009, 23:49

So does nationalist Poland get a free pass for having a pact with Hitler since 1934 and grabbing a piece of Czechoslovakia when the Nazis annexed it?

No, they don't. At least not from me.

What Stalin did was only logical geostrategy

Yeah exactly. Typical capitalist thug.

in taking out one fascist enabler state in order to gain more buffer space with Germany.

The workers of the world have no need for "buffer space".

And many Poles were able to flee to safety in the USSR as a result.

Yay they get to live under a Social Democratic regime, how special...

Revy

27th October 2009, 23:53

It proves people are fleeing due to the poverty of the past 10 years, lots of starvations etc... before that North Korea was relatively benevolent and almost no people fled. Thus the entire story of 'people fleeing for the evil tyrant' is bullshit.

You're right, most people in North Korea don't dare to voice their concerns politically. Poverty is the main reason why they leave.

This is a very polarized discussion. The truth is the problems in North Korea exist as a combination of internal and external factors.

Panda Tse Tung

27th October 2009, 23:53

This isn't really the place to discuss the Molotov-Ribbentop pact >_>. I'm completely unsure why it's here anyway.

edit:

You're right, most people in North Korea don't dare to voice their concerns politically. Poverty is the main reason why they leave.

I'm just talking about the fleeing. I'm sure there's far more people then only 16,000 (the actual number that fled, not 14,000 as stated previously. Just correcting here for the sake of honesty.) disagreeing with the political system. But the vast majority of those never saw this as a reason to leave. Only with the increase of poverty did people start to flee.

This is a very polarized discussion. The truth is the problems in North Korea exist as a combination of internal and external factors.

I agree. Though, i am convinced that North Korea is better off under it's current system however imperfect it may be (and it is to a great extend) is still better then full-fledged capitalism and imperialism overrunning Korea.

bcbm

28th October 2009, 01:30

I googled that and watched the first part. I don't get it. First the guy is visiting South Korea and he's like: "It's impossible to visit North Korea, nobody can get in there." Then in the next scene, it turns out that it is possible. Then there's a lot of footage of the fat guy sitting in his hotel room looking for bugs. There is nothing in particular going on, and he's like: "Holy shit this is so fucking weird." Then they get shown around the USS Pueblo: "Wow, they're so anti-American!" Then he goes to the tea house and plays pool and ping pong with the girl, and again it's like: "Wow, this is so weird." Meanwhile, nothing exciting or out of the ordinary has happened. :confused:

yeah, that's basically it. they go visit lots of different crap and comment on how weird it is. nothing really exciting happens, except the the giant gymnastics display and the two times they get hammered at the karaoke bar. all the same, i think its interesting to see what the "tourist" experience in north korea is like. part 13 is the gymnastics bit and part 14 is the one where they sing anarchy in the uk.

Dr Mindbender

28th October 2009, 01:37

It's not incredible at all. The only people who find one person managing to flee to an impoverished and authoritarian state incredible or interesting are the kind of people who find it difficult to face up to reality and persist in pretending that North Korea is a socialist country, in which the working class holds political power, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Its unlikely that this individual will experience either the afforementioned poverty or authoritarianism so from an individual perspective he will probably benefit greatly. Defectors from neo liberal countries are treated like VIP's in the DPRK because they are important propaganda weapons. Especially from those countries particularly hostile to the DPRK. Point in case being Joe Dresnock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Dresnok).

Dear oh dear, I hope you're not being serious. Those are fishing lights, they use bright blue lights to attract squid at night

I thought they were islands. It seems pretty unlikely to me that many boats would be clustered together.

chegitz guevara

28th October 2009, 01:39

I'm just talking about the fleeing. I'm sure there's far more people then only 16,000 (the actual number that fled, not 14,000 as stated previously. Just correcting here for the sake of honesty.) disagreeing with the political system. But the vast majority of those never saw this as a reason to leave. Only with the increase of poverty did people start to flee.

How were they going to escape? They had two options, China and South Korea. Politically, China is no better than the DPRK. And it's damn near impossible to get across the DMZ into South Korea. People go to China now mainly because that's where the food and jobs are.

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 01:42

Congrats to this man on defecting from one oppressive nation to another, I guess.

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 02:30

Its impossible to discuss anything here without nitwits trolling the shit out of every thread. I'd probably request China studen to post this in the Marxist-Leninist group or elsewhere, not on the main forum.

I agree. Keep this Stalinist trash off the main forums. It makes the rest of us look bad.

Jethro Tull

28th October 2009, 02:31

Its impossible to discuss anything here without nitwits trolling the shit out of every thread. I'd probably request China studen to post this in the Marxist-Leninist group or elsewhere, not on the main forum.

Yes, all this dissenting opinion is quite bothersome to deal with.

Jethro Tull

28th October 2009, 02:58

Its not bothersome so much as it is idiotic. We could be discussing "Stalinist" stuff on a conservative, libertarian or liberal forum and expect the same rubbish as here on RevolutionaryLeft.com.

Well, I'll grant you that. There's a good deal of teenage "anarchists" who, out of intellectual laziness, borrow arguments from competing capitalist blocs when trying to criticize the USSR/PRC/DPRK, et. al.

However, I do not possess a conservative/liberal/"libertarian" perspective on the DPRK. Regardless, you wish my pesky and "idiotic" perspective was one that didn't have to be addressed, because I don't view the DPRK as "progressive", "revolutionary", "worker controlled", or "communist".

khad

28th October 2009, 03:10

Yay they get to live under a Social Democratic regime, how special...
Not even nationalists are as shit headed as you.

http://www.expatica.co.uk/news/british-news/Polish-experts-lower-nation_s-WWII-death-toll--_55843.html

The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) said its researchers now put the figure at between 5.62 million and 5.82 million rather than the estimated figure 6.028 million used in communist-era Poland.

The IPN's figures include Polish Jews -- who made up around half of the six million Jews from across Europe who perished in Nazi Germany's Holocaust -- as well as non-Jewish Poles and other ethnic groups.

According to the IPN, between 5.47 million and 5.67 million Polish citizens died at the hands of the Nazis. Some 150,000 perished under the Soviets.

Bright Banana Beard

28th October 2009, 04:15

As Jethro Tull and SubcomandanteHelix said, this forum will have better quality when anarchists can shut the fuck up about things they do not know at all.

bcbm

28th October 2009, 04:36

can we disagree if we actually know anything about the dprk?

The Author

28th October 2009, 05:04

This thread made my laugh. Laugh because it's the same old tired bullshit that I've heard over and over for the past three years I've been here. From the old "no lights in the North" photo to the talk about Poland in 1939 to "Stalinism=Nazism DUHRZ!11!," it's the same tired old tripe I've heard over and over several times already- just spun into a new thread in a different arrangement. I'm not even going to acknowledge the "criticisms" about life in North Korea, as I had shown in other threads in the past what life was like when a Russian tourist visited the country and posted pictures of his visit on a website. People who are interested can do a search feature through my posts, because I don't feel like posting the link again as some people are either too stubborn or too fucking stupid to acknowledge it, preferring to have discussions like this winner topic instead.

Someone on this thread mentioned returned militancy of workers and the importance of that. I agree, that is very important. I also find any information and serious discussion on North Korea to be important, too. After all, it's all part of the international struggle of the working class, and states of a socialist or "deformed" or "state-capitalist" or whatever name suits your tendency's fancy are part of that struggle too, which help the worker.

Os Cangaceiros

28th October 2009, 05:08

can we disagree if we actually know anything about the dprk?

No. Shut your filthy mouth.

We must defer to our Marxist-Leninist superiors on this, as they clearly have access to pertinent info on this subject that we can never attain.

28th October 2009, 05:11

You're all morons.

How was that? Did I contribute to the thread? :confused:

Il Medico

28th October 2009, 05:19

Can we discuss anything with out Anarchist and Marxist-Leninist going at each others throats?

28th October 2009, 05:25

Can we discuss anything with out Anarchist and Marxist-Leninist going at each others throats?

You have 800 posts here; how can you seriously be asking this question?

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 05:35

Il Medico

28th October 2009, 05:39

You have 800 posts here; how can you seriously be asking this question?
It wasn't a question, it was me in agony over the absolute pettiness of this thread and it seems like every other where Anarchist and Marxist-Leninist come in contact. I mean really, how the fuck do we expect to overthrow capitalism if we can't have a civil discussion about some guy defecting to north Korea!

Thread starts....
Marxist-Leninist says something...
Anarchist disagrees...
ML counters...
Anarchist say X state isn't communist (true)...
ML says they are anti-imperialist (also true) then defends actions of said state...
Anarchist calls ML fascist....
ML calls Anarchist a liberal...
The discussion goes to hell from there.

ugggh.....

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 05:44

:blink:

i thought so

28th October 2009, 05:49

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1581431#post1581431) Why would Revleft tolerate insane authoritarian nutjobs anymore than anyone else? Doesn't sound very leftist to me.

First, there is nothing wrong with being authoritarian. All Marxists are authoritarian.

Second, Kim Jung Il is not "insane," nor is he a "nutjob". If he were there would have already been a nuclear exchange.

Third, you used insane and nutjob to describe the same person. Come up with better insults.

Os Cangaceiros

28th October 2009, 05:51

28th October 2009, 05:55

Juche is a reactionary ideology, Kim Jong Il and his father have quite the impressive cult of personality surrounding them and their legacies, and N. Korea is a military dictatorship that operates with little imput from the average North Korean citizen.

I think those are fairly objective facts that we can discern from this situation, and because of those facts I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the DPRK. I don't want the DPRK to be swallowed up by imperialism anymore than anyone else, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that the political system in that country is deplorable, and I can understand why people would choose to emigrate from it.

What on earth do you think you're doing entering into this thread with a meaningful contribution? Just who the hell do you think you are?! There isn't a single insult or reference to totalitarianism in your post at all!!! This is clearly not acceptable; I have reported you to the moderators for an excessive lack of hostility towards other RevLeft members, particularly ones with which you disagree politically (but not only, of course).

:mad:

Il Medico

28th October 2009, 06:03

Juche is a reactionary ideology, Kim Jong Il and his father have quite the impressive cult of personality surrounding them and their legacies, and N. Korea is a military dictatorship that operates with little imput from the average North Korean citizen.

I think those are fairly objective facts that we can discern from this situation, and because of those facts I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the DPRK. I don't want the DPRK to be swallowed up by imperialism anymore than anyone else, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that the political system in that country is deplorable, and I can understand why people would choose to emigrate from it.
Thank God, this thread might just be saved. While I pretty much agree, if a Marxist-Leninist has a polite counter argument to this we might just have revleft's first discussion!

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 06:15

First, there is nothing wrong with being authoritarian. All Marxists are authoritarian.

Second, Kim Jung Il is not "insane," nor is he a "nutjob". If he were there would have already been a nuclear exchange.

Third, you used insane and nutjob to describe the same person. Come up with better insults.

Ok, then replace authoritarian with marxist if you wish. No skin off my back.

How is nuclear exchange the only determining factor in craziness again?

Os Cangaceiros

28th October 2009, 06:25

http://members.chello.cz/rs2/graphic/bomb2.gif

:rolleyes:

Yes, anarchists are bomb-throwing cretins who have no conception of materialism.

And Stalinists are insane wannabe dictators who want to lubricate the gears of communist society with the blood of many purges.

Would it hurt to actually address some of the valid points commonly brought against the DPRK? Like perhaps we can start with the fact that in the eyes of the DPRK the "revolutionary" class with potential is no longer the proletariat, but rather the military?

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 06:28

To be fair, I feel like throwing some bombs right about now. :P

Il Medico

28th October 2009, 06:45

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/7280/original/20070902-Facepalm1.jpg

This thread is going nowhere. Could a mod or Admin close this thread which has become yet another tendency war?

Tablo

28th October 2009, 06:53

Reading stuff like this makes me sick to my stomach. How can any real progress be made if the Marxists and Anarchists can't even have a civil discussion? Both sides are clearly at fault in posting all this random nonsense. We should not generalize things. The DPRK is not a magic wonderland where the workers have control and everyone is happy. The DPRK is also the way it is largely due to the fact they have been isolated and harassed by the rest of the world non-stop. This is simply what I can gather based on what little reliable information I have on the country. My opinion may be total BS.

I do despise the DPRK and the totalitarianism they live under, but I do not want blatant lies to be spread. Most information on the DPRK both from outside and inside the nation can't be trusted and I see little point in turning this thread into a battleground between ideologies.

RHIZOMES

28th October 2009, 06:55

He glorifies a man who collaborated with Hitler in the carving up of Poland and murdered millions of working class people, and you expect me to apologise to him

As much as I don't like many aspects of Stalin-era USSR, do you think they should have just gone to straight-out war with Nazi Germany right away when their infrastructure wasn't ready for it? I have never heard someone who whines about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact actually answer that question adequately.

ComradeRed22'91

28th October 2009, 07:10

Ok, we all know "North Korea's bad, mkay?" but who the hell is gonna contest to that? Like was said, i'm sure we all argee that they're bad, but the story is simply absurd and unbelievable. and i wonder the cappies have to say about this.

Il Medico

28th October 2009, 07:16

but who the hell is gonna contest to that?
Marxist-Leninist

Wanted Man

28th October 2009, 08:18

yeah, that's basically it. they go visit lots of different crap and comment on how weird it is. nothing really exciting happens, except the the giant gymnastics display and the two times they get hammered at the karaoke bar. all the same, i think its interesting to see what the "tourist" experience in north korea is like. part 13 is the gymnastics bit and part 14 is the one where they sing anarchy in the uk.

Hmm, well, I should go see it anyway. It can be interesting sometimes. I do like travel reports (http://www.stat.ualberta.ca/people/schmu/nk.html), especially when they're about interesting train trips (http://vienna-pyongyang.blogspot.com/).

can we disagree if we actually know anything about the dprk?

Actually, it's better not to be too well-informed. Then you can be much louder and more obnoxious, without actually having to lie. In fact, it's best to only make one or two posts. The first one should have some arguments (in a very angry tone and with all sorts of provocations already). Once some people have calmly disagreed, the second one should be something like: "I'm getting so fucking tired of these anarchists/stalinists/whatever. Just look at what you did in Spain/Ukraine/whatever! This thread, and by extension the world, would be a lot better if you all shut the fuck up!" That gets you lots of rep points, which is important for the community, as well as for yourself, because the amount of rep bars can be correlated to the size of your penis.

bcbm

28th October 2009, 08:27

the vice thing actually kind of made me want to goto north korea. i think its my new longish-term goal.

ComradeRed22'91

28th October 2009, 08:38

Marxist-Leninist

Oh yeah. i forgot, no sarcasm. i'm actuallly open to pro-DPRK views.

Yazman

28th October 2009, 08:45

Again, one man? And you honestly think people want to move to a country with systematic oppresion, sporadic electricity and a total lack of democracy? I mean, seriously?

The south has no democracy either.

"Representative democracy" is an oxymoron.

LOLseph Stalin

28th October 2009, 08:51

RHIZOMES

28th October 2009, 11:00

the vice thing actually kind of made me want to goto north korea. i think its my new longish-term goal.

Yeah it's country I've always wanted to visit too.

Spawn of Stalin

28th October 2009, 11:17

bricolage

28th October 2009, 11:48

Lolz @ ths thred!

RHIZOMES

28th October 2009, 11:48

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

28th October 2009, 11:53

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

28th October 2009, 12:02

Hp7RkdvyDDI

And yes. I am ironic here.

North Korea's regime is not socialist. It is a dictatorial joke for a regime.

The fun thing is that some people here are rushing to its defence using the "deformed worker's state" argument. Those same people are generally becoming so angry that they are fuming when someone is not exceptionally angry about some demonstration being broken up in the USA or in France.

It is not anti-imperialist to support or being against North Korea. It is a matter of time before the regime will collapse or turn into another Vietnam.

Yes, you have shown a typical Asian-style form of leadership. So what?
It doesn't respond with our "concept" of a Communist leader, but it is very sad if the Communist movement is getting so dogmatic that it rejects all forms of Communism that are adapted to different cultures.

Well, I'm not that dogmatic. I say: whatever works, works. Yes, Kim Jong-Il's cult of personality is a bt strange to us, but look at what the People get from this system: free healthcare, free education, ownership of the plants,... and all that without even paying taxes!

manic expression

28th October 2009, 12:03

KFA do trips there every year, you get to see things that tourists don't see, you visit hospitals, government buildings, military installations, meet soldiers, kids, families, everything. I'm thinking of going in February 2011, it's going to be awesome and it's only about €2000.Neat stuff, thanks for the info. If I ever find myself in that part of the world it would be great to explore the opportunity. It would also be very interesting to compare life in the DPRK with the south, especially working-class areas that most tourists to South Korea probably wouldn't see too much of.

Well, I'm not that dogmatic. I say: whatever works, works. Yes, Kim Jong-Il's cult of personality is a bt strange to usYeah, good point. Plus, it's not like the Lincoln or Washington memorials in Washington, DC are awash in subtlety and ambiguity. Perhaps if I went to Seattle, Washington, I wouldn't have to deal with the glorification of American leaders....oh, wait.

No. Shut your filthy mouth.

We must defer to our Marxist-Leninist superiors on this, as they clearly have access to pertinent info on this subject that we can never attain.Pogue's idiocy and immaturity on this thread lend quite a bit of validity to the claim that many anarchists are simply clueless about issues they claim to have a relevant opinion on. Marxist-Leninists have been posting relevant sources, historical facts and other forms of support for their arguments, while anarchists are posting gems like this complete and unabridged post:

scumThe contrast should be quite clear. Not all anarchists are like this, of course, and I think Tsukae's last post is extremely well thought-out and lucid. In a way, I feel bad for the anarchists who think rationally, they so often get drowned out by the spoiled children on their side.

RHIZOMES

28th October 2009, 14:12

Well, I'm not that dogmatic. I say: whatever works, works. Yes, Kim Jong-Il's cult of personality is a bt strange to us, but look at what the People get from this system: free healthcare, free education, ownership of the plants,... and all that without even paying taxes!

Could you provide some sources on worker's ownership of plants? I haven't heard that about the DPRK before.

bricolage

28th October 2009, 14:15

In a way, I feel bad for the anarchists who think rationally, they so often get drowned out by the spoiled children on their side.

This isn't solely applicable to anarchists. Moral of the story; there are idiots everywhere.

28th October 2009, 14:16

Well, I'm not that dogmatic. I say: whatever works, works. Yes, Kim Jong-Il's cult of personality is a bt strange to us, but look at what the People get from this system: free healthcare, free education, ownership of the plants,... and all that without even paying taxes!

What does this have to do with anything? Nazi Germany provided incredible sweeping benefits for its citizens. So again, your point? I never understood this obsession Stalinists have with listing off such things when they don't really mean anything.

bcbm

28th October 2009, 14:18

Yes, you have shown a typical Asian-style form of leadership. So what?
It doesn't respond with our "concept" of a Communist leader, but it is very sad if the Communist movement is getting so dogmatic that it rejects all forms of Communism that are adapted to different cultures.

i think its a bit of a cop out to say "oh, that's just how those wacky asians do things!"

Well, I'm not that dogmatic. I say: whatever works, works. Yes, Kim Jong-Il's cult of personality is a bt strange to us, but look at what the People get from this system: free healthcare, free education, ownership of the plants,... and all that without even paying taxes!

it seems like most of the countries resources are put into the military and weapons development, to say nothing of kim jong-il's expensive tastes, while people are starving. i don't think that is any sort of society to be idolizing.

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th October 2009, 15:46

It's not incredible at all. The only people who find one person managing to flee to an impoverished and authoritarian state incredible or interesting are the kind of people who find it difficult to face up to reality and persist in pretending that North Korea is a socialist country, in which the working class holds political power, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You only need to look at the numbers of people in North Korea who have tried to escape over the border to China, despite the dangers they incur by doing so, such as being caught by the Chinese police and executed once they end up back in North Korea, to see that almost anyone, given the chance, would want to live elsewhere, and rightly so.

By only looking at numbers of emigrants, one would assume that people in the United States, for instance, enjoy more freedom than Cubans.

As far as I can tell, this shows that North Korea is not as terrible as the bourgeois media makes it out to be. I don't know much about DPRK, but I'm in no way prepared to believe the highly dubious claims of baseless capitalist propaganda.

28th October 2009, 15:51

As far as I can tell, this shows that North Korea is not as terrible as the bourgeois media makes it out to be. I don't know much about DPRK, but I'm in no way prepared to believe the highly dubious claims of baseless capitalist propaganda.

Much of this information was obtained through refugee interviews. While this information is commonly exaggerated, the only way you can call it baseless is if you consider the interviewers to have fabricated the information. Given the amount of interviews taken and the congruity of information provided by not only different refugees but different organizations interviewing them, I would say that much of the information provided by refugees is at least partially true, if not accurate.

pranabjyoti

28th October 2009, 15:56

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th October 2009, 16:06

Much of this information was obtained through refugee interviews. While this information is commonly exaggerated, the only way you can call it baseless is if you consider the interviewers to have fabricated the information. Given the amount of interviews taken and the congruity of information provided by not only different refugees but different organizations interviewing them, I would say that much of the information provided by refugees is at least partially true, if not accurate.

The missinformation is not only in the facts presented, but how they manipulate said facts. It's in how they use and present the facts. You cannot trust them to not try to misslead us with the information of refugees coupled with the lies they've been spreading about "communist" regimes for decades. We all know DPRK suffers from poverty. To be perfectly honest, the photos of DPRK and the writtings of North Koreans themselves that I've seen (often published by the bourgeois media itself) don't paint such a bleak picture of the reality of the situation over there, imo.

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th October 2009, 16:10

I agree that Juche as an ideology is reactionary. But DPRK, in the context on international politics, is not. Kim Jung Il, as autocratic as he may be (I don't know to what extent, tbh) challenges Western imperialist hegemony. Sometimes authoritarianism is necessary to prevent the imperialists from marching into your country and indiscriminately slaughtering thousands of people and installing an even more brutal and foreign regime.

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th October 2009, 16:12

They are better off than they would be under the boots of American soldiers.

28th October 2009, 16:14

The missinformation is not only in the facts presented, but how they manipulate said facts. It's in how they use and present the facts. You cannot trust them to not try to misslead us with the information of refugees coupled with the lies they've been spreading about "communist" regimes for decades. We all know DPRK suffers from poverty. To be perfectly honest, the photos of DPRK and the writtings of North Koreans themselves that I've seen (often published by the bourgeois media itself) don't paint such a bleak picture of the reality of the situation over there, imo.

Of course not. Even though I quoted you my post was more directed towards those who think this is all an imperialist conspiracy.

Although I think that the famine in the country was much worse than reported (not speculated), in general the state of the country is portrayed in a cookie cutter manner, presuming the totalitarian thesis, the same way any "totalitarian dictatorship" is presented.

Il Medico

28th October 2009, 17:01

I just lol'ed at this entire thread...

The DPRK is the way it is because of constant harrassement from imperialist nations. Of course they're going to create a military when they face daily threats of invasion. It may not be an actual socialist country, but I would say between the two Koreas it's certainly the lesser evil. I'm sure any actual leftist would agree with that.
Yes. But I am sure an leftist would also agree that Obama is the lesser of two evils when compared to his predecessor. This does not mean we should give him a free pass and not question his actions and policies.

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 19:06

The problem with anarchists and trotskytes is that they very often vomit the same shit, which propagated by the imperialist media. They use the propaganda of the imperialist media to fight against "state capitalism". What an irony!

the problem with stalinists and bolsheviks is that they very often vomit the same shit, propagated by the irrational idea that any kind of criticism against the "glorious leaders" is simply imperialist propaganda. What an irony!

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 19:09

i think its a bit of a cop out to say "oh, that's just how those wacky asians do things!"

not only is it a cop out, it's a tad racist.

Jethro Tull

28th October 2009, 19:24

Not even nationalists are as shit headed as you.

Potty mouth.

Actually, yeah, you're 100% right. Working in a Soviet office-building is better than being tortured to death in a Nazi prison-camp. While we're at it, Meet the Fockers is much more of a cinematic achievement than American Pie Presents: Band Camp.

Because really, when all is said and done, when we're drawing upon historical examples to model our new society after, I think what really needs to be on our minds is "can we do better than a Nazi death camp?" I think that's a pretty reasonable bar for us to set. :laugh:

I mean, come on. All you can actually do is argue how many were indescriminately slaughtered by the social-democratic regime in Russia. That indescriminate slaughter occured can't itself be disputed, yet here you are day after day cheerleeding for any totalitarian police-state that dressed up in Karl Marx costume-play. What exactly, have you gotten out of this, so far?

Well what special insights do you have then on the situation other than the overnight magical transformation of the universe into an anarchist dreamland which all the thousand or so anarchists in the west are no doubt acheiving "any day soon"?

I'm not one of those anarchists. Anarchist triumphalism is as pathetic as Marxist-Leninist apologism.

Do anarchist reslize that they sound exactly like the preacher above.

Yeah, well, I'm sure if Joe Hill was alive today he would write a song for the scientific achievements of Juche.

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 20:07

You are simply repeating the most reactionary and right-wing talk ever spread about Stalin.

So the hatred of psychotic authoritarian dictatorships transcends the boundaries of the left-right spectrum, imagine that. got any more amazing insights, captain obvious?

bailey_187

28th October 2009, 20:59

What does this have to do with anything? Nazi Germany provided incredible sweeping benefits for its citizens. So again, your point? I never understood this obsession Stalinists have with listing off such things when they don't really mean anything.

Why does everyone think this? Getting a bunch of people to build roads does not equal raised living standards.

Workers living standards fell in Nazi Germany, wages fell, minimum wage abolished etc. The average worker was better of in the Weimar Republic years than in the Nazi years.

While profits for Industrialists increased.

bailey_187

28th October 2009, 21:03

So the hatred of psychotic authoritarian dictatorships transcends the boundaries of the left-right spectrum, imagine that. got any more amazing insights, captain obvious?

psychological-history (or whatever its called) is great isn't it? History is made by the psychological state and characteristics of great men? got any more amazing insights, captain obvious?

manic expression

28th October 2009, 21:11

So the hatred of psychotic authoritarian dictatorships transcends the boundaries of the left-right spectrum, imagine that. got any more amazing insights, captain obvious?

Nothing political transcends politics. Don't be so naive as to think that an anti-DPRK stance has nothing to do with ideology, that's absolutely ridiculous on its face, and the disagreements on this very thread illustrates this.

spiltteeth

28th October 2009, 22:43

Despite many horrid conditions, for some, there are a few attractive things about North Korea....

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/north_korean_army_babes_md.jpg

LOLseph Stalin

28th October 2009, 22:49

Despite many horrid conditions, for some, there are a few attractive things about North Korea....

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/north_korean_army_babes_md.jpg

There was actually a photoshopped version of this pic in Iran which had the women wearing pants.

khad

28th October 2009, 22:57

Despite many horrid conditions, for some, there are a few attractive things about North Korea....
You have to turn everything misogynistic. That's your MO.

BobKKKindle$

28th October 2009, 23:00

Spliteeth, I'm giving you a formal warning. Cut it out.

Now I see why you like Zizek so much, they say he's a sexist bigot too.

spiltteeth

28th October 2009, 23:02

You have to turn everything misogynistic. That's your MO.

As insertyourname points out, such short skirts are not allowed in Iran, and North Korea is constantly saying that women are more free than in South Korea, this picture is evidence that North Korea has a point.

Also, your comment lends nothing to the thread, it is a personal attack, please pm me if it is something inly addresses to me.

spiltteeth

28th October 2009, 23:15

Spliteeth, I'm giving you a formal warning. Cut it out.

Now I see why you like Zizek so much, they say he's a sexist bigot too.

Thats an absurd slur, my appreciation of Zizek has nothing to do with any bigotry he may or may not have.

Why would you even suggest something like that? You call me a sexist bigot on an open forum?
Bob - I think you've crossed a line and I certainly would like an apology.

If you evidence south Korea would tolerate such short skirts, present it, otherwise I maintain, despite various strict dress codes, woman are more free in certain regards in the north rather than south, North Korea has vigorous campaigns that posit a woman's sexual freedom is protected in North Korea, while oppressed in the south; and, although repressive, the N.Korean government is not as restrictive as a previous poster maintains.

Decolonize The Left

28th October 2009, 23:59

You have to turn everything misogynistic. That's your MO.

Please don't slander other members of the forum.

- August

bcbm

29th October 2009, 01:11

Nothing political transcends politics. Don't be so naive as to think that an anti-DPRK stance has nothing to do with ideology, that's absolutely ridiculous on its face, and the disagreements on this very thread illustrates this.

are you suggesting its impossible to disagree with the political system in the dprk from a communist perspective?

Tatarin

29th October 2009, 01:57

That's so sweet! Crossing the border for the woman of his life! Ououwh... :wub:

RHIZOMES

29th October 2009, 01:59

Now I see why you like Zizek so much, they say he's a sexist bigot too.

Oh come on. Zizek is awesome. I think you're just sore because of how much he completely owned Callinicos at Marxism 09.

Thats an absurd slur, my appreciation of Zizek has nothing to do with any bigotry he may or may not have.

Why would you even suggest something like that? You call me a sexist bigot on an open forum?
Bob - I think you've crossed a line and I certainly would like an apology.

If you evidence south Korea would tolerate such short skirts, present it, otherwise I maintain, despite various strict dress codes, woman are more free in certain regards in the north rather than south, North Korea has vigorous campaigns that posit a woman's sexual freedom is protected in North Korea, while oppressed in the south; and, although repressive, the N.Korean government is not as restrictive as a previous poster maintains.

I'm not too sure about this, I've read stuff like women being "given" to North Korean defectors as a reward. And usually they were kidnapped from countries like Macau or Japan. Then again that could all be bullshit but it comes from an actual US North Korean detractor's book about his life in the DPRK.

gorillafuck

29th October 2009, 02:03

Oh come on. Zizek is awesome. I think you're just sore because of how much he completely owned Callinicos at Marxism 09.
Sounds like you're talking about a sports event

RHIZOMES

29th October 2009, 02:53

Sounds like you're talking about a sports event

Intellectual sports. Being dogmatic means you're unfit and are more likely to lose (such as in the case of Callinicos vs. Zizek).

Revy

29th October 2009, 03:24

Thats an absurd slur, my appreciation of Zizek has nothing to do with any bigotry he may or may not have.

Why would you even suggest something like that? You call me a sexist bigot on an open forum?
Bob - I think you've crossed a line and I certainly would like an apology.

If you evidence south Korea would tolerate such short skirts, present it, otherwise I maintain, despite various strict dress codes, woman are more free in certain regards in the north rather than south, North Korea has vigorous campaigns that posit a woman's sexual freedom is protected in North Korea, while oppressed in the south; and, although repressive, the N.Korean government is not as restrictive as a previous poster maintains.

:blink: Yes, we should a woman's sexual freedom on the length of her skirt.

Could you use some sources next time? Google helped me find this (http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/35.htm).

The issue that is always in dispute about North Korea is the lack of political freedoms and the pervasive cult of personality. It's not like we are talking about Iran here, where oppression of women is a dire situation.

Radical

29th October 2009, 04:05

I find it hilariously offensive that many idiots on this website assume that 29 Million people are all living brainwashed and cannot have idea's of their own.

Instead of these remarks, why dont you goto North Korea and see what it's like for yourself, rather than listen to your Liberal media monopolize your mind.

Have the left not learnt anything from the propaganda war waged against us?

LOLseph Stalin

29th October 2009, 04:09

Instead of these remarks, why dont you goto North Korea and see what it's like for yourself, rather than listen to your Liberal media monopolize your mind.

Well have you even been to North Korea? You can't say the people here are any more brainwashed than you if you haven't been to North Korea. I do realize that many of the Anarkiddies will buy into bourgeois propaganda, but North Korea is still a difficult subject due to the lack of information available on it that could be considered reliable.

spiltteeth

29th October 2009, 04:31

:blink: Yes, we should a woman's sexual freedom on the length of her skirt.

Could you use some sources next time? Google helped me find this (http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/35.htm).

The issue that is always in dispute about North Korea is the lack of political freedoms and the pervasive cult of personality. It's not like we are talking about Iran here, where oppression of women is a dire situation.

I will only note the fact that sales for short-shorts are notoriously stifled during conservative rule. During Reagan's presidency I was compelled to retire my own pair.

However, my point is that if the cultural freedoms are greater in N. Korea than South, this may be one reason a person would want to defect from South to North.

Revy

29th October 2009, 05:26

spiltteeth

29th October 2009, 06:38

I'm not trying to troll you here. But I do have a few things to say about your post....

I don't see how the picture embodies "sexual freedom". Is the military dress code for women meant to be "sexy"? that might paint an even different picture when it comes to gender equality. Wouldn't it be equal, at least from my perspective (I recognize there may be cultural bias) for the women to wear pants?

Women probably have it harder in South Korea. However, your argument focuses only on one issue. The sexism in South Korea is not about them not being able to be sexy but them being degraded and discriminated, like in many other countries all around the world.

My point is simply they have the choice, whereas they used to have strict measures wherein they couldn't wear short skirts - as in many countries.

It would be oppressive if they could not wear pants, or were compelled to wear short skirts; I've seen military pictures of women in N. Korea with pants and skirts.

For instance, in some Moslem parts of the word, women must always be covered, so they show their identity be making small changes, like light beading in the cloth, which you or I may not notice, but is their little way of 'rebelling' as much as they can in a repressive environment.

Perhaps it's my cultural bias, but short skirts have always been a form of rebellion in America against a repressive patriarchal society.

Even today, in catholic school the girls are compelled to wear dresses (no pants) - in my day they would rebel by trimming them fairly high, since this was their only way to rebel.

You'll notice in repressive patriarchal society any clothing that shows too much is banned and outlawed.

Perhaps you don't think its a big deal, but I recall a woman wearing pants was once a bold statement of freedom, and the burning of bras. Today someone would say - so what? You don't where a bra. Who cares.
But in the context of a militaristic regime, indeed I find such things significant.

From the way a society dresses, one can guess a few things. And I think it shows that, although not progressive, the repressive nature of N. Korea, when it comes to women, is not as incredibly repressive as many make it out to be.

manic expression

29th October 2009, 19:34

are you suggesting its impossible to disagree with the political system in the dprk from a communist perspective?

Disagreement is not the same as opposition, and it's assuredly not the same as blatant slander. Disagreement with the DPRK from a communist perspective means constructive criticism while defending it against imperialism. Dove-tailing with imperialist rhetoric and basing one's entire opinion on nothing but myths promoted by the bourgeoisie, however, is far from this and has no place in the communist movement.

So if you're asking me about full-out opposition to the DPRK, that's an anti-socialist and anti-working class perspective.

bcbm

29th October 2009, 19:45

i think the dprk has a right to resist imperialism, but i am fundamentally opposed to the system that exists in that country. i don't think that position is anti-socialist or anti-working class.

manic expression

29th October 2009, 19:51

i think the dprk has a right to resist imperialism, but i am fundamentally opposed to the system that exists in that country. i don't think that position is anti-socialist or anti-working class.

Define "fundamentally opposed". Do you oppose states that employ suppression to defend itself? What, in specific, do you fundamentally oppose about the DPRK? If anything, the fundamentals of the DPRK are as progressive as you can get, whatever problems there come up when you get past the basic organization of society.

Honggweilo

29th October 2009, 19:52

Crossing lines is all abound in this thread. Keep it civil folks.
pun intended

bcbm

29th October 2009, 20:00

Define "fundamentally opposed".

i think the dprk is an autocratic state where the working class do not control the means of production.

Do you oppose states that employ suppression to defend itself?

define suppression.

What, in specific, do you fundamentally oppose about the DPRK?

see above.

If anything, the fundamentals of the DPRK are as progressive as you can get, whatever problems there come up when you get past the basic organization of society.

i'd guess the "fundamentals" are based in the juche idea, and i would not classify that as "as progressive as you can get," especially since the establishment of the songun doctrine.

manic expression

29th October 2009, 20:09

i think the dprk is an autocratic state where the working class do not control the means of production.

Whatever "autocracy" that exists (whatever that means) is due to the imperialist siege and is not the fault of the DPRK's socialist system. Just as the Soviet Union entrenched its progressive society in the face of unimaginable reactionary threats, so too has the DPRK as it has become more and more surrounded by imperialist aggression.

define suppression.One class' use of force against another.

i'd guess the "fundamentals" are based in the juche idea, and i would not classify that as "as progressive as you can get," especially since the establishment of the songun doctrine.Not really. Juche was started relatively recently (the 70's) and I don't think it can be argued that it essentially changed the social structure of the DPRK that existed before that point. The fundamentals of the DPRK is an abolition of private property, a centrally planned economy that's based on collectivization, a lack of generalized commodity production and workers working for their fellow workers; which are the fundamentals of every other socialist society.

bcbm

29th October 2009, 20:41

Whatever "autocracy" that exists (whatever that means)

"An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power[/URL] is held by a self-appointed ruler."
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power)

hopefully that helps.

is due to the imperialist siege and is not the fault of the DPRK's socialist system. Just as the Soviet Union entrenched its progressive society in the face of unimaginable reactionary threats, so too has the DPRK as it has become more and more surrounded by imperialist threats.

so imperialism is responsible for the promotion of cults of personality and the apparent disparity of wealth between the ruling classes and average north koreans?

One class' use of force against another.

sure, provided that it is in fact the working class exercising that force.

Not really. Juche was started relatively recently (the 70's) and I don't think it can be argued that it essentially changed the social structure of the DPRK that existed before that point.

would you say that juche accurately reflects the ideology that guided the years before it was adopted officially? as i understand it, it was developed during the mid-1950's in order to stress a more national program and weaken the influence of chinese and soviet suppoters with the wpk?

The fundamentals of the DPRK is an abolition of private property, a centrally planned economy that's based on collectivization, a lack of generalized commodity production and workers working for their fellow workers; which are the fundamentals of every other socialist society.

fair enough, but i don't believe all of these "fundamentals" exist in the dprk, as the state exercises ownership and control over all resources but is not a state of the working class.

mykittyhasaboner

29th October 2009, 21:23

Heh, I actually went through 9 pages of this...

Os Cangaceiros

29th October 2009, 21:24

manic expression:

I think the problem here is that what the DPRK is does not fit into many people's picture of what a socialist society should be and/or look like, especially in regards to worker's power within the country. The fact is that all nations today have some sort of ideological foundation upon which they rest in order to justify the ruling order, and just because a nation declares itself "socialist" and pledges alliegance to socialist ideals does not make it in fact "socialist", just as the United States will never truly be a "democracy", no matter how many times it declares itself to be so.

Yes, the state has a large amount of control over economic life in N. Korea, but the state /=/ the working class, even if that state declares itself to be socialist/communist. If you can show me evidence that rank-and-file workers in N. Korea have real control over their economic environments, I'd be glad to see it.

Jethro Tull

29th October 2009, 21:43

Whatever "autocracy" that exists (whatever that means) is due to the imperialist siege and is not the fault of the DPRK's socialist system.

This would make sense of autocracy was more stable...

...even then, why do we have to defend one bourgeois state against another?

manic expression

29th October 2009, 21:45

"An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a self-appointed ruler."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

hopefully that helps.

That can be applied to every government, ever. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I can't think of a government that doesn't have a self-appointed ruler in one sense or another.

so imperialism is responsible for the promotion of cults of personality and the apparent disparity of wealth between the ruling classes and average north koreans?

Socialism is not about people having everything equal. Privileges for certain roles and professions are definitely applicable to socialist societies.

Further, as we've outlined prior, most governments glorify leaders. The application of the word "cult" is both subjective and unhelpful. And yes, the so-called "cult" is a result of the anti-Korean siege.

sure, provided that it is in fact the working class exercising that force.

And what of a vanguard party of the working class?

would you say that juche accurately reflects the ideology that guided the years before it was adopted officially? as i understand it, it was developed during the mid-1950's in order to stress a more national program and weaken the influence of chinese and soviet suppoters with the wpk?

I'm no expert, but Juche was a change in the outlook of the party, I haven't seen any fundamental changes that occurred because of that change in official ideology.

fair enough, but i don't believe all of these "fundamentals" exist in the dprk, as the state exercises ownership and control over all resources but is not a state of the working class.

But they do. They aren't applied perfectly, but those fundamentals exist. There is no capitalist class, there is no private ownership of property, there is no generalized commodity production, there is an economy based on collectivization. Those are the basic mathematics of the DPRK.

And as I said, the entrenchment of working-class victories by the DPRK does not erase anything, it simply means that socialism is under attack, and something had to be done. The DPRK did what it needed to do to preserve the pillars of socialism that I mentioned above.

khad

29th October 2009, 21:46

This would make sense of autocracy was more stable...

...even then, why do we have to defend one bourgeois state against another?
Well, *some* anarchist types defend bourgeois nationalist Poland--grooming itself to be a partner to the Nazis ever since they rose to power--against Stalinist "aggression" which in the end saved many, many Polish lives.

Jethro Tull

29th October 2009, 21:58

Well, *some* anarchist types defend bourgeois nationalist Poland

So does nationalist Poland get a free pass [...] ?No, they don't. At least not from me.

against Stalinist "aggression" which in the end saved many, many Polish lives.The Red Cross also saves lives. Are they too communist? I mean, they have the color red in their logo, that's usually all it takes with you types. :D

Jethro Tull

29th October 2009, 22:18

That can be applied to every government, ever. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I can't think of a government that doesn't have a self-appointed ruler in one sense or another.

You are partially correct in that all bourgeois states operate under the self-appointed rule of the bourgeoisie. What makes a state an autocracy is if it has a figurehead that serves for life rather than a limited term.

I for one don't think it matters much, however bourgeois regimes with limited terms for figureheads tend to be more stable. (Hence the hilarity of Stalinists such as yourself claiming the Kim dynastic autocracy somehow makes the DPRK more effective and stable in resisting "imperialism", a.k.a. rival bourgeois states.)

Socialism is not about people having everything equal. Privileges for certain roles and professions are definitely applicable to socialist societies.

Socialism is supposed to create communism, and communism entails the abolition class society. However, as your rhetoric admits, class society is perpetuated under socialist regimes. So the question becomes: do we want communism, or do we want socialism?

Further, as we've outlined prior, most governments glorify leaders.

Just because everyone else is guilty, doesn't make the DPRK innocent.

And what of a vanguard party of the working class?

In order for that question to be relevant we would have to establish that the DPRK leadership is a vanguard of the working class, which it is not.

There is no capitalist class

Yes there is. Do you think Kim Jong Il works in the fields all day? What makes Obama a capitalist and not Kim? What's different about their lives?

There's even an MBA program (http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/magazines/fortune/pyongyang_university_north_korea.fortune/index.htm) in North Korea. :laugh:

there is no private ownership of property

Yes there is. Property controlled and monopolized by a bourgeois state is the same thing as private property.

Also this:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10858/#p3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/northkorea

there is no generalized commodity production

I don't know what you mean by "generalized" but capitalist commodity production occurs in the DPRK just as it does in any other state.

there is an economy based on collectivization.

So? That has nothing to do with communism.

And as I said, the entrenchment of working-class victories by the DPRK does not erase anything, it simply means that socialism is under attack, and something had to be done. The DPRK did what it needed to do to preserve the pillars of socialism that I mentioned above.

That's great but none of this creates communism in any way.

manic expression

30th October 2009, 01:04

If anyone wants to make a response to me without Jethro Tull's ridiculous habit of quoting four words at a time and making non-responses to each, I'll be happy to open a dialogue about this issue. Between Pogue's one-word immaturity and Jethro Tull's immaterial one-liner marathons, I can barely find a single worthy point. Can any DPRK-opponent make a cohesive and/or comprehensive post? Anyone? Bueller?

I think the problem here is that what the DPRK is does not fit into many people's picture of what a socialist society should be and/or look like, especially in regards to worker's power within the country. The fact is that all nations today have some sort of ideological foundation upon which they rest in order to justify the ruling order, and just because a nation declares itself "socialist" and pledges alliegance to socialist ideals does not make it in fact "socialist", just as the United States will never truly be a "democracy", no matter how many times it declares itself to be so.

Yes, the state has a large amount of control over economic life in N. Korea, but the state /=/ the working class, even if that state declares itself to be socialist/communist. If you can show me evidence that rank-and-file workers in N. Korea have real control over their economic environments, I'd be glad to see it.

Much better! It's like a breath of fresh air, and I'm not even asking for much.

It's true that different ideologies see socialism in different ways. In fact, many anarchists openly declare that they would oppose any form of Marxist socialism, no matter the specific application, for there still would be a state. However, this isn't something we can move past or ignore so easily, it's just something both sides have to understand so they can at least communicate.

The supporters of the DPRK don't support whoever calls themselves socialist, for if that were the case, we'd all be Segolene Royal fans. They look at the points I listed above that serve as pillars for socialism.

On the question of workers' power, the fact is that there isn't direct democracy because of the situation facing the workers of Korea. However, there is something to be said for the role of the vanguard party. As in the Soviet Union, much of the governance goes through the party and is then administered. This isn't to say that workers have no voice, however, since the ruling party in Korea was the same party that defended Korea from imperialist invasion multiple times, abolished capitalism and improved life for decades; this all came from the workers themselves, and that means that the party is a party of the workers. Just because the leadership doesn't face US-style elections every 4 years doesn't mean they represent another class. Of course, one can disagree with the principles of the vanguard party, but one can also appreciate the significance of this and how it makes the DPRK what it is.

On working-class membership of the KWP:

The KWP claimed a membership of more than 3 million persons as of 1988, a significant increase from the 2 million members announced in 1976.

http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/61.htm

The article goes on to note how important the party is to Korean society in the DPRK, and we should bear in mind that 3 million is about 7.5% of the ENTIRE Korean population of 23.5 million (which would include children and other non-workers). That is a considerable portion of the Korean working class and we should not toss this aside.

30th October 2009, 01:10

Bright Banana Beard

30th October 2009, 01:13

30th October 2009, 01:15

How is this any insightful post but personal attack?

It's about as insightful as his post. And yes, it was a personal attack.

manic expression

30th October 2009, 01:25

This coming from someone who thinks people should be arrested for saying they are hungry. Sorry, but your posts deserve the hostility they receive; you're a dogmatic lunatic. Your posts are completely devoid of any serious academic integrity and just serve to defend your crazy beliefs.

It's not hostility I grow tired of, it's the practice of a.) making empty-headed insults instead of addressing an issue head-on and b.) quoting five words at a time like some caffeine addict. Neither of these things add anything to the discussion, they just allow people to superficially inject their own agendas into unrelated topics....kind of like someone bringing up a disagreement on Cuba that happened months ago. Funny that.

If you took the time to read my posts, you'll see that I praised both Tsukae and Explosive Situation for making points that deserve attention and discussion. Maybe that's just another part of my dogma..."yeah, that'll get the anarchists on my side!"

And seriously, glass stones and houses, anyone? The Trotskyist movement has re-defined what it means to be dogmatic. When your ideology isn't the spitting picture of sectarian madness, maybe I'll take your sermons a bit more seriously, especially when I doubt you could even adequately define my "dogma" yourself.

Intelligitimate

30th October 2009, 01:26

There is a story in China about an emperor who devotes his entire life to the study of dragons. He reads books about them. Has statues made of them, and covers his wall with pictures of them. One day he finally meets a dragon, and as a result he is nearly frightened to death. In the U.S., there are “revolutionaries” who are just like this.There are lots of fake Leftists here, people who don't do shit and never will, except for spewing visceral hatred of anything socialist alongside the most reactionary pieces of shit in our society. The sheer anti-communism found on this forum is matched only by neo-Nazis at Stormfront.

If the revolution comes to America, these people will side with the liberals and the bourgeoisie, and scream and cry about repression, and actively work to sabotage the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their brand of "radicalism" is just another brand of fanatical anti-communism. They define themselves by their anti-communism, not their opposition to capitalism and the bourgeoisie, which they spend only a fraction of their time talking about. These people are the "useful idiots" of the bourgeoisie, because their existence does nothing but sabotage the Left.

When the revolution comes, they'll get the fate they deserve.

revolution inaction

30th October 2009, 01:27

I can barely find a single worthy point.

why should anyone give a shit what you consider a worthy point, your as reactionary as any capitalist confined to OI

On the question of workers' power, the fact is that there isn't direct democracy because of the situation facing the workers of Korea.

if its not direct democracy then its not socialism

However, there is something to be said for the role of the vanguard party.

yes there is, the role of a vanguard party is to suppress revolution and support a new ruling class.

manic expression

30th October 2009, 01:29

It's about as insightful as his post. And yes, it was a personal attack.

I love it when people hold grudges because they were unable to construct a decent argument on some topic that ended months ago. Obviously, someone's feelings are hurt.

But you're right. This:

Your posts are completely devoid of any serious academic integrity and just serve to defend your crazy beliefs.

Is exactly as insightful as this:

Not really. Juche was started relatively recently (the 70's) and I don't think it can be argued that it essentially changed the social structure of the DPRK that existed before that point. The fundamentals of the DPRK is an abolition of private property, a centrally planned economy that's based on collectivization, a lack of generalized commodity production and workers working for their fellow workers; which are the fundamentals of every other socialist society.

KC: He reports, you decide.

30th October 2009, 01:30

If you took the time to read my posts, you'll see that I praised both Tsukae and Explosive Situation for making points that deserve attention and discussion. Maybe that's just another part of my dogma..."yeah, that'll get the anarchists on my side!"

I don't see what thanking anarchists for making points that "deserve attention and discussion" has to do with your wacky beliefs. The fact that you have to bring up "Trotskyism" just further shows how much of a dogmatic nutjob you are. You're well on your way to becoming an Intelligitmate. Congratulations!

manic expression

30th October 2009, 01:36

why should anyone give a shit what you consider a worthy point, your as reactionary as any capitalist confined to OI

Worthy points are based on historical facts, relevant sources, common sense and a comprehensive view of an issue.

The irony here is damn thick.

if its not direct democracy then its not socialism

When did socialism become dependent on how frequently you hold elections? Sure, the specific application of a socialist society, or even arguably the health of a socialist society, but surely it can't determine the mode of production. We must look at the situation that is unique to the Korean workers, and not what we wish was facing the Korean workers.

yes there is, the role of a vanguard party is to suppress revolution and support a new ruling class.

Why do you believe this?

manic expression

30th October 2009, 01:40

[/I]I don't see what thanking anarchists for making points that "deserve attention and discussion" has to do with your wacky beliefs. The fact that you have to bring up "Trotskyism" just further shows how much of a dogmatic nutjob you are. You're well on your way to becoming an Intelligitmate. Congratulations!

It means that I'm willing to engage a wide range of ideologies and viewpoints. It means that I'm open to different points of view. It means that I don't write someone off because I don't like the way they argued about something months ago. It means that you're ignoring my behavior on this thread because you obviously have some chip on your shoulder.

I bring up Trotskyism because it exposes your hypocrisy in calling me what the majority of your camp has been for decades. Of course, in response to this, you retreat to your comfortable shelter of personal attacks, which makes sense considering it's the only thing you seem capable of posting. I'll stick to the mature discussions, you can whine and moan on the sidelines because you got handled in a debate on Cuba.

bcbm

30th October 2009, 01:43

If anyone wants to make a response to me without Jethro Tull's ridiculous habit of quoting four words at a time

ridiculous habit? i use the same posting style as do many members of the forum.

and making non-responses to each

really? because i see a number of points being made. if you're not going to discuss them, at least spare us these sort of personal attacks to justify it.

http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/61.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/61.htm)

from various other articles:

"North Korea is a classic example of the "rule of man." Overall, political management is highly personalized and is based on loyalty to Kim Il Sung and the Korean Workers' Party (KWP). The cult of personality, the nepotism of the Kim family, and the strong influence of former anti-Japanese partisan veterans and military leaders are unique features of North Korean politics."
"Another salient feature of the country's political system is glorification of Kim Il Sung's authority and cult of personality. Kim uses the party and the government to consolidate his power. He is addressed by many honorary titles: the "great leader," the son of the nation, national hero, liberator, and the fatherly leader. According to the party, there can be no greater honor or duty than being loyal to him "absolutely and unconditionally." Kim's executive power is not checked by any constitutional provision. The party's principal concern is to ensure strict popular compliance with the policies of Kim Il Sung and the party; such compliance implants an appearance of institutional imprimatur on Kim's highly personalized and absolute rule."
"Although socialism promises a society of equals in which class oppression is eliminated, most evidence shows that great social and political inequality continues to exist in North Korea in the early 1990s. The state is the sole allocator of resources, and inequalities are justified in terms of the state's political and economic imperatives. Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are described by unsympathetic foreign observers as living like kings. (The South Korean film director Sin Sangok and his actress wife, Ch'oe Unhui, who were apparently kidnapped and taken to North Korea on Kim Jong Il's orders, described him as a fanatic film buff with a library of 15,000 films; they claimed that he alone could view these films, which were collected for his benefit by North Korean diplomats abroad.) Equally important from the standpoint of social stratification, however, is a small and clearly defined elite within the ruling KWP, who, like the privileged communists listed in the former Soviet Union's nomenklatura, a listing of positions and personnel, have emerged as a "new class" with a relatively high standard of living and access to consumer goods not available to ordinary people."

The article goes on to note how important the party is to Korean society in the DPRK, and we should bear in mind that 3 million is about 7.5% of the ENTIRE Korean population of 23.5 million (which would include children and other non-workers). That is a considerable portion of the Korean working class and we should not toss this aside.

but the working class is no longer regarded as the revolutionary class within the dprk.

30th October 2009, 01:45

It means that I'm willing to engage a wide range of ideologies and viewpoints.

"It means I'm willing to let people state a wide range of ideologies and viewpoints before I tell them I disagree with them and don't really care what they have to say."

It means that I'm open to different points of view.

"It means I'm that I'm open to criticizing different points of view."

I'll stick to the mature discussions

"The DPRK is a workers' state because of how many people are in the WPK."

:laugh:

manic expression

30th October 2009, 01:53

"It means I'm willing to let people state a wide range of ideologies and viewpoints before I tell them I disagree with them and don't really care what they have to say."

More baseless accusations coming from a baseless position. Saying that I'd rather not continue a discussion because I don't see it going anywhere constructive is positive for the atmosphere here.

"It means I'm that I'm open to criticizing different points of view."

Engaging different points of view means criticizing them in some cases while looking to the issue at hand. You should try it sometime.

"The DPRK is a workers' state because of how many people are in the WPK."

:laugh:

I didn't expect you to care about working-class participation in the building of socialism. That's exactly what you oppose and despise, so it makes perfect sense that you'd belittle it.

Wait for it...

:laugh:

Oh, and good job ignoring the whole part about the material conditions in the DPRK. Some Marxist you are!

Hit me two times!

:laugh: :laugh:

manic expression

30th October 2009, 01:59

ridiculous habit? i use the same posting style as do many members of the forum.

I'm not talking about quoting in general, I'm referring to how some cut arguments up into smaller portions, reducing the issue to impossibly irrelevant morsels of rhetoric. It's not something I find constructive or positive, and I imagine I'm not alone.

really? because i see a number of points being made. if you're not going to discuss them, at least spare us these sort of personal attacks to justify it.

Not all of them are worth consideration. If someone said that Kim Jong-Il has bad taste in sunglasses, it would definitely be a point, but I wouldn't give it much thought because it has little to do with the march of the working class.

from various other articles:

Please post the exact sources so we can analyze them adequately.

but the working class is no longer regarded as the revolutionary class within the dprk.

I don't take everything the DPRK claims at face value, I analyze the material conditions of the country and come to an analysis through that method. I would hope you'd take the same perspective.

bcbm

30th October 2009, 02:06

I'm not talking about quoting in general, I'm referring to how some cut arguments up into smaller portions, reducing the issue to impossibly irrelevant morsels of rhetoric. It's not something I find constructive or positive, and I imagine I'm not alone.

i haven't seen much of that in this thread. even when cut up, i think the arguments presented make sense.

Not all of them are worth consideration. If someone said that Kim Jong-Il has bad taste in sunglasses, it would definitely be a point, but I wouldn't give it much thought because it has little to do with the march of the working class.

nobody in here is talking about sunglasses; all of the points, at least in jethro's response, relate to how society is organized within the dprk.

Please post the exact sources so we can analyze them adequately.

http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/31.htm
http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/56.htm

I don't take everything the DPRK claims at face value, I analyze the material conditions of the country and come to an analysis through that method. I would hope you'd take the same perspective.

i think if the ruler of a so-called socialist country openly admits that he (and therefore, the entire country) no longer consider the working class to be the revolutionary class within that country but instead sees the military filling that role, this is a statement that should trouble us, regardless of how it may be carried out. do you know any more current resources similar to the country profile linked above?

Jethro Tull

30th October 2009, 02:07

Dearest Manic Expression

When you say the definition of autocracy quoted by comrade bcbm could be applied to "every government, ever", you are partially correct, in that all bourgeois states operate under the self-appointed rule of the bourgeoisie. What makes a state an autocracy is if it has a figurehead that serves for life rather than a limited term. I for one don't think it matters much, however bourgeois regimes with limited terms for figureheads tend to be more stable. (Hence the hilarity of Stalinists such as yourself claiming the Kim dynastic autocracy somehow makes the DPRK more effective and stable in resisting "imperialism", a.k.a. rival bourgeois states.)

Regarding claims that socialism is "not about people having everything equal", socialism is supposed to create communism, and communism entails the abolition class society. However, as your rhetoric admits, class society is perpetuated under socialist regimes. So the question becomes: do we want communism, or do we want socialism?

You say "most governments glorify leaders", yet just because everyone else is guilty, doesn't make the DPRK innocent. You ask "and what of a vanguard party of the working class?" In order for that question to be relevant we would have to establish that the DPRK leadership is a vanguard of the working class, which it is not.

You claim there is no capitalist class in North Korea, when there clearly is. Do you think Kim Jong Il works in the fields all day? What makes Obama a capitalist and not Kim? What's different about their lives? There's even an MBA program (http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/magazines/fortune/pyongyang_university_north_korea.fortune/index.htm) in North Korea. As for your claim that there is no private property in the DPRK, property controlled and monopolized by a bourgeois state is the same thing as private property. Regardless, the following links document the rapid liberalization of the DPRK's economy:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10858/#p3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/northkorea

I don't know what you mean by "generalized" when you say there is no generalized commodity production in the DPRK. However, capitalist commodity production occurs in the DPRK just as it does in any other state. As for "an economy based on collectivization", this has nothing to do with communism. "Collectivist" schemes can be imposed within capitalism or any other social order. None of the DPRK's "working-class victories" help create communism in any way.

There, is that better?

manic expression

30th October 2009, 02:19

i haven't seen much of that in this thread. even when cut up, i think the arguments presented make sense.

They water down the points of one's opponents to the point of infinitesimal irrelevance. It's not conducive to positive discussion.

nobody in here is talking about sunglasses; all of the points, at least in jethro's response, relate to how society is organized within the dprk.

Right, but people are talking about "direct democracy" and "autocracy", as if that was the measurement of socialism vs capitalism. And most of Jethro's points boiled down to "that doesn't get us to communism!", which accomplishes exactly what I said it does: reduce what could be a comprehensive argument to one-liners. Fortunately, there have been recent efforts to change this on some posters' parts.

http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/31.htm
http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/56.htm

You do realize that's an anti-DPRK source, right? Part of the reason I sourced it was because it contributes to my point even while it's biased. It sources South Korean filmmakers who claimed to have been kidnapped, which indicates a complete lack of objective evidence. It also claims that 15% of the DPRK population is "elite", which is based on nothing but conjecture.

i think if the ruler of a so-called socialist country openly admits that he (and therefore, the entire country) no longer consider the working class to be the revolutionary class within that country but instead sees the military filling that role, this is a statement that should trouble us, regardless of how it may be carried out. do you know any more current resources similar to the country profile linked above?

That's a rhetorical and ideological issue, not one that necessarily changes the way the DPRK is structured, organized and built. Objecting to such a statement is one thing, but trying to stretch that into an indictment of the entire DPRK is quite another. Further, even if the position is incorrect, how does that change the facts already presented?

Искра

30th October 2009, 02:22

After reading this thread I fell like sledge hammer just hit me in the head.
There are actually people who worship North Korea?

http://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/svijet/37283/Sjeverna-Koreja-odbacila-komunizam.html
Use google fucking translator :rolleyes:

Jethro Tull

30th October 2009, 02:30

They water down the points of one's opponents to the point of infinitesimal irrelevance. It's not conducive to positive discussion.

That wasn't my intention.

And most of Jethro's points boiled down to "that doesn't get us to communism!"

Correct.

which accomplishes exactly what I said it does: reduce what could be a comprehensive argument to one-liners.

Communism does make a really good one-liner, I will admit. That's the least of its charms, however. When you experience communism, not just as a message board one-liner, but as a successful mode of existence, bourgeois society just can't compare, regardless of how socialistic it is.

Am I wrong for being preoccupied with communism? I thought communism was the point.

RHIZOMES

30th October 2009, 02:35

If have not seen any evidence in this thread that there is worker's control in North Korea. The ratio of the amount of times the DPRK has been called a worker's state in this thread to the evidence of that actually being presented is phenomenally one sided, it's amazing. Yeah yeah, I can see how the DPRK developed the way it did because of US imperialism etc etc but couldn't you theoretically have workers control over industry AND a strong military AND the suppressive power of the state against counterrevolutionaries?

bcbm

30th October 2009, 02:42

Right, but people are talking about "direct democracy" and "autocracy", as if that was the measurement of socialism vs capitalism.

well surely you could understand why anarchists might have some serious disagreements with an autocratic country?

You do realize that's an anti-DPRK source, right?

yes. unfortunately the dprk isn't too keen on letting anyone verify information, at least that i've been able to find, so we have to work with what we've got. obviously there is bias, but i don't think what they say is a complete fabrication.

Part of the reason I sourced it was because it contributes to my point even while it's biased. It sources South Korean filmmakers who claimed to have been kidnapped, which indicates a complete lack of objective evidence.

where are we going to find objective evidence in this discussion? nobody is going to accept anything put out from the dprk, and anything coming from anywhere else will be rejected as "anti-dprk" or "imperialist."

That's a rhetorical and ideological issue, not one that necessarily changes the way the DPRK is structured, organized and built.

you don't think that having the military as opposed to the working class as the revolutionary class in society would in any way change how that society is organized and what they focus their resources on?

Objecting to such a statement is one thing, but trying to stretch that into an indictment of the entire DPRK is quite another. Further, even if the position is incorrect, how does that change the facts already presented?

i'm not stretching it, i'm adding it to the list of other problems with the dprk.

gorillafuck

30th October 2009, 03:08

Intelligitimate

30th October 2009, 03:30

As in Cuba and other one party socialist societies, North Korea has a system of direct democracy in which elections are held for local peoples committees, district and provincial committees and to the Supreme People’s Assembly. The absence of other parties is not considered a failing, as the entire society is socialist. The question of multiple parties did not even seem understandable to those we spoke to. The delegation questioned whether within that system, there is in fact more participatory democracy than in the American federal system or the parliamentary system in which democracy ceases to operate once the elections are over. It is more circular, with local committees sending up to the next level requests, complaints and so on and so on up to the national level with discussion, at least in theory at these levels and then feedback to the local level until an agreement is reached based on resources available and circumstances.

http://www.nlg.org/korea/2003delegation_report.html

bcbm

30th October 2009, 03:34

In the previous election in 2003, the country reported a 99.9 percent voter turnout and total support for the single candidate running in each of the 687 constituencies, all hand-picked by Mr. Kim.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/world/asia/09seoul.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22north%20korea%22%20+%20elections&st=cse

emphasis mine.

Intelligitimate

30th October 2009, 03:45

RHIZOMES

30th October 2009, 03:48

Can anyone provide any shred of evidence of workers control of the economy in the DPRK? So far it seems that the pro-DPRK comments have just been rationalizing certain authoritarian aspects of the way things go about there and accusations of supporting imperialism against North Korea.

Liberal!!

And your point? Elections don't really mean anything. The day-to-day operations of how a government functions determines whether it is 'democratic' or not: whether or not it represents the will of the people.

Noone in this thread has provided any evidence of that. Evidence of workers control of industry please.

Intelligitimate

30th October 2009, 03:57

The term "worker's control" is mostly thrown around without any meaning whatsoever. In a Marxist-Leninist context, it is an inferior precursor to socialism. To quote Lenin:

At first our slogan was workers’ control. We said that despite all the promises of the Kerensky government, the capitalists were continuing to sabotage production and increase dislocation. We can now see that this would have ended in complete collapse. So the first fundamental step that every socialist, workers’ government has to take is workers’ control. We did not decree socialism immediately throughout industry, because socialism can only take shape and be consolidated when the working class has learnt how to run the economy and when the authority of the working people has been firmly established. Socialism is mere wishful thinking without that. That is why we introduced workers’ control, appreciating that it was a contradictory and incomplete measure, but an essential one so that the workers themselves might tackle the momentous tasks of building up industry in a vast country without and opposed to exploiters.

Everyone who took a direct, or even indirect, part in this work, everyone who lived through all the oppression and brutality of the old capitalist regime, learned a great deal. We know that little has been accomplished. We know that in this extremely backward and impoverished country where innumerable obstacles and barriers were put in the workers’ way, it will take them a long time to learn to run industry. But we consider it most important and valuable that the workers have themselves tackled the job, and that we have passed from workers’ control, which in all the main branches of industry was bound to be chaotic, disorganised, primitive and incomplete, to workers’ industrial administration on a national scale.

There the workers are learning to do this and are forming central organs of administration; there we are having to reconstruct the Supreme Economic Council; for the old laws, passed at the beginning of the year, are already out of date, the workers’ movement is marching ahead, the old workers’ control is already antiquated, and the trade unions are becoming the embryos of administrative bodies for all industry.

We have introduced workers’ control as a law, but this law is only just beginning to operate and is only just beginning to penetrate the minds of broad sections of the proletariat. In our agitation we do not sufficiently explain that lack of accounting and control in the production and distribution of goods means the death of the rudiments of socialism, means the embezzlement of state funds (for all property belongs to the state and the state is the Soviet state in which power belongs to the majority of the working people). We do not sufficiently explain that carelessness in accounting and control is downright aiding and abetting the German and the Russian Kornilovs, who can overthrow the power of the working people only if we fail to cope with the task of accounting and control, and who, with the aid of the whole of the rural bourgeoisie, with the aid of the Constitutional-Democrats, the Mensheviks and the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, are “watching” us and waiting for an opportune moment to attack us. And the advanced workers and peasants do not think and speak about this sufficiently. Until workers’ control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers’ control) to the second step towards socialism, i.e., to pass on to workers’ regulation of production.

1. Immediately after the October Revolution, the trade unions proved to be almost the only bodies which, while exercising workers’ control, were able and bound to undertake the work of organising and managing production. In that early period of the Soviet power, no state apparatus for the management of the national economy had yet been set up, while sabotage on the part of factory owners and senior technicians brought the working class squarely up against the task of safeguarding industry and getting the whole of the country’s economic apparatus back into normal running order.

2. In the subsequent period of the Supreme Economic Council’s work, when a considerable part of it consisted in liquidating private enterprises and organising state management to run them, the trade unions carried on this work jointly and side by side with the state economic management agencies.

This parallel set-up was explained and justified by the weakness of the state agencies; historically it was vindicated by the establishment of full contact between the trade unions and the economic management agencies.

3. The centre of gravity in the management of industry and the drafting of a production programme shifted to these agencies as a result of their administration, the gradual spread of their control over production and management and the-co-ordination of the several parts. In view of this, the work of the trade unions in organising production was reduced to participation in forming the collegiums of chief administrations, central boards, and factory managements.

Socialism is not workers control. Socialism is not you and the people you work with splitting the profit you make from producing goods and selling it on a free market.

RHIZOMES

30th October 2009, 04:14

The term "worker's control" is mostly thrown around without any meaning whatsoever. In a Marxist-Leninist context, it is an inferior precursor to socialism. To quote Lenin:

Ah okay, so you don't have any evidence. Cool. Btw, love the creative use of Lenin quotes there. Obviously when Lenin meant they weren't gonna establish worker's control right away he would have been okay with that not occurring for 60+ years. Also, how come in all that time the Kims haven't actually tried "teaching workers how to run the economy"? All I see is a bunch of mystical bullshit about how the Kims seem to be the second coming of Christ.

Socialism is not workers control.

LOL

Socialism is not you and the people you work with splitting the profit you make from producing goods and selling it on a free market.

Did I ever say it was? Nice strawman. I'd be more saying that workers have democratic decision making processes over their local work places and so on. The only evidence of democracy in the DPRK that you have provided is one-party elections with a 99.9% (lol) voting majority.

Os Cangaceiros

30th October 2009, 04:18

Socialism is not workers control.

I've heard a lot of things on this message board during my time here, but THAT is a first...

bcbm

30th October 2009, 04:30

And your point? Elections don't really mean anything. The day-to-day operations of how a government functions determines whether it is 'democratic' or not: whether or not it represents the will of the people.

hand-picked candidates from the same party who presumably represent the interests of the ruling elite of that party in a country where massive resources are devoted to the military while people starve, and the working class is not considered the revolutionary class... yes, the will of the people (populism?) sounds like it is being carried out.

Intelligitimate

30th October 2009, 04:40

Ah okay, so you don't have any evidence.Evidence of what? The meaningless, undefined phrase "worker's control" that you think defines what socialism is? The issue is first to actually understand what you even mean by this phrase, before we can begin to discuss whether or not this quality is possessed by the DPRK, or whether it is even a quality that actually applies to what socialism is.

Obviously when Lenin meant they weren't gonna establish worker's control rightThis is yet another example of people simply refusing to read on this forum. Getting someone to actually read Marx or Lenin is next to impossible here.

Lenin isn't talking about not establishing workers' control. He is talking about going beyond it. Workers' control is a precursor, a first stage in the development of a country to socialism. The next day after the bourgeoisie are kicked out of power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat established, socialism doesn't exist. When the workers kick out the bosses and start making shit themselves, socialism doesn't exist. Socialism exists when the state apparatus, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, has allowed the working class to take administrative control of the economy on a national scale. This has been the case in the DPRK since the 1950s.

Also, how come in all that time the Kims haven't actually tried "teaching workers how to run the economy"?On what basis do you even claim this? Do you know anything about how production is done in the DPRK?

I'd be more saying that workers have democratic decision making processes over their local work places and so on.There is democratic decision making in the workplace in the DPRK. The system they have used in the last 40+ years is the Taean Work System.

"The highest managerial authority under the Taean system is the party committee. Each committee consists of approximately twenty-five to thirty-five members elected from the ranks of managers, workers, engineers, and the leadership of "working people's organizations" at the factory. A smaller "executive committee," about one-fourth the size of the regular committee, has practical responsibility for day-to-day plant operations and major factory decisions. The most important staff members, including the party committee secretary, factory manager, and chief engineer, make up its membership. The system focuses on cooperation among workers, technicians, and party functionaries at the factory level."

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9558.html

30th October 2009, 05:51

Can anyone provide any shred of evidence of workers control of the economy in the DPRK? So far it seems that the pro-DPRK comments have just been rationalizing certain authoritarian aspects of the way things go about there and accusations of supporting imperialism against North Korea.

The problem is that these "socialists" view the state control of the economy to be synonymous with "workers' control" of the economy. So any response to this will be along the lines of "the state owns ninety-something percent of the economy so it's a workers' state".

But here we have ultralefts

Thank you for your insightful, yet completely predictable, response, Generic "Marxist-Leninist" #3.

bcbm

30th October 2009, 06:46

and I would not be surprised if they cheerlead an imperialist invasion against this "state capitalist" state.

i would be.

It seems the ultralefts have no qualms in constantly reusing western imperialist slander agsinst an embattered people.

not all criticism is "imperialist slander," though its difficult to determine the truth given that all information coming out of the dprk, for or against, seems heavily biased.

bcbm

30th October 2009, 07:17

Looking at the stupid "criticisms" by ultralefts and Trotskyists here, it seems some people would rather believe western imperialist propaganda than sources from the DPRK.

i try to look at as many sources as possible and evaluate from there.

If you admit that there is imperialist propaganda against this country, why even say anything negative about it?

because i'm a communist and my interest is in the liberation of my class, not unconditionally defending reactionary states just because imperialist countries dislike them?

ComradeRed22'91

30th October 2009, 07:21

it just goes on and on guys. Lets just keep our beliefs, talk about them with people, know them, support them, and just chill out.

bcbm

30th October 2009, 08:00

Free healthcare, education and guaranteed employment, while not being 100% socialist, are progressive features, not reactionary.:rolleyes:

and an entrenched autocracy that passes on political power based on lineage, enjoys far more luxury than the average citizen and believes the military to be more important than the working class are reactionary features, not progressive.

Only people who have endlessly consumed western bourgeois propaganda view a state in spite of it having such a progressive nature as "reactionary".which is somehow better than just swallowing whatever the dprk says about itself? like i said, i look at all the information available and try to come to the most reasonable conclusion.

30th October 2009, 08:46

Free healthcare, education and guaranteed employment, while not being 100% socialist, are progressive features, not reactionary.

Sources on this, please. I would like to see your information on how the DPRK's healthcare and education systems are run and also what policies it has implemented to "guarantee employment".

Keep in mind I'm looking for current information, and not how these systems were run decades ago (although that information would be helpful, as well).

manic expression

30th October 2009, 09:26

On the issue of workers' control, I think some important parts of the pro-DPRK argument are being lost in the shuffle here. It has been said countless times that the DPRK has fortified its society due to imperialist threats that have only grown in the past few decades. This means that the direct democracy that many here are claiming as the gold standard for socialist societies is simply incompatible with the situation in Korea. It is, after all, a country at war with its southern neighbor and the only remaining superpower in the world; it has no trading partners or allies capable of providing aid when its most needed.

Further, the vanguard party sees considerable participation by workers in the DPRK, and that same party has consistently promoted working-class interests in the most trying of circumstances. It would have been easy for Kim Il-Sung to sit back and watch fascist collaborators enslave Koreans in the south, but he and the WPK did something about it to strike a blow against imperialism. It would have been easy for the WPK to abandon socialism after the fall of the USSR, but they defended the progressive gains made by the working class against all odds. It would have been easy for Kim Jong-Il to cozy up to Obama, but he did not and reiterated the DPRK's principled stance against imperialism.

Lastly, one-candidate electoral systems can actually be more democratic than the two/multiple-candidate systems of bourgeois governments. Cuba proves this quite decisively. The question is what the nomination process is, and the NYT article doesn't help us at all in that department (unless I overlooked something). Saying it's controlled entirely by Kim Jong-Il just reeks of the usual unsubstantiated slander against the DPRK. We should bear in mind, however, that the DPRK is still a besieged society, and entrenching socialism to defend the workers in times of trouble (just as Lenin did during the Russian Civil War) is something that every communist lend support to.

well surely you could understand why anarchists might have some serious disagreements with an autocratic country?

Every state is autocratic, and therein lies the circular nature of the argument. The question is whether or not the interests of the workers are being promoted, and the actions of the DPRK show this to be so. See above.

yes. unfortunately the dprk isn't too keen on letting anyone verify information, at least that i've been able to find, so we have to work with what we've got. obviously there is bias, but i don't think what they say is a complete fabrication.

That's because "verifying information" usually involves prostration to imperialist powers and a loss of national sovereignty at best. I'm not sure we can blame the Korean workers for rejecting this.

where are we going to find objective evidence in this discussion? nobody is going to accept anything put out from the dprk, and anything coming from anywhere else will be rejected as "anti-dprk" or "imperialist."

Objective evidence means considering the significant participation in the WPK throughout the working class of the DPRK. Objective evidence means looking at how the DPRK stood strong against imperialism for decades and decades, oftentimes in the darkest hours socialists have ever faced.

you don't think that having the military as opposed to the working class as the revolutionary class in society would in any way change how that society is organized and what they focus their resources on?

Not necessarily, as its an ideological statement. Many governments do not designate their workers as a revolutionary class, but that doesn't change facts, does it? Ideological mistakes cannot be made into something they are not.

i'm not stretching it, i'm adding it to the list of other problems with the dprk.

As in what? Some nebulous notion of "autocracy"? What list?

bcbm

30th October 2009, 09:44

i'm just going to agree to disagree at this point, and get back to you once i've seen the dprk for myself, if you don't mind waiting a year or two.

manic expression

30th October 2009, 09:52

i'm just going to agree to disagree at this point, and get back to you once i've seen the dprk for myself, if you don't mind waiting a year or two.

Fair enough, that's more than reasonable. Good luck with your travels.

Janine Melnitz

30th October 2009, 10:58

Moslem
Uh

You claim there is no capitalist class in North Korea, when there clearly is. Do you think Kim Jong Il works in the fields all day? What makes Obama a capitalist and not Kim? What's different about their lives?
Was Tutankhamun a capitalist? (Cue chorus of affirmatives from anarchists.) How about coma patients, the lazy bastards? Pet hamsters? None of them work in the fields -- how is a pet hamster's life different from Barack Obama's?

I'm super not-interested in joining the 1,000th debate on how evil Kim Jong Il is, but would you kids stop using "capitalist" for every mode of social organization you think is bad? It has a pretty specific meaning! I will give you a hint it has nothing to do with the lifestyles of individuals.

ibram

30th October 2009, 11:47

I thought that there is no obstacle for South Koreans to go to the North. Were I mistaken? What is really going on in this regard in the South?

Искра

30th October 2009, 12:32

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_North_Korea

So, they'll open Businesses school in North Korea, cheer up for capitalism!

manic expression

30th October 2009, 12:47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_North_Korea

So, they'll open Businesses school in North Korea, cheer up for capitalism!

That could very well be about economic management, which has nothing to do with the capitalist mode of production. From the school's website:

The main focus of the school is on stepping up productivity, increasing competitiveness and developing business strategies for export markets.

One of our prime objectives is to provide professional skills to North Korean enterprises in order to enhance their ability to develop and commercialise high-value goods that generate income, profits, employment and foreign exchange.

None of that implies private property, it simply says that the people of the DPRK want to make economic management more efficient, which would be a very positive thing. Educating students on methods to achieve greater prosperity for the DPRK is hardly deserving of criticism. This thread has been full of condemnations against the DPRK's administration, and now it's full of condemnations against the DPRK's attempts to improve and broaden the education of its administrators. Typical.

http://www.business-school-pyongyang.org/

Искра

30th October 2009, 12:58

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 14:06

"Business" can be anything, a non-profit food co-op is a business, as is a billion dollar corporation. In a country like the DPRK profit for the state means profit for the people, if the state didn't make any money how would it possibly provide homes to the Korean people? And of course, profit don't necessarily mean worker exploitation, in socialism the economy is profitable because it creates an abundance of wealth for the working class.

The DPRK's education system does indeed educate people in order to prepare them for work so that they can serve the country, is there a problem with serving the country? When you serve the country you serve the people, isn't this a good thing? Or do you advocate the right wing libertarian "every man for himself" system? In the DPRK, education isn't just for learning how to do specific jobs, many Koreans continue their education throughout much of their adult life, just to gain new skills, learn the arts, study history, etc. Education in the DPRK isn't all about learning how to build nuclear bombs you know.

30th October 2009, 14:16

The DPRK's education system does indeed educate people in order to prepare them for work so that they can serve the country, is there a problem with serving the country? When you serve the country you serve the people, isn't this a good thing?

The problem is that these "socialists" view the state control of the economy to be synonymous with "workers' control" of the economy.

:rolleyes:

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 14:24

You're a Leninist, you know as well as I do that the state plays a role, so don't give me that anarchist crap. Do you have anything to contribute here? Anything at all other than an image of a small yellow person rolling his eyes? No? What a shame.

30th October 2009, 14:25

You're a Leninist, you know as well as I do that the state plays a role, so don't give me that anarchist crap.

What the hell are you talking about?

Do you have anything to contribute here?

Yes, exposing your lunacy/stupidity for what it is.

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 14:39

Nobody here thinks that a state run economy means worker control, contrary to what you were implying.

Evidently, you have a problem with those who support the DPRK, that's okay, I have a problem with people who support liberal bourgeois revolutions in Iran, it's alright, we can still be friends. But I have to ask that you provide some form of intelligent response to my posts in future, instead of just quoting something from one of your own posts, which had nothing to do with my post anyway, because I didn't say that state ownership of the economy was synonymous with worker control, did I?

30th October 2009, 14:51

Nobody here thinks that a state run economy means worker control, contrary to what you were implying.

Then perhaps you could explain what you meant by this:

The DPRK's education system does indeed educate people in order to prepare them for work so that they can serve the country, is there a problem with serving the country? When you serve the country you serve the people, isn't this a good thing?

Evidently, you have a problem with those who support the DPRKThat depends on what you mean by "support". I have a problem with those who hold the ridiculous belief that the DPRK is in any way a "workers' state" or "socialist" because it is hilariously false and shows how insanely dogmatic those who hold that belief really are, and their complete inability to criticially analyze, well, anything. I obviously don't have a problem with opposing imperialist intervention. See my posts in the other thread where I defended the DPRK against the Technoturds and anarchists on this site, some of whom implicitly called for imperialist intervention.

I have a problem with people who support liberal bourgeois revolutions in IranOf course you have problems with people who support democratic mass movements; you're a dogmatic douche.

it's alright, we can still be friends.No thanks.

But I have to ask that you provide some form of intelligent response to my posts in futureHow can I take you seriously when you oppose anti-dictatorial movements from below and then make wild statements like "when you serve the country you serve the people"? :rolleyes:

Искра

30th October 2009, 14:52

"Business" can be anything, a non-profit food co-op is a business, as is a billion dollar corporation.
Purpose of business is profit. Co-ops make profit. If they wouldn't how would they exist on capitalist market?

In a country like the DPRK profit for the state means profit for the people, if the state didn't make any money how would it possibly provide homes to the Korean people?
No, profit goes for military. People live in caves.

And of course, profit don't necessarily mean worker exploitation, in socialism the economy is profitable because it creates an abundance of wealth for the working class.
So you admit that socialist state is capitalist?

30th October 2009, 14:56

Purpose of business is profit. Co-ops make profit. If they wouldn't how would they exist on capitalist market?

Non-profit organizations don't make profit. That is why they are called non-profits.

No, profit goes for military. People live in caves.

Source plz.

So you admit that socialist state is capitalist?

Of course it is.

Искра

30th October 2009, 15:12

Non-profit organizations don't make profit. That is why they are called non-profits.
But that's why they are not business but associations of civil society, like NGO's.
The only function of business is profit.

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 15:13

Then perhaps you could explain what you meant by this
I don't need to, I put it in the simplest terms humanly possible. In a socialist society, if you work for the country you work for the people, are you seriously denying this?

That depends on what you mean by "support". I have a problem with those who hold the ridiculous belief that the DPRK is in any way a "workers' state" or "socialist" because it is hilariously false and shows how insanely dogmatic those who hold that belief really are, and their complete inability to criticially analyze, well, anything. I obviously don't have a problem with opposing imperialist intervention. See my posts in the other thread where I defended the DPRK against the Technoturds and anarchists on this site, some of whom implicitly called for imperialist intervention.
In that case yes, I support the DPRK, despite the fact that it is nothing like the traditional Marxism-Leninism which I prefer, they are building socialism, this is what I believe. The world is far from perfect so countries like the DPRK, Cuba, etc. are the best we have

Of course you have problems with people who support democratic mass movements; you're a dogmatic douche.
So by your reckoning Obama's election was also a democratic mass movement, right? In fact, I find a bunch of bourgeois students going out into the streets and fighting the cops to protest against the election of a specific candidate wholly undemocratic. "Hey, did you hear the news? Ahmadinejad was re-elected, the bulk of his votes came from the poor. Damn those pesky proletarians!"

No thanks.
:crying:

Purpose of business is profit. Co-ops make profit. If they wouldn't how would they exist on capitalist market?
Read what I said, "non-profit food co-op", those are my exact words, a food co-op, which doesn't make a profit, and exists.

No, profit goes for military. People live in caves.
Oh yeah, I forgot, profit goes to military, people live in caves.

So you admit that socialist state is capitalist?
Uhh, no. Capitalist state is capitalist, socialist state is socialist.

30th October 2009, 15:25

I don't need to, I put it in the simplest terms humanly possible. In a socialist society, if you work for the country you work for the people, are you seriously denying this?

Ok, so now you are claiming the DPRK is socialist. Care to back this up? What do you mean by socialist and how does the DPRK fit this definition?

In that case yes, I support the DPRK, despite the fact that it is nothing like the traditional Marxism-Leninism which I prefer, they are building socialism, this is what I believe.

Now you claim they are "building socialism". Which is it? Are they socialist or are they building socialism?

So by your reckoning Obama's election was also a democratic mass movement, right?

Yes and no. Of course the popular movement behind Obama's campaign was due to mass upset over the current system, and Obama was successfully able to channel that.

Of course, while I supported the sentiments of those engaged in this grassroots movement I didn't support their ends (the election of Obama). The situation with Iran is obviously different, though, as it wasn't simply a movement in support of Mousavi but a much broader one with much more profound and sweeping demands. But you don't know or accept any of this, so there's no point in talking about it to you.

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 17:33

Socialism is the public ownership of the economy and its assets, the means of production, so unless you consider the North Korean state to be a private entity, I'm afraid the DPRK is socialist. Now perhaps you would like to explain how they are not socialist? And if they are not, then what are they? Capitalist? Fascist? Communist? The DPRK is socialist, they are building socialism in a developing socialist country.

30th October 2009, 17:41

Socialism is the public ownership of the economy and its assets, the means of production, so unless you consider the North Korean state to be a private entity, I'm afraid the DPRK is socialist.

And here we have arrived to our conclusion. Let me quote myself again:

The problem is that these "socialists" view the state control of the economy to be synonymous with "workers' control" of the economy.

The DPRK is socialist, they are building socialism in a developing socialist country.

Either they are socialist or they are building socialism. One cannot be moving towards a destination at which one has already arrived.

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 17:50

As I have already said, I did not claim that workers have direct control over the economy. And yes, you can have a socialist country whilst building socialism, of course you can, what do you think was happening in Russia from 1922 to 1953? Perhaps you misunderstand the word, by building I mean developing, not starting from scratch, developing, they are not working towards socialism, they are already there, but they are building a more social economy and way of life. It's easy to understand, you are just being pedantic.

30th October 2009, 17:53

As I have already said, I did not claim that workers have direct control over the economy.What does public ownership mean, then?

And yes, you can have a socialist country whilst building socialism, of course you can, what do you think was happening in Russia from 1922 to 1953? Perhaps you misunderstand the word, by building I mean developing, not starting from scratch, developing, they are not working towards socialism, they are already there, but they are building a more social economy and way of life. It's easy to understand, you are just being pedantic.

So you do believe that one can "be moving towards a destination at which one has already arrived."

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 18:01

30th October 2009, 18:11

You didn't even read my post did you? No, I don't believe that one can be moving towards a destination at which one has already arrived, we established this when I said that they are already there.

Yes well in the same sentence you said they are "developing" socialism and that they are "already there". So either they are socialist or they are developing socialism. Which is it?

Oh, and public ownership means owned by the public, how much easier do you want me to make this for you?

This means nothing. Expand upon this.

Spawn of Stalin

30th October 2009, 18:23

I can't really be bothered mate. I've explained my position several times already, and I don't believe that you're so thick that you can't comprehend a few basic pieces of information when they are presented to you. It's pretty clear that you're not interested in discussing the situation in the DPRK, and that you just want to disagree with everyone.

Is the DPRK socialist? Or is it developing socialism? Regardless of my answer you are just going to disagree and come back with some meaningless shit so why should I bother? I'm a Stalinist, I've got much better things to do than play games.

manic expression

30th October 2009, 19:25

Like its typical for state communist society to have a business school.
Since I finished school in capitalism I think that I have learned quite good what's point of business. Point of business is to make profit, for it's owner. Therefore this school is teaching people how to make profit for state. And how can they make profit but exploiting the working class.

It's not about what's "typical", it's about what the Korean vanguard deems most appropriate for the situation at hand. Teaching different methods of economic management is just that: teaching different methods of economic management.

Capitalist businesses, that is to say privately-owned firms, are supposed to make profit for their owners. However, in a centrally-planned economy such as the one seen in the DPRK, no one ones the means of production as private property and so the entire relationship doesn't exist. Thus, the point of the school is to increase the productivity of the DPRK, which makes life better for Korean workers because a.) they aren't being exploited and live in a society based on collectivization and b.) their interests are being represented in all levels of government.

Also, regarding DPRK and its education, I had in my high school essay about its education (and about Vietnam's education) and I took informations from some N. Korea's web site. Unfortunately I can't find that site now (because that was 4 years ago). Anyway their educational system serves only one purpose to "educate" people for their jobs and how to serve the Country. Which is something that we have in capitalist system, don't we?In a way, you're right, as that is one of the stated goals of capitalist education systems. The difference is that the DPRK is a country that has abolished capitalism, and therefore there is no bourgeoisie to control the process of education and employment. So when North Korean workers go to their jobs, they're producing for the prosperity (and "profit") of their fellow workers.

Yes well in the same sentence you said they are "developing" socialism and that they are "already there".

If I build a house and then start renovating it, can one say that I am developing the house while living in it? Even if you have already arrived at a destination, there may be work that remains to be done.

RHIZOMES

30th October 2009, 23:53

Most Anti revisionists generally consider DPRK as a revisionist state but defend it against imperialist slander, propaganda and physical attacks. But here we have ultralefts who repeatedly use imperialist slander and propaganda against DPRK and I would not be surprised if they cheerlead an imperialist invasion against this "state capitalist" state. It seems the ultralefts have no qualms in constantly reusing western imperialist slander agsinst an embattered people.

Hopefully I'm not an imperialist dog for asking about workers control :rolleyes:

Il Medico

31st October 2009, 00:45

Janine Melnitz

31st October 2009, 01:02

^I do

RHIZOMES

31st October 2009, 02:39

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/photos/assets/photos/1084.jpg

Uhhh okay.

Stranger Than Paradise

31st October 2009, 10:01

Uhhh okay.

I think he was trying to substitute the real answer with some form of witty cartoon. He couldn't just answer because he would have to say no. Because there isn't workers control in the DPRK, and there never will be.

It is neither building Socialism nor Socialism. It is a bourgeois dictatorship. Anyone who disagrees should go and worship Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il who by the way in 2002 said this:

Money should be capable of measuring the worth of all commodities.

Also: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10858/#p5

Spawn of Stalin

31st October 2009, 12:23

Ok, question to the Marxist-Leninist here. If as socialist said, you consider North Korea to be a revisionist regime(and thus not communist). Why would you defend them any more than any other anti-imperialist state? Why don't you defend Iran or Venezuela with equal fervor as you do North Korea?
I defend North Korea, Iran and Venezuela purely for the reason that I believe in self-determination and anti-imperialism, obviously I completely support North Korea and the Juche Idea, although I do see some positive things in Iran and Venezuela too, especially Venezuela. I defend all of these countries but the simple fact is, North Korea comes up in conversation way more than the other two, so naturally we have to defend it more. As for revisionism, I personally believe that it was, to a certain degree at least, necessary for the DPRK to revise due to the situation that they were in at the time, and are still in today, whereas Khrushchevite revisionism was just pointless, things were fine under Stalin and Khrushchev could have kept them that way but he chose not to. Revisionism should be opposed but as Marxist-Leninists we are not afraid to point out the positive aspects of any regime.