"It's all bourgeois propaganda to me."

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

How do leftists here go about judging a regime or a movement? What qualifies any regime or movement as worthy of leftist support? I see there are several here who support Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and North Korea, for example. Are these “rogue states” supported merely because they hold an anti-imperialist stance? If this is the criteria, I’d imagine that the Taliban, being anti-imperialist (well at least against Western imperialism), should also be supported, right? But, perhaps anti-imperialism is not the only prerequisite. Perhaps North Korea really is a socialist state or at least evinces some characteristics of nascent socialism that I fail to see because I’m most likely being blinded by bourgeois propaganda. Or maybe not. That’s why I’m inquiring.

Furthermore, I’d like to know what sources leftists generally regard as trustworthy. Major news organizations and networks are tainted by bourgeois bias, so I’m sure most here are quite skeptical of them. But, where then do you get your news and general information (historical as well), especially concerning countries such as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Libya, Iran and a host of other countries that are usually considered by many here to be “maligned” or “demonized” by the western media? I really hope it’s not government propaganda produced by these countries, but if it is, please elucidate on why you believe it to be trustworthy.

Helpful responses would be appreciated.

[Walt]

I'd like to say that most people who do support North Korea (and there are only a few) is because it stands as a socialist state against the bourgeois population. Many people believe that North Korea is a true communist country, but others disagree. In reality, you just can't know for sure- it's such a secretive kingdom you really don't know fact from fiction, aside from what is presented by the few documentaries.

I have actually traveled to Pyongyang, I tend to try look past the propaganda as much as possible, and from what I've seen, it seems to be a genuine socialist country trying to create a classless society.

That's as much as I can contribute to this topic.

[ContrarianLemming]

i trust socialistnews.com by fourth international, various internet sites, thei nternet is, surprisingly, far more reliable then the mass media
north korea, from an anarchist perspective, is an insult to human dignity for even existing, i doubt there actually trying to create a classless society, even if they are, it doesn't justify the millions dead and the concentration camps visable from google earth, and theres hundreds of them, torture, beating, death..all for a classless society, well i say no, id rather live in a capitalist state the slowly improves in europe then a potential classless society that payed for is equality with the death of millions, with totalitarianism, with forced abortions at camps and rape
i wouldn't live in a perfect classless society liike that if given the choice, not without remembering the blood that apyed for it, and i doubt it would ever even happen
this is my beef with state socialism, with marxism

[Pierson's]

the zimbabwee government really is shit. sure, i haven't been there, but i have talked with 'westerners' who have, and with people who come from zimbabwee (and other countries in the region). the government really does manipulat elections, supporters really do go around beating up opposition supporters etc.

as for other such countries, i take most news with a grain of salt. however, if north korea really was a thriving socialist state, how come tehre are so few lights on at night?
do an image search for 'north korea at night'.

[blake 3:17]

Could you restate the question?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Leftist movements have to be about secularization and progress. Which is embodied in Marxist theory, social democrats, liberals, left anarchists.

Zapatistas, Anarcho-communists in Spain, Pre-embargo Cuba, (Yes, the embargo accounts for most of the economic problems which lead to the social issues), the Russian revolution pre-Stalin, etc. These would be considered far/radical left movements.

Less/none radical leftist views would be held by those progressive capitalists and social democrats. Unlike the radicals who want to eliminate the status quo, they merely want a minor to median shift. Progressive capitalists (Liberals) want minor economic reform, and more social freedoms, whilst social democrats want a social safety net, a mixed economy (median economic reform) which includes safety nets, emphasis on people and labour rights, etc. and more social freedoms.

Hope that helps.

[Frantz Fanon]

that is such a bourgeois question

[Robespierre2.0]

however, if north korea really was a thriving socialist state, how come tehre are so few lights on at night?
do an image search for 'north korea at night'.

... because we measure whether or not a nation is socialist or thriving based upon whether or not they leave their lights on at night?

Say, have you ever heard of the concept of 'economic strangulation' or 'shortages'? No?
I suggest you familiarize yourself with those terms.

Ever considered the fact that, by citing that map, you're holding North Korea, a nation with many powerful enemies and few reliable friends, to the same standards as a puppet regime that the United States keeps pumping economic assistance into?
Ever considered that, perhaps, leaving the lights on all night is a colossal waste of energy?

Mind you, the United States was quite content to let South Korea stagnate economically under the boot of various military despots throughout the 70s and 80s while the North prospered.

[mikelepore]

What qualifies any regime or movement as worthy of leftist support?

I would like to know what "support" means. Does it mean saying "Yay!" and "Horray!", and waving one's hands back and forth? Other than the act of self-expression, in what way is supporting something a form of doing anything?

Another word in this category is "demand." I don't know what it means when people say they demand things. The only action I see there is self-expression. It's more like performance art than it is like a step toward social change.

[Tatarin]

To get to the root, none of the current countries are really supported. I mean, we are after all communists, and communists do not support states, but see them as necessary tools of oppression or transition.

However, one can lend some support to some current movements and states, like the Maoists in Nepal and India, Venezuela (out of lack of any other progressive movement) and, of course, communist parties wishing for true change (not like some of the Eastern European "communist parties" which are barely social-democratic, if even that).

Furthermore, other states and movements can be, for lack of a better word, be "passively supported". For example, Iraq under Saddam Hussein could be defended not as a socialist or even progressive state, but defended against imperialist invasion, like Libya and North Korea. That wouldn't immediately mean that anything those countries do or did is defendable.

I don't know, but I think that most people on the left have this thing in common, that we all do not see things in black and white. The right wing is fond of "heroes" like Winston Churchill, as he "won the war" (by himself, of course) his negative and even disgusting views on some people are hidden behind "everyone was like that then". The left wing, in any case, have many differences. While you can find many agreeing with Marx, some completely disagree with Lenin or Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro and so on. I'm sure you can find people who agree with anything branded "leftist" (such "communists" as Idi Amin or Pol Pot).

Just as many on the left agree that the fall of the Soviet Union was a negative thing in general, you will find that the "real USSR" either failed around the time Gorbatchef went into office or when Andropov died, or when Stalin died, Krushev and so on.

I think this is why the left tends to be splintered in times like these. If we were as the right wing is, cementing heroes that can not be questioned by anyone considered a leftist, then perhaps we would have one "left party" in each country picking up people who are convinced by left politics. For instance, you will find many Christian Democratic parties around the western world, but no country that have more than one. In any such country, you will find social democrats, "left" parties, trotskyists, socialist party, and communist party marxists-leninists or maoists.

[Bloody Kalashnikov]

I have found Al Jazeera to be quite a left leaning source, although it is hardly socialist

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It often depends on whether the individuals concerned support 'socialism from above', or whether they think it can only come by struggle 'from below'.

If you adopt the former, you end up supporting various mass murderers who you then find you have to excuse or you have to blame this on 'bourgeois propaganda'. Either way, you end up resembling holocaust deniers -- and then, incidentally, and ironically, you find yourself rationalising a notorious 1939 treaty with those who brought us the holocaust in the first place. In short, you find yourself trying to justify the sorts of things that made you hate the system to begin with, and which made you want to change it. You end up supporting an equally vicious form of it!

On the other hand, if you adopt the latter approach, then you end being called a "wrecker" and the like. You also end up being hated both by the bourgeois press and the above 'tankies'.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm