CPN-Maoist on Juche in DPRK

[The Vegan Marxist]

The following article is from the Red Star (http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=marxistleninist.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.krishnasenonline.org%2Fthered star%2Fissues%2Fissue18%2Fmahara.htm&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fmarxistleninist.wordpress.com%2F 2008%2F11%2F30%2Fcpn-maoist-on-juche-in-dprk%2F%23comment-1944), a newspaper of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), a party that after waging people’s war in that country for over a decade now leads a revolutionary coalition government:

http://marxistleninist.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/maokim1.jpg?w=500&h=423

Jucche ideology leading to socialism

- Krishna Bahadur Mahara

After meeting with the Ambassador of Democratic People’s Republic (DPR) of Korea in Nepal, I accepted the invitation to go to Korea in September 2008. I was specially invited by the department of Information and Communication of DPR Korea to share bilateral experiences in information and communication.

The Korean political power was established through the accomplishment of a historic revolution and the continuous struggle against the remnants of the domestic feudalism inside and against imperialism outside.

In our visit, we met with the president and four vice presidents of the department of Information and Communication of DPR of Korea. One of the four vice presidents assisted us during our visit there. We formally talked with president and after we visited the Deputy General Director of International Department of the Labor Party of Korea. Our further visit was with the president of the Presidium of People’s Assembly.

The Korean people have their own history established after a protracted People’s war. We have our own clear understanding that Korea is strictly fighting against the intervention of imperialism. Therefore, we were curious to learn about Korea. It’s a natural thing to have friendly relationships between a country advancing ahead to build socialism and our party the CPN (Maoist). Although the situation of the two countries is quite different, we felt that we are similar in our agendas of independence, nationality, People’s Liberty and in building a prosperous nation with a strategic vision. The government of the People’s Republic of Korea and the Korean people has positive views towards Nepal and the Nepalese People.

Political Situation of DPR of Korea:

Some of our friends were telling us that the visit of Korea would not be so fruitful. They told us that Korea is a country isolated from the world. They have negative views towards Korea. However, as we reached Korea, we did not see this was the case. On the contrary, we found People’s Republican Korea prosperous and widely connected with world.

While viewing the political situation of any country, we should pay attention towards the leadership and the ideology that has been developed. Kim Ill Sung has developed the Juchhe ideology as a unique contribution to the international communist movement. The political system is under the command of the Korean Labor Party. Many institutions and organizations are freely operating there. Some of the institutions and organizations have neutral ideas. The Korean Labor Party has secured its position in the power. Under the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, there is a People’s Army and people’s powers. From the point of view of multiparty competition, the political system of Korea seems a closed system; however, there is no feeling of it being a closed system as we enter into the inner part of the political system. There is a committee system from top to grass roots level; citizens have authority of fundamental rights. There is a full democratic tradition to take part in discussion and debate openly. There is a systematic process to exercise democracy and synthesize the opinions of the people. In our visit and talks, we felt that a harmonious environment has been created between the state power, party, institutions and organizations for discussion and debate. The people have accepted the political power heartily. The political power has always accepted and given priority to the sentiment of the people and their necessity.

The state has provided free education and health. Everybody is employed. The government has given its priority on the fundamental rights of the people. It is fully responsible towards the people. The Korean people want to end the demarcation of North and South. They are in favor of the unification of Korea. The Korean people want the US army to leave the South. They desire the unification of Korea without external intervention.

Political Power: authoritarian or democratic?

In our point of view, the government that is imposed on the people against the interests, ambitions and aspirations of the people is authoritarian. The government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is more democratic. If the political power is run following the aspirations of the people, it is not totalitarian. The political power cannot be totalitarian. The government is responsible to all the sectors of the Korean people. There is a close relationship between the government and the people. The charge of ‘totalitarian’ is the propaganda of imperialism to conceal their misdeeds in their “democratic” countries. The Korean people strongly deny these kinds of imperialist propaganda.

I got opportunity to see some historical and cultural programs held there. We watched sports, cultural fairs and festivals. There was a huge volunteer participation of the people. We saw that the political power of Korea has not created any compulsion or obstruction against the will and aspiration of the people. They are free to think and advance ahead to develop their talent and skill. The government has given priority to their fundamental view point. The government respects and addresses public opinion and aspiration.

The government honors the qualification and capacity of the doctors, scientists, professor and scholars. We observed the Grand People’s Study Center. The young have good opportunities to develop their talent.

There is no demarcation of class division from common people to the level of the government. All have the opportunity for employment. The government has addressed the preliminary needs of the people appropriately and scientifically.

Economic condition:

The most important thing is that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has its ultimate goal to reach to socialism. The state power has developed its economic plans and programs following the track to the socialism. The first basic thing for it is that nobody is unemployed and everybody is contributing to secure a socialist goal. The second is that the work of building infrastructure is rapidly progressing. America and Europe are now in the whirlpool of economic crisis. They attack Korea only to conceal their faults and failure. The state power has made a 4-year plan to connect its national railway links with the remote villages of the country. The government has extended its internal communication throughout the country. Publication and publicity is on a broad scale. However, in Korea, people are very hopeful about their future and the full prosperity of the nation.

The economy of Korea is neither backward nor advanced. However, there has been a lot of economic development and it is continuously progressing. It is false that the Korean people are dying without food. The base of the economic progress is a cooperative system. These cooperatives are small, mid and large. People work in these cooperatives for their own livelihood and for contribution to the nation. Even private sectors are working there. There are big hotels. The government has applied a measurement for the investment of private sector.

I have seen that the socio-cultural transformation is progressing rapidly according to the need of Korea. From our 5 day visit to Korea, we have came to know that the government has adapted to the speed of the world along with science and technology. The people are in favor of progressive socio-cultural transformation. There is no inequality and discrimination.

Juchhe ideology and the aspiration of the People

Two things have deep influence over people: one the question of leadership and the other the question of ideology. People have unfathomable affection and honor to com. Kim Ill Sung. They address him “Father of the motherland”. The immortal contribution to the nation and its people by Kim Ill Sung is directly related with the liberty and independence of the Korean people. The Korean Labor party has adopted the Juchhe ideology as its guiding ideology.

The ideology has four aspects. First, Juchhe ideology gives emphasis to the unity among the workers, peasants and intellectuals. There is sickle, hammer and pen in the flag of Korean Labor Party. Second, they have held ideology strongly and concretized it into formula that ‘Man is the master of everything and can decide everything.’ It strongly grasps the conception and spirit of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that ‘only the people are the creators of history’.

Third is the principle of Independence means ‘standing on ones own feet’. The fourth one is the strong sentimental unity between leaders and people. An ideology without mass sentiment is worthless. It cannot serve the nation and its people. Korean people say that Kim Ill Sung was progressive ideologically and he has a deep love to the people.

Military policy

In course of our visit, we talked about the People’s Army. Korea calls its military strategy the “Sangun Policy”. The essence of the policy is to make the People’s Army strong for the protection of socialism. The People’s Army should always be strong for national independence and its people.

Korea has a long history of fighting against Japanese and American imperialism. If we review this history, the policy of the security of the nation is the obligation of Korea and the Korean people. Making a strong People’s Army is a necessity for the Korean people. This is necessary due to the war imposed by imperialism because there is a long history of inhuman massacres by imperialists. More than 10 million people lost their lives in such imperialist interventions. Each Korean family is a family of martyrs. We went to the War Museum there. After the seeing the War Museum, everyone is confident that the military policy of Korea is objectively correct.

International relationship:

In the course of our visit, we viewed the International friendship Exhibition. There were innumerable gifts and prizes given to Kim Ill Sung by the international friends and institutions and the people. If we take one minute for each item, 1 minute, it would take one and a half years to look at all the items present. Not only from international friends, but also Kim Ill Sung has met people from all over Korea. He has visited many places inside the country. Tourists in large numbers are visiting Korea. We found that tourists wandering over many areas in the country. The tourists are from Europe, America and other continents as well. There is always a crowd of tourist to see the international friendship exhibition. Korea has adopted a peaceful and friendly international diplomatic policy.

[RED DAVE]

In our point of view, the government that is imposed on the people against the interests, ambitions and aspirations of the people is authoritarian. The government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is more democratic. If the political power is run following the aspirations of the people, it is not totalitarian. The political power cannot be totalitarian. The government is responsible to all the sectors of the Korean people. There is a close relationship between the government and the people. The charge of ‘totalitarian’ is the propaganda of imperialism to conceal their misdeeds in their “democratic” countries. The Korean people strongly deny these kinds of imperialist propaganda.If this is the view of a leading member of the Nepalese Maoists, and reflects the view of the party, Katmandu, we have a problem.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

If this is the view of a leading member of the Nepalese Maoists, and reflects the view of the party, Katmandu, we have a problem.

RED DAVE

So you're going to judge a person who was skeptical of Korea like us, who then went to Korea & saw something completely different than what he's been told, despite the fact that you have not been there yourself? Please excuse me if I choose not to side with your opinion.

[RED DAVE]

If this is the view of a leading member of the Nepalese Maoists, and reflects the view of the party, Katmandu, we have a problem.
So you're going to judge a person who was skeptical of Korea like us, who then went to Korea & saw something completely different than what he's been told, despite the fact that you have not been there yourself? Please excuse me if I choose not to side with your opinion.Your choice. All this does is confirm that should the Nepali Maoists take power, they will institute a regime over the working class;, state capitalism, which will probably morph quite rapidly into private capitalism.

We shall see.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I hate to side with Red Dave, but quite frankly most of the things claimed in that statement on North Korea are clearly but extensions of official propaganda and reflective of a typically slanted tour. For example, it's claimed that "Everybody is employed", which is the regime's official claim, but just about every external source estimates that North Korea's unemployment rate exceeds 25 percent. Likewise, this Nepalese "comrade" buys into the line that there is no starvation in North Korea, even though it's almost universally estimated that tens and even hundreds of thousands of North Koreans starve annually and despite the fact that this has been materially proven the source of riots developing in the last year in particular. We might as well just buy into the regime's claim they "there is no torture" within their borders despite the satellite data and human testimonies we have that concretely prove it very much does exist and on a very large scale.

Moreover, "free education and health"? The regime refuses to even publicize data like life expectancy and literacy rates, which strongly suggests these figures are pretty terrible.

The UCPN(M) is no longer a serious communist party and the entire statement in the OP is just one more proof of that fact. North Korea is transparently a feudal monarchy and all but under martial law at present. That's the main thing keeping the rulers in power. It is furthermore rapidly becoming a Chinese puppet state under these massive investment deals that have been brokered lately. (One struck earlier this year secures Chinese investment in North Korea worth up to 70 percent of the North's entire economy.) The "prosperity" described in the OP statement can be shown in how North Korean workers are advertised to foreign investment firms. A typical boast about them is that they represent the lowest labor costs in Asia. North Korean people go weeks and even months without pay in many parts of the economy because the government is totally bankrupt and has no ability to pay them.

The truth is that North Korea is a standard, desperately poor, oppressed third world country. It is neither independent nor prosperous nor socialist. Those who believe otherwise today are those who simply choose to do so; those who refuse to see otherwise. We need to be willing to think more critically than that.

EDIT: To add one more thought to this, there's still another implication here with respect to the UCPN(M)'s political position. The leaders of China's Cultural Revolution rejected the idea that Kim Il Sung was a sincere communist (e.g. Jiang Jing's reference to him as a "fat revisionist"), holding that North Korea was basically a Soviet puppet and a police state. Hence the statement in the OP implies that at least some elements within this so-called Maoist party in Nepal have actually rejected the theory of social-imperialism, which is a central element of Maoism.

[theAnarch]

Look, all this stuff probably has more to do with building regional solidarity than anything else. Nepal is currently situated between two states inherently hostile to the revolution they need allies and trading partners after state power has been seized the DPRK is better than most.

despite numerous problems i don't think saying the DPRK has a feudal social and economic system is accurate

[Dimentio]

This is likely an article made in order to attract monetary and logistical support from Pyongyang.

[scarletghoul]

To add one more thought to this, there's still another implication here with respect to the UCPN(M)'s political position. The leaders of China's Cultural Revolution rejected the idea that Kim Il Sung was a sincere communist (e.g. Jiang Jing's reference to him as a "fat revisionist"), holding that North Korea was basically a Soviet puppet and a police state. Hence the statement in the OP implies that at least some elements within this so-called Maoist party in Nepal have actually rejected the theory of social-imperialism, which is a central element of Maoism.
Soooo the UCPN(M) is counterrevolutionary because they dont agree with every thing that Jiang Qing said ??

And whether you agree with the 'social imperialism' theory or not, that fact that the DPRK has outlived the USSR by 20 years and counting suggests that it was not a part of any 'Soviet Empire'.

The DPRK and the Nepali Maoists are two of the strongest forces the international proletariat has right now in the global class struggle, and it's great to see solidarity between them.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

scarletghoul wrote:
And whether you agree with the 'social imperialism' theory or not, that fact that the DPRK has outlived the USSR by 20 years and counting suggests that it was not a part of any 'Soviet Empire'.

The fact that a state exists does not make it socialist or progressive. North Korea barely survived the collapse of the Soviet Union in fact, and was bankrupted precisely by its relationship thereto. Since the Soviet Union's collapse, North Korea has been in perpetual recession, which has only accelerated in recent years. Initially Kim Jong Il sought the remedy of investment by South Korea. That failed. Now the solution is viewed as being the securing of Chinese investment, as I pointed out before. Pyongyang perpetually has to latch on tightly to some other, wealthier country in order to survive. This fact makes a mockery out of the "juche" ("self-sufficiency") ideology they profess.


Soooo the UCPN(M) is counterrevolutionary because they dont agree with every thing that Jiang Qing said ??

Such fabrications on your part will be ignored. I never said anything to the effect and you know it.


theAnarch wrote:
despite numerous problems i don't think saying the DPRK has a feudal social and economic system is accurate

I present paragraphs filled with hard facts and get one Thank. Anarch presents an unsubstantiated opinion and gets four. Figures. :lol:

ALRIGHT, I'm done here folks. This isn't going anywhere.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And whether you agree with the 'social imperialism' theory or not, that fact that the DPRK has outlived the USSR by 20 years and counting suggests that it was not a part of any 'Soviet Empire'.

The DPRK hasn't really survived on it's own volition, though. It's kept on life-support by China, which uses the DPRK for strategic reasons (certainly not out of any ideological ones).

[Nachie]

Y'all this is completely insane.

The DPRK removed all mention of "communism" from its constitution back in like the 90's or something. Are you really so confused and desperate for a sense of relevancy on the world stage that you're willing to swallow the idea that North Korea of all places is "progressing towards socialism"?

For chrissakes people go outside and get some sun.

[gorillafuck]

So you're going to judge a person who was skeptical of Korea like us, who then went to Korea & saw something completely different than what he's been told, despite the fact that you have not been there yourself? Please excuse me if I choose not to side with your opinion.
Being in a Maoist party (which is trying to build alliances, which could very obviously sway what they say) does not make your opinion more valid than others who have visited the DPRK and reported very, very different things.


Even private sectors are working there.
Even private sectors?! Awesome!

[Saorsa]

Meh. I thought the article was rubbish when I first saw it and I think the same thing now. the DPRK is not a proletarian state in any way whatsoever.

The UCPN (M) don't have many allies in Asia. I think it's obvious what this article is really about. That's realpolitik for you - revolutionaries who are actually struggling for state power in the real world sometimes need to use it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Even private sectors?! Awesome!

They've got to fall back on some capitalist production at the time being I'm sure. Lenin saw this as a necessary, but also temporary retreat in order to lift themselves back up again. Not saying this is what they're doing necessarily, but it's a possibility.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The fact that a state exists does not make it socialist or progressive. North Korea barely survived the collapse of the Soviet Union in fact, and was bankrupted precisely by its relationship thereto. Since the Soviet Union's collapse, North Korea has been in perpetual recession, which has only accelerated in recent years. Initially Kim Jong Il sought the remedy of investment by South Korea. That failed. Now the solution is viewed as being the securing of Chinese investment, as I pointed out before. Pyongyang perpetually has to latch on tightly to some other, wealthier country in order to survive. This fact makes a mockery out of the "juche" ("self-sufficiency") ideology they profess.



Such fabrications on your part will be ignored. I never said anything to the effect and you know it.



I present paragraphs filled with hard facts and get one Thank. Anarch presents an unsubstantiated opinion and gets four. Figures. :lol:

ALRIGHT, I'm done here folks. This isn't going anywhere.

We appreciate your opinion, don't get us wrong, but we're in a stance of differentiated opinions here. But what you presented were possible facts. You mind giving us links to try & show some credibility to your argument please.

[scarletghoul]

I present paragraphs filled with hard facts and get one Thank. Anarch presents an unsubstantiated opinion and gets four. Figures. :lol:
Yeah the thanks system is one of the worst things to happen to RevLeft; it just encourages one-liners and tendency circlewanking.

[Saorsa]

^ You're just jealous cos I have a bigger reputation than you

[Soviet dude]

Y'all this is completely insane.

The DPRK removed all mention of "communism" from its constitution back in like the 90's or something. Are you really so confused and desperate for a sense of relevancy on the world stage that you're willing to swallow the idea that North Korea of all places is "progressing towards socialism"?

For chrissakes people go outside and get some sun.

The official translation of the original text of the Constitution of the DPRK had only two uses of the word communism.



Article 29
Socialism and Communism are built by the creative labor of the working masses.





Article 40
The DPRK shall, by carrying out a thorough cultural revolution, train the working people to be builders of socialism and communism equipped with a profound knowledge of nature and society and a high level of culture and technology, thus making the whole of society intellectual.


The modern version says:



Article 29. Socialism is built by the creative labor of the working masses.



Article 40. The DPRK shall, by thoroughly carrying out the cultural revolution, train all people as builders of socialism who have a profound knowledge of nature and society and high cultural and technological standards, and intellectualize the whole of society.


Don't see what the fuss is over. The new language is actually clearer, because no society yet is in the process of building communism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What else is new? The Maoists in the Philippines have been praising the DPRK for years.

The Communist Party of the Philippines extends its warmest greetings to Comrade Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, chairman of the National Defense Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and respected leader of the Korean people on his birthday on 16 February.

Central Committee
Communist Party of the Philippines

Comrade Kim Jong Il has continued and developed the Juche idea introduced by Comrade Kim Il Sung as the guiding principle in building a strong and progressive socialist country.

Under Comrade Kim Jong Il's leadership, the Workers' Party of Korea has built a powerful Korean People's Army that is confident and capable of defending the motherland from external threats. Under his leadership the Workers' Party of Korea, the Korean People's Army and the Korean people have stood as one in asserting national sovereignty in the face of numerous attempts at bullying by the imperialist powers led by the United States.

Comrade Kim Jong Il has welded the unity of the people in overcoming many difficulties brought about by natural calamities and economic blockades imposed by the imperialists who wish to destroy Korea's socialist revolution and construction.

We support the Korean people's profound aspiration for the independent reunification of Korea, for peace and progress. Under Comrade Kim Jong Il's wise leadership, we hope that the Korean people will realize this deep national desire in the near future.

We wish Comrade Kim Jong Il, the Workers' Party of Korea and the Korean people more victories in the future in your struggle to build a society free from exploitation, a nation with dignity and a progressive and prosperous socialist country.

The Communist Party of the Philippines and the revolutionary Filipino people are ever committed to pursue our common cause of building a better world for mankind free from the exploitative and oppressive imperialist system, a world free from the dangers of war, a world of solidarity, friendship and cooperation among peoples.

LONG LIVE COMRADE KIM JONG IL!
LONG LIVE THE UNITY OF THE PARTY, ARMY AND PEOPLE!
SUPPORT THE INDEPENDENT REUNIFICATION OF KOREA!
LONG LIVE SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM!
LONG LIVE MARXISM-LENINISM!
LONG LIVE PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!

************************************************** *********************

Message Of Greetings On The Occasion Of The Birth Anniversary Of Comrade Kim Jong Il

Luis G. Jalandoni
Chief International Representative
National Democratic Front of the Philippines

On behalf of the 17 revolutionary allied organizations of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Filipino people, the NDFP extends its warmest comradely greetings to Comrade Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the occasion of his birth anniversary on 16th February.

Born amid the flames of the struggle against the Japanese war of aggression and occupation, Comrade Kim Jong Il grew in an environment of intense struggle against imperialism and during the great undertaking of constructing socialism in his beloved Korea. Armed with the correct ideological and political principles, he has helped develop and strengthen the Workers' Party of Korea and the Korean People's Army into a force that is ever-ready and capable to defeat any enemy that would attack and invade Korea and seek to reverse the victories of the Korean people.

Comrade Kim Jong Il's trust in the Korean people has forged unity among the Party, the People's Army and the Korean people. This unity continues to be an invincible force in facing the imperialist enemy and overcoming the effects of natural disasters.

Amidst the onslaught of political, economic and military attacks and threats of US imperialism, the Korean people, under the leadership of Comrade Kim Jong Il, have time and again defended Korea's independence and national sovereignty. Not only have they determinedly countered these attacks and threats, they have defended the gains that the people and the Party won in their struggle against imperialism and reaction.

The struggle of the Korean people, like the struggle of the Filipino people, against imperialism is part of an ever-growing and intensifying international fight against imperialism and reaction. With every victory of the people, the enemy is weakened and international solidarity is forged and strengthened.

We join Comrade Kim Jong Il and the Korean people in their fervent aspiration for the peaceful reunification of their country under the banner of independence, peace and national unity.

Long live Comrade Kim Jong Il!
Long live the Korean people!
Long live international solidarity!


************************************************** *********************

Birthday Greetings Of Makibaka To Comrade Kim Jong Il

Coni Ledesma
Makibaka International Spokesperson
Utrecht, the Netherlands

MAKIBAKA, a revolutionary organization of Filipino women and an allied organization in the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), extends warmest birthday greetings to Comrade Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission of the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea.

From his early years, Comrade Kim Jong Il has been involved in revolutionary work to build and strengthen the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He took over the reins of government after the death of his father, Kim Il Sung. Under his leadership, the Korean people have continued to build Korea as a strong nation, uphold and defend its independence and sovereignty, overcome natural disasters and persevere in building socialism.

He has earned the love and respect of the Korean people because of his continued efforts to safeguard the gains of the revolution and build a better world for them. His untiring efforts at working for the peaceful reunification of Korea answer the long cherished dream of the Korean people.

The Korean women appreciate the achievements of their nation under the leadership of Comrade Kim Jong Il.

We wish Comrade Kim Jong Il many more fruitful years of service to the people.

Long live Comrade Kim Jong Il!
Long live the Korean People!
Long live the solidarity between the Filipino people and Korean people!

********************************

CPP Information Bureau
The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) today extended greetings to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) for its successful launch into space of a communications satellite yesterday. At the same time, the CPP scored the US government and its allies "for their hypocritical condemnation and demonization of the DPRK's satellite launch as a missile test and a provocative threat to peace."
"Yesterday's launch into space of a communications satellite shows the technological advances achieved by the DPRK in its perseverance at defending itself and building socialism in defiance of the relentless efforts of the imperialist powers to isolate and punish it for its staunch independence and anti-imperialism. The US and other imperialist powers spew utter hatred of the DPRK and its people and all others who fight for and are able to hold on to their independence and forge their own advances," said the CPP.
The CPP noted that in the past years, the DPRK has been able to achieve big advances in technology and break the monopoly of the imperialists in high technology.
"By launching a communications satellite, the DPRK is poised to break imperialist monopoly in global media transmission. Not only would it be able to use this as a platform to shatter the imperialist lies against the DPRK, but also facilitate its use by other oppressed nations and peoples to show the world their real situation and to propagate their calls and fight against the evils of imperialism," added the CPP.
"The US imperialists and its allies are all the more terrified that the communications satellite launch at the same time showed that the DPRK has proven its capability of launching long-range rockets that could theoretically reach Alaska and threaten the US itself. This adds to the US and other imperialist powers' already long-standing worry about DPRK's now proven nuclear capability and its breaking of the imperialists' monopoly of advanced weaponry," the CPP said further.
"The imperialists' condemnation of the DPRK's satellite launch as a missile launch and a provocation against the US, Japan and other countries reveal their hypocrisy as they zealously try to hold on to their monopoly of the advanced weaponry they use to threaten and subjugate other countries."
"The US imperialists are upset that the DPRK has been able to peacefully attain advances for its economy and self-defense. They will stop at nothing until the DPRK can be forced to be brought down to its knees," said the CPP. "But the DPRK has demonstrated that it will not bend in the face of threats by the US and other imperialist powers, and will continue to move forward with its independent program for socialist progress."

[t.shonku]

Cmon guys,the North Koreans aren’t bad the western media basically demonizes them and potrays the North Koreans as evil.North Korea 40yrs ago was more developed than Southern counterpart,currently it is experiencing difficulties because of US led economic war against the DPRK.I think DPRK deserves some credit for not bowing down before US bullying despite all odds.
As far as Nepalese Maoists goes they need ally,their enemy’s have military support from India and Israel,Israel is selling tanks to the Nepalese capitalist army and India is providing money and INSAS rifles.In such a condition they need a dedicated ally like DPRK, I think it is a smart move in Comrade Prachandas part

[Homo Songun]

The CPP and the UCPN(M) are the most prominent and successful Maoist parties in the world today. I think the anti-Juche Maoists should think long and hard about why these lions of their movement have the attitude that they do with regards to the DPRK.

[Saorsa]

The CPI (Maoist) need to be mentioned as well. They're the big three.

[pranabjyoti]

The problem with most of the comrades here including me is that, WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT DPRK and our main source of information is imperialist media. Therefore, at least I don't want to jump straight into this troubled water. I think, we must have proper information to back our thoughts.

[maskerade]

Your choice. All this does is confirm that should the Nepali Maoists take power, they will institute a regime over the working class;, state capitalism, which will probably morph quite rapidly into private capitalism.

We shall see.

RED DAVE

It doesn't confirm anything. Just shows the opinion of one member of the Nepalese Maoists...

other than that I agree with you, North Korea's socialism is nothing but pure nonsense.

[Wanted Man]

Meh. I thought the article was rubbish when I first saw it and I think the same thing now. the DPRK is not a proletarian state in any way whatsoever.

Why is the article "rubbish"? What makes your judgement better than the people who've been there, done that, and wrote the article?

The whole thing about it being a matter of "realpolitik" sounds like a cheap excuse. What interest could the UCPN (M) probably have in this? It's not like the DPRK is in a position to give decisive assistance to the UCPN (M) or become a major trading partner to Nepal. If that is their interest, why doesn't anyone give any proof of DPRK economic interest in Nepal, rather than just idle speculation (aimed at saving face in front of virulently anti-DPRK comrades)?

Perhaps they could *gasp* mean it! Perhaps they, as well as the Philippinos, happen to genuinely believe what they say. I realise that this is troublesome to crypto-trots like the RCP who demand recognition, but haven't done half the work of actual maoists (although the RCP can at least credibly attack the KWP's revisionism). But why cry along with them? It just sounds like a knee-jerk reflex that is completely unnecessary and counter-productive. Neither the RCP nor trotskyists nor anarchists are wrong about everything, but why do some comrades try to appease them when it comes to the DPRK without even looking into the issue?

Also, what kind of solidarity with the UCPN (M) is it when you say, "Oh yeah, they're probably not being honest about this, but it's okay to lie; that's just grown-up politics"? It seems like this is just the only conceivable way to reconcile your support for the UCPN (M) with your dismissal of the DPRK. In that case, it's not really principled politics, but just an effort to "freestyle" several seemingly irreconcilable views into one convenient view that may be more popular with the rest of the left.

It doesn't even matter if you're pro- or anti-DPRK, but surely the idea that they're sincere is more realistic than going, "It's just realpolitik guys; don't listen to these comrades, because they're not being serious!"

[Saorsa]

That's a fair criticism. And I should clarify that, of course, I don't know anything first hand about the DPRK or even Nepal. But the Maoist position on the DPRK has for a long time been that it is not a socialist state, and I'm sure the views of comrade Mahara are not shared by everyone in the party.

I don't have much else to say in response really, I accept and agree with your criticisms.

[The Vegan Marxist]

This may be irrelevant to Nepal, but it's relevant to the discussion on the DPRK & their struggle today & the reasoning behind the problems they face:


Amnesty International botches blame for North Korea’s crumbling healthcare

“Economic sanctions are, at their core, a war against public health.”
–The New England Journal of Medicine [1]

By Stephen Gowans

Amnesty International has released a report condemning the North Korean government for failing to meet “its obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to health of its citizens”, citing “significant deprivation in (North Koreans’) enjoyment of the right to adequate care, in large part due to failed or counterproductive government policies.” The report documents rundown healthcare facilities which “operate with frequent power cuts and no heat” and medical personnel who “often do not receive salaries, and many hospitals (that) function without medicines and essentials.” Horrific stories are recounted of major operations carried out without anaesthesia. Blame for this is attributed solely to the North Korean government. [2] While unstated, the implication is that DPR Korea is a failed state, whose immediate demise can only be fervently wished for (or worked toward.)

The attack is joined by Barbara Demick, the Beijing bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times and author of Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea, writing in the British newspaper, The Guardian. She acknowledges the DPR Korea’s considerable social achievements – an acknowledgement that would never have been permitted in the pages of a major Western newspaper in the depths of the Cold War – but does so only in order to show how far the country has regressed.

“The country once had an enviable healthcare system,” Demick writes, “with a network of nearly 45,000 family practioners. Some 800 hospitals and 1,000 clinics were almost free of charge for patients. They still are, but you don’t get much at the hospital these days.” Demick continues: “The school system that once allowed North Korea’s founder Kim Il-Sung (father of the current leader) to boast his country was the first in Asia to eliminate illiteracy has now collapsed. Students have no books, no paper, no pencils.” [3]
Nowhere is the role of sanctions mentioned in Demick’s account of North Korea’s “giant leap backwards” [4] or in Amnesty’s condemnation of Pyongyang for failing to safeguard the basic healthcare rights of its citizens. Instead, Demick and Amnesty point to a botched currency reform, as if it alone accounts for the country’s deep descent into poverty. Neither mention that no country has been subjected to as long and determined a campaign of economic warfare as North Korea, or that in recent years, a UN sanctions regime little different from the one that destroyed the healthcare system of Iraq in the 1990s, and led to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children under the age of five from 1991 to 1998 [5], has been imposed on a country that has struggled with food shortages since the collapse of the Soviet-led socialist trading community and as a result of a series of natural calamities. No mention either is made of Washington’s efforts to “squeeze North Korea with every financial sanction possible” with the aim of bringing about the collapse of the country’s economy, [6] and with it, its public healthcare and educational systems. What’s more, while Demick acknowledges that South Korea and other countries have sharply reduced food aid to the North, she blames North Korea’s leadership for refusing to dismantle its nuclear program and for “provocations” against the South, for inviting the aid reduction. (The provocations Demick refers to include the sinking of a South Korean corvette in March, attributed, with not a lot of evidence – and over the initial denials of the South Korean military [7] – to a North Korean submarine.) Demick and Amnesty could have condemned South Korea and the United States for using food as a weapon. Instead, Demick censures North Korea for putting itself in the position of being sanctioned, while Amnesty counsels major donors not to base food aid on political considerations, without acknowledging that this is exactly what major donors have done.

Both Amnesty and Demick operate within the framework of Western propaganda. As the North Korea specialist Tim Beal points out, Western propaganda invokes economic mismanagement as the explanation for North Korea’s collapsing economy, despite an obvious alternative explanation: sanctions. “The results — those malnourished babies,” Beal wrote prophetically three years ago, “can be blamed on the Koreans, which in turn is produced as evidence that the sanctions are desirable and necessary.” [8]

Sanctions of Mass Destruction

“In contrast to war’s easily observable casualties, the apparently nonviolent consequences of economic intervention seem like an acceptable alternative. However, recent reports suggest that economic sanctions can seriously harm the health of persons who live in targeted nations.” [9] This has been well established and widely accepted in the cases of Iraq in the 1990s and the ongoing US blockade of Cuba. Political scientists John Mueller and Karl Mueller wrote an important paper in Foreign Affairs, in which they showed that economic sanctions “may have contributed to more deaths during the post-Cold War era than all weapons of mass destruction throughout history.” [10]

“The dangers posed today by such enfeebled, impoverished, and friendless states as Iraq and North Korea are minor indeed”, they wrote in 1999. It might be added that the dangers posed by North Korea to the physical safety of US citizens are not only minor but infinitesimally small. Notwithstanding the fevered fantasies of rightwing commentators, North Korea has neither the means, nor the required death wish, to strike the United States. However, the danger the country poses to the idea of US domination – and hence, to the banks, corporations, and major investors who dominate US policy-making – are admittedly somewhat greater.
“Severe economic sanctions”, the Muellers contend, ought to be “designated by the older label of ‘economic warfare’”. “In past wars economic embargoes caused huge numbers of deaths. Some 750,000 German civilians may have died because of the Allied naval blockade during World War I.” [11]

“So long as they can coordinate their efforts,” the two political scientists continue, “the big countries have at their disposal a credible, inexpensive and potent weapon for use against small and medium-sized foes. The dominant powers have shown that they can inflict enormous pain at remarkably little cost to themselves or the global economy. Indeed, in a matter of months or years whole economies can be devastated…” [12] And with devastated economies, come crumbling healthcare systems and failure to provide for the basic healthcare rights of the population.

Sixty Years of Sanctions

From the moment it imposed a total embargo on exports to North Korea three days after the Korean War began in June 1950, the United States has maintained an uninterrupted regime of economic, financial, and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea. [13] These include:

o Limits on the export of goods and services.
o Prohibition of most foreign aid and agricultural sales.
o A ban on Export-Import Bank funding.
o Denial of favourable trade terms.
o Prohibition of imports from North Korea.
o Blocking of any loan or funding through international financial institutions.
o Limits on export licensing of food and medicine for export to North Korea.
o A ban on government financing of food and medicine exports to North Korea.
o Prohibition on import and export transactions related to transportation.
o A ban on dual-use exports (i.e., civilian goods that could be adapted to military purposes.)
o Prohibition on certain commercial banking transactions. [14]

In recent years, US sanctions have been complemented by “efforts to freeze assets and cut off financial flows” [15] by blocking banks that deal with North Korean companies from access to the US banking system. The intended effect is to make North Korea a banking pariah that no bank in the world will touch. Former US President George W. Bush was “determined to squeeze North Korea with every financial sanction possible” until its economy collapsed. [16] The Obama administration has not departed from the Bush policies of financial strangulation.

Washington has also acted to broaden the bite of sanctions, pressing other countries to join its campaign of economic warfare against a country it faults for maintaining a Marxist-Leninist system and non-market economy. [17] This has included the sponsoring of a United Nations Security Council resolution compelling all nations to refrain for exporting dual-use items to North Korea (a repeat of the sanctions regime that led to the crumbling of Iraq’s healthcare system in the 1990s.) Washington has even gone so far as to pressure China (unsuccessfully) to cut off North Korea’s supply of oil. [18]

Dual-Use Sanctions: 1990s Iraq Redux

The Amnesty report blames Pyongyang for a shortage of syringes at hospitals. Yet in the 1990s Iraq suffered from a similar shortage, not due to failed government policies, but because “the importation of some desperately needed materials [had] been delayed or denied because of concerns that they might contribute to Iraq’s WMD programs. Supplies of syringes were held up for half a year because of fears they might be used in creating anthrax spores.” [19] Like Iraq in the 1990s, North Korea is under sanctions that ban dual use items – goods that have important civilian uses but might also be used in the production of weapons. “Medical diagnostic techniques that use radioactive particles, once common in Iraq, [were] banned under the sanctions, and plastic bags needed for blood transfusions [were] restricted.” [20] On October 14, 2006 the United Nations Security Council banned the export to DRP Korea of any goods, including those used for civilian purposes, which could contribute to WMD-related programs – the very same sanctions that led, at minimum, to hundreds of thousands of deaths in 1990s Iraq when the export of potentially weapons-related material, also essential to the maintenance of sanitation, water treatment and healthcare infrastructure, was held up or blocked. Not a word of the escalating sanctions regime against North Korea is mentioned in the Amnesty report, an omission so glaring as to resemble a report on the post-World War II devastation of Europe that says nothing of the string of Nazi aggressions that caused it.

Kaesong, the vast industrial park of South Korean factories employing North Korean workers situated near the South Korea-North Korea border, provides an example of how ridiculously wide the dual-use sanctions net can be cast. “U.S. officials blocked the installation of a South Korean switchboard system at Kaesong on grounds that the equipment contained components that could have been adapted for military use. As a result…the 15 companies operating at Kaesong share a single phone line, and messages must often be hand-delivered across the border.” [21] While dual-use sanctions may appear to be targeted, just about any item required for the provision of basic healthcare, sanitation, and educational rights – chlorine, syringes, x-ray equipment, medical isotopes, blood transfusion bags, even graphite for pencils – can be construed to have military uses and therefore banned for export.

Most of North Korea’s trade after the fall of the Soviet Union was with China, Japan and South Korea. In 2002, Japan banned the export of rice to North Korea and effectively prohibited North Korean ships from using Japanese ports. [22] In 2009, Tokyo went further, imposing a total ban on exports to the beleaguered country. [23] No wonder former US President George W. Bush called North Korea “the most sanctioned nation in the world”. [24]

Food as a Weapon

The Amnesty report recommends that “major donors and neighbouring countries…ensure that the provision of humanitarian assistance in North Korea is based on need and is not subject to political conditions”. In making this recommendation, the rights organization tacitly acknowledges that humanitarian assistance has indeed been subject to political conditions. (If this practice was unheard of, why make the recommendation?) In fact, the United States, Japan and South Korea have used food aid as a weapon. “After Pyongyang test-fired missiles in July (2006), South Korea announced plans to eliminate the 500,000 tons in annual food aid it provides directly to North Korea.” At the same time, food aid from China dropped one-third. [25] And in 2005, the Bush administration cut off all food aid to North Korea. [26] In all instances, humanitarian assistance was withheld to exact concessions from Pyongyang.

Amnesty International and Imperialism

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognized in 1997 that sanctions “often cause significant disruptions in the distribution of food, pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies, jeopardize the quality of food and the availability of clean drinking water, severely interfere with the functioning of basic health and educational systems, and undermine the right to work.” [27] These disruptions were evident in Iraq in the 1990s, and led to the crumbling of the country’s healthcare system, contributing to what the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, called “a de facto genocide.” [28] Additionally, the deleterious effects of US economic warfare on the Cuban healthcare system are uncontested except by anti-Castro émigrés and the US government. [29] If we recognize that “economic sanctions are, at their core, a war against public health” and acknowledge, as a former US president has, that North Korea is “the most sanctioned nation in the world,” it is difficult not to draw the obvious conclusion: that North Korea’s crumbling healthcare system and “great leap backwards” are not due in large measure to Pyongyang’s “failed or counterproductive” policies, but to the inhumane policies of the United States, Japan and South Korea.

Amnesty’s failure to point to the role played by the United States and its allies in undermining the conditions that would allow Pyongyang to fulfill the healthcare and other rights of North Koreans, and its willingness to play a part in legitimizing Washington’s foreign policy agenda, is not without precedent. While Amnesty was critical of the human rights record of apartheid South Africa, it alone among human rights organizations refused to denounce apartheid itself. [30] The organization also refused to condemn the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia [31], even though it was an exercise in imperial predation that denied the rights of many innocent Yugoslavs to life, security of the person and employment. Amnesty excused its inaction on grounds that it is not an antiwar organization, as if war and human rights are not often inextricably bound. The war on Yugoslavia certainly was, at least rhetorically, since NATO invoked the language of human rights to justify its attack. But Amnesty’s most egregious service to the propaganda requirements of US foreign policy came in 1991, when the rights group released a report in the run-up to the Gulf War claiming that Iraqi soldiers had thrown Kuwaiti babies from incubators. This was a hoax, perpetrated by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, orchestrated by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which had been hired to launch a propaganda campaign to galvanize public support for a US war on Iraq. When US President George H.W. Bush appeared on television to announce that he was readying for war on Iraq, he had a copy of the Amnesty report in his hands. [32]

Conclusion

A Western-based organization, Amnesty has proven itself time and again to be incapable of operating outside the propaganda system of Western governments, and at times has acted to justify the imperialism of dominant powers or turned a blind eye to it. In its latest North Korea report it has made an invaluable contribution to the campaign of the United States and its East Asian allies to bring down one of the world’s few remaining top-to-bottom alternatives to capitalism and Third World dependency on the United States and former colonial powers. It has done so by fulfilling the two requirements needed for an anti-North Korea propaganda campaign to work: First, to cover up the role played by the United States, Japan and South Korea in starving the country’s healthcare and educational systems of necessary inputs, and second, to blame the ensuing chaos on the North Korean government. The action of Amnesty in misdirecting responsibility for this tragedy is no less shameful than that of the governments that have perpetrated it.

1. Eisenberg L, “The sleep of reason produces monsters—human costs of economic sanctions,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1997; 336:1248-50. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/336/17/1247
2. Amnesty International, “The crumbling state of health care in North Korea”, July 2010. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/001/2010/en/13a097fc-4bda-4119-aae5-73e0dd446193/asa240012010en.pdf
3. Barbara Demick, “North Korea’s giant leap backwards”, The Guardian (UK), July 17, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/17/north-korea-famine-fears
4. Ibid.
5. “Iraq surveys show ‘humanitarian emergency’”, UNICEF.org, August 12, 1999. http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
6. The New York Times, September 13, 2006.
7. Stephen Gowans, “The sinking of the Cheonan”, PSLweb.org, May 27, 2010. http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14044&news_iv_ctrl=2801
8. Tim Beal, “Invisible WMD- the effect of sanctions”, Pyongyang Report, Volume 9, Number 4, October 2007. http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/pyr9_4.mht
9. Karine Morin and Steven H. Miles, “Position paper: The health effects of economic sanctions and embargoes: The role of health professionals”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 132, Number 2, 18 January 2000. http://www.annals.org/content/132/2/158.abstract
10. John Mueller and Karl Mueller, “Sanctions of mass destruction”, Foreign Affairs, Volume 78, Number 3, May/June 1999.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Dianne E. Rennack, “North Korea: Economic sanctions”, Congressional Research Service, October 17, 2006. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31696.pdf
14. Ibid.
15. Mark Landler, “Envoy to coordinate North Korea sanctions”, The New York Times, June 27, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/world/americas/27diplo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
16. The New York Times, September 13, 2006.
17. According to Rennack, the following US sanctions have been imposed on North Korea for reasons listed as either “communism”, “non-market economy” or “communism and market disruption”: prohibition on foreign aid; prohibition on Export-Import Bank funding; limits on the exports or goods and services; denial of favorable trade terms.
18. The Washington Post, June 24, 2005.
19. Mueller and Mueller.
20. Ibid.
21. The Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
22. Rennack.
23. “KCNA dismisses Japan’s frantic anti-DPRK racket”, KCNA, June 23, 2009.
24. U.S. News & World Report, June 26, 2008; The New York Times, July 6, 2008.
25. The Los Angeles Times, October 25, 2006.
26. The Washington Post, May 16, 2008.
27. United Nations Economic and Social Council, “The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights”, December 12, 1997. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/974080d2db3ec66d802565c5003b2f57?Opendocument
28. Denis J. Halliday, “The Deadly and Illegal Consequences of Economic Sanctions on the People of Iraq”, Brown Journal of World Affairs, Winter/Spring 2000 – Volume VII, Issue 1. http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/archive/7.1/Essays/Halliday.pdf
29. Richard Garfield and Sarah Santana, “The Impact of the Economic Crisis and US Embargo on Health in Cuba”, American Journal of Public Health, January 19997, Volume 87, Number 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380757/
30. Francis A. Boyle and Dennis Bernstein, “Interview with Francis Boyle. Amnesty on Jenin”, Covert Action Quarterly, Summer, 2002. http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=4573
31. Alexander Cockburn, “How the US State Dept. Recruited Human Rights Groups to Cheer On the Bombing Raids: Those Incubator Babies, Once More?” Counterpunch, April 1-15, 1999. http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005098.html
32. Boyle and Bernstein.

Source (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/amnesty-international-botches-blame-for-north-korea%E2%80%99s-crumbling-healthcare/)

[Crux]

Maybe it's a stepping stone for getting closer to the state holding DPRK above the water, China (who previously backed the nepalese king). Is opposing the DPRK regime "giving in" to anyone? Who would that be exactly?

[the last donut of the night]

Your choice. All this does is confirm that should the Nepali Maoists take power, they will institute a regime over the working class;, state capitalism, which will probably morph quite rapidly into private capitalism.

We shall see.

RED DAVE

"And in exactly 356 days, it shall rain frogs and cats upon Manchester. Any who disagree are liars, reformists, and state-capitalists. Thus is the prophecy of Red Dave. Thus has the LORD Trotsky spoken. Amen."

Have you realized how arrogant you sound here, buddy? How can you know what will happen in Nepal in the next few years? How can you know the Maoists will even win the revolution?

Again we see old white "revolutionaries" putting all those stupid brown communists into the static, predictable, and tiring category of "state-capitalists".

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm sure the Nepalese Maoists will embrace a capitalist institution at first too. Though, this isn't based on whether they want to, of course they don't. But rather, given the conditions they're in right now, if in power, like Lenin did in Russia, there'll need to be a temporary retreat to Capitalism in order to pull everything back up again. But of course, it'll be managed by the State & not privately. Red Dave is just shitting himself on his feelings.

[Homo Songun]

Maybe it's a stepping stone for getting closer to the state holding DPRK above the water, China (who previously backed the nepalese king). Is opposing the DPRK regime "giving in" to anyone? Who would that be exactly?

Thanking you - for the lulz

[Crux]

Thanking you - for the lulz
Give it a few years and it might be less than lulzworthy. Depending on where you stand I suppose. From what I gather the PSL, for example, "critically supports" the chinese regime.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Give it a few years and it might be less than lulzworthy. Depending on where you stand I suppose. From what I gather the PSL, for example, "critically supports" the chinese regime.

No they don't! They've openly criticized the chinese regime, especially how it came to be of what it is now. What they support is what's still left from the time of Mao's rule & hope to see more of it to come back up again. They're against any attack against China, for it would destroy what's left & put China much further than it is from a Socialist ruling.

[Crux]

No they don't! They've openly criticized the chinese regime, especially how it came to be of what it is now. What they support is what's still left from the time of Mao's rule & hope to see more of it to come back up again. They're against any attack against China, for it would destroy what's left & put China much further than it is from a Socialist ruling.
Well, they say a lot of things. It's no secret that they've met with representatives of the chinese regime. I am saying it is not predetermined in any way where the maoists will go.

[Saorsa]

Mayakovski has a fairly respectful and correct position towards third world revolutionaries... for a CWI member. That should be kept in mind in my opinion when talking with him - he doesn't take up the Trotskyist white man's burden like some do.

A new generation of communists is emerging. We're emerging at the same time as revolutions explode in Nepal, Latin America, India, the Philippines and elsewhere. We identify with these revolutions and support them, without assuming that because we're white and European we can tell them what to do. This is a new communist movement, and it's going to sweep away the white man's burden Trotskyists into the ashtray of history.

[Crux]

Mayakovski has a fairly respectful and correct position towards third world revolutionaries... for a CWI member. That should be kept in mind in my opinion when talking with him - he doesn't take up the Trotskyist white man's burden like some do.

A new generation of communists is emerging. We're emerging at the same time as revolutions explode in Nepal, Latin America, India, the Philippines and elsewhere. We identify with these revolutions and support them, without assuming that because we're white and European we can tell them what to do. This is a new communist movement, and it's going to sweep away the white man's burden Trotskyists into the ashtray of history.
Novelty is the oldest thing in the world. The dead have a tendency of grabbing hold of the living, something which you tend to try and dodge in favour of the "newness" of the movement. The basic ideological questions still matter very much. As for the CWI being "white", apart from england and wales our strongest sections are in Pakistan and Nigeria, but that's merely a side-point.

[Chimurenga.]

Well, they say a lot of things. It's no secret that they've met with representatives of the chinese regime.

Where and when did this happen?

[RED DAVE]

... Trotskyist white man's burden ... Still playing that old racist trumpet.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I'm not the one who thinks brown people need to be told what to do by European intellectuals.

[Crux]

I'm not the one who thinks brown people need to be told what to do by European intellectuals.
*sigh*

[Lyev]

I'm not the one who thinks brown people need to be told what to do by European intellectuals.Seriously, stop this. When someone even starts to get near to a coherent criticism you immediately whip out the racist card. Words lose their meaning if they're not used properly, so use the word "racist" in it's proper context, not as a cop-out clause because you can't be bothered to actually address the point at hand. And you also love to mention the CWI, or Trotskyism in general, when someone brings up legitimate criticism of the movement in Nepal. I appreciate hugely your updates and contributions on the subject, but let's try and engage each other in a mature manner. Offering a relevant criticism of the Nepalese Maoists does not make me or anyone else here racist. Try and convince yourself all you want, but Dave, Majakovskij and I aren't commenting on this movement in a critical manner because we're white and racist and we look down upon the "brown people" (which is a fucking stupid thing to say anyway), but because "self-criticism, remorseless, [being] cruel, and going to the core of things are the life’s breath and light of the proletarian movement", in Luxemburg's words. Dave is from the US by the way.

[Lyev]

Have you realized how arrogant you sound here, buddy? How can you know what will happen in Nepal in the next few years? How can you know the Maoists will even win the revolution.I think his point is that we can speculate as to what might happen in Nepal, especially when taking into account previous projects of the past century. I am of course referring to China and the thermidor effect there. The Nepalese situation and the situation in 1949 China hold some very distinct similarities, and the line and tactics of the CCP were (obviously not anymore though) very similar to the UCPN(M)s line and tactics. Saying "it will" happen, definitely, (i.e. implying it is completely definite) is merely a method of rhetoric I think.

[Saorsa]

Seriously, stop this. When someone even starts to get near to a coherent criticism you immediately whip out the racist card.

Not at all. I welcome and encourage genuine, concrete and constructive criticisms. But I've never seen such a criticism from the likes of Dave. The 'criticisms' all boil down to "maoism is bad, the maoists are maoists, therefore the maoists are bad and here comes state capitalism". That's not a criticism, that's a religious dogma.


Words lose their meaning if they're not used properly, so use the word "racist" in it's proper context, not as a cop-out clause because you can't be bothered to actually address the point at hand.

I have addressed these arguments time and time again. I have written massive posts and taken part in very long threads to deal with these arguments. Nowadays it's getting a bit bloody repetitive. The white man's burden Trotskyists will always criticise everything the Maoists do, because the whole basis of white man's burden Trotskyism is the idea that these ignorant and backward brown revolutionaries need to be saved from themselves by the more advanced and intelligent white intellectuals of the First World. Whatever the Maoists do, white man's burden Trotskyists like Dave will be there to denounce it. That's the role they play in the system.

It's not so much racism... more blinding, crippling arrogance.


And you also love to mention the CWI, or Trotskyism in general, when someone brings up legitimate criticism of the movement in Nepal.

Look I've got plenty of respect for a lot of individual comrades in the CWI. If nothing else, your hearts are in the right place. But politically your international is beyond terrible, and the recent article on Nepal was simultaneously one of the most poorly informed and politically arrogant I've ever seen. I bring these things up not out of spite, but because I believe they are 100% relevant.


I appreciate hugely your updates and contributions on the subject, but let's try and engage each other in a mature manner. Offering a relevant criticism of the Nepalese Maoists does not make me or anyone else here racist.

Of course it doesn't. But assuming at every juncture that a white Western Trotskyist (who has never led a revolutionary struggle for power of any kind) has the right and indeed the duty to try and tell the Nepali Maoists what they're doing wrong and what they should do instead from behind the safety of a computer screen... that's is arrogant and chauvinist to the point that it very much borders on racism.


Try and convince yourself all you want, but Dave, Majakovskij and I aren't commenting on this movement in a critical manner because we're white and racist and we look down upon the "brown people" (which is a fucking stupid thing to say anyway),

At least you and Majakovskij are critically supportive. Dave obviously desires nothing more than the defeat of the Nepali revolution, and his main agenda here is to be proven right in days to come. He delights in every setback, celebrates at every stalemate. And he definitely does look down on the backward, misguided brown people of South Asia, who are nothing without his eternally truthful Trotskyist guidance.


but because "self-criticism, remorseless, [being] cruel, and going to the core of things are the life’s breath and light of the proletarian movement", in Luxemburg's words.

Luxembourg, in that quote, was talking about revolutionaries being ruthlessly critical of *themselves*. She was not saying that intellectuals from the USA who have no experience of leading a mass struggle should pretend that they do, and constantly advise people on the other side of the world who are leading such a struggle about all their mistakes. Furthermore, Luxemburg was a revolutionary leader of great stature, involved in mass struggles at a time when revolution was a real possibility. The white man's burden Trotskyists who frequent this forum are not like that at all.


Dave is from the US by the way.

Yes, which makes him culturally and 'ethnically' European. But that's a discussion for another time.

[Crux]

I don't think "white man's burden" apply at all and it's just a dead-end for you to go there. Again, the nepalese article was written by Senan, a tamil comrade. And at least roughly half of the articles we have on Nepal have been by comrades from Pakistan, although some of the later have been by one of our swedish comrades. Sure, call an argument mechanic or secterian, but don't call it "white". Or boil it down to "hating on maoism". There is legitimate and necessary ideological critique to be made. Criticism isn't about being whiny, it is about winning.

[RED DAVE]

I'm not the one who thinks brown people need to be told what to do by European intellectuals.No, you're the one who thinks that race baiting is an appropriate political tactic.

(I could just as easily say that you are acting out on white guilt by uncritically supporting a nonwhite movement, but that would be racist. Instead, I take you and your ideas seriously.)

But what you are doing is trying to deflect possibly valid criticism of the Nepalese Maoists by what we call in the US "playing the race card."

Cut it out.

RED DAVE

[Revy]

And whether you agree with the 'social imperialism' theory or not, that fact that the DPRK has outlived the USSR by 20 years and counting suggests that it was not a part of any 'Soviet Empire'.

The DPRK was founded as a Soviet puppet state, the USSR crushed a genuine workers' revolution in the Korean peninsula in order to impose a regime favoring their own geopolitical interests. The DPRK was not founded on the victory of revolution, but on its defeat. Stalin literally chose Kim Il-sung to be ruler.

The reason the DPRK has outlived the USSR by 20 years is because it had started to isolate itself from the USSR right after Stalin died (it was never part of the Soviet Union, it was a puppet state), which is when they developed the "Juche idea". Isolated from the state-capitalist "Iron Curtain" of Eastern Europe, the late '80s and early '90s collapse had no effect on the regime.



The DPRK and the Nepali Maoists are two of the strongest forces the international proletariat has right now in the global class struggle, and it's great to see solidarity between them.The DPRK isn't leading class struggle, it doesn't give a shit about whether capitalism falls. Furthermore, dictatorships don't lead any struggle, the workers of the world will. It is concerned with maintaining its control over the people of North Korea and continuing a dynasty of dictators leading a bureaucracy.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The DPRK was founded as a Soviet puppet state, the USSR crushed a genuine workers' revolution in the Korean peninsula in order to impose a regime favoring their own geopolitical interests. The DPRK was not founded on the victory of revolution, but on its defeat. Stalin literally chose Kim Il-sung to be ruler.

There's a lot of assumptions built around these claims of yours. You mind providing any kind of historical evidence to this?


The reason the DPRK has outlived the USSR by 20 years is because it had started to isolate itself from the USSR right after Stalin died (it was never part of the Soviet Union, it was a puppet state), which is when they developed the "Juche idea". Isolated from the state-capitalist "Iron Curtain" of Eastern Europe, the late '80s and early '90s collapse had no effect on the regime.

Yes, & I don't blame them to isolate themselves from the USSR after Stalin died. Even China, when Mao was leader, went against the USSR for what it started turning into when Khrushchev came to power. His revisionist lines on a "peaceful rise" of socialism was absolutely absurd & would've brought down any regime connected to them down further than they did themselves.


The DPRK isn't leading class struggle, it doesn't give a shit about whether capitalism falls. Furthermore, dictatorships don't lead any struggle, the workers of the world will. It is concerned with maintaining its control over the people of North Korea and continuing a dynasty of dictators leading a bureaucracy.

Again, more speculations. Your claims of them not caring whether capitalism falls or not really opens up on what your opinions share. And yes, the workers will lead the struggle, but right now, given the conditions that the DPRK are in due to the sanctions put against them by the leading imperialist forces, they have no other choice but to isolate themselves, arm themselves with nuclear weapons, & keep tight security in their country. To solely blame the DPRK on these things is absolutely absurd & only helps fuels the propaganda by the imperialist forces.

[Revy]

There's a lot of assumptions built around these claims of yours. You mind providing any kind of historical evidence to this?

This. (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=205)



Yes, & I don't blame them to isolate themselves from the USSR after Stalin died. Even China, when Mao was leader, went against the USSR for what it started turning into when Khrushchev came to power. His revisionist lines on a "peaceful rise" of socialism was absolutely absurd & would've brought down any regime connected to them down further than they did themselves. Soviet revisionism began with Stalin (read Two Souls of Socialism!). Khrushchev was one of his cronies. Mao believed in a "revolutionary" bourgeoisie (Bloc of Four Classes, the reason for four stars on the PRC flag).



Again, more speculations. Your claims of them not caring whether capitalism falls or not really opens up on what your opinions share. And yes, the workers will lead the struggle, but right now, given the conditions that the DPRK are in due to the sanctions put against them by the leading imperialist forces, they have no other choice but to isolate themselves, arm themselves with nuclear weapons, & keep tight security in their country. To solely blame the DPRK on these things is absolutely absurd & only helps fuels the propaganda by the imperialist forces.You're acting like the workers have control in North Korea, which is ridiculous.

[gorillafuck]

Again we see old white "revolutionaries" putting all those stupid brown communists into the static, predictable, and tiring category of "state-capitalists".
Why do you assume red dave is white?

[scarletghoul]

The DPRK was founded as a Soviet puppet state, the USSR crushed a genuine workers' revolution in the Korean peninsula in order to impose a regime favoring their own geopolitical interests. The DPRK was not founded on the victory of revolution, but on its defeat. Stalin literally chose Kim Il-sung to be ruler.
Sorry but this is complete rubbish. The DPRK was a product of the largely communist-oriented Korean independence movement. Most Koreans supported socialism. This is also why there was such a strong revolutionary communist current in the south, which required decades of military rule to dampen and which still remains today. The DPRK was far from a Soviet puppet state- the only people who claim that are the US and their friends. DPRK was the government and system supported by the Korean people. Just look at the facts- the Soviet army was able to withdraw from North Korea in about a year, whereas the US army still hasn't withdrawn from the South after 65 years; the North Korean regime has remained much more stable and for a long time more prosperous than the South, which has had to cope with endless discontent of the masses. Make no mistake, the DPRK is the fruit of the Korean peoples' socialist revolution.

Stalin certainly did not choose Kim to be the leader. Kim was from the guerilla faction and was opposed to the seperate Soviet faction, which he later purged (along with the Maoist faction). Yes he had good relations with Stalin, but any wise statesman would in that situation. Still he was opposed to the Soviet client faction of the WPK, and it's his overcoming them which enabled him to steer DPRK on a different path later on and avoid becoming another Soviet satellite state.


The reason the DPRK has outlived the USSR by 20 years is because it had started to isolate itself from the USSR right after Stalin died (it was never part of the Soviet Union, it was a puppet state)Wait. How and why did they break away from the USSR if they were just a puppet state ?? This is a key question which you should ask yourself and try to answer.

[pranabjyoti]

Why do you assume red dave is white?
Comrades, kindly leave the decisions for Brown and black people. At least, we have this intelligence to understand who is friend and who is enemy and which suggestion to take and which to abandon. Kindly have this little faith in us and stop this kind of debate. We know that all white people are not out the same dice and I want to inform you that all brown and black people too. Kindly keep it in mind in future regarding this kind of debates.

[Queercommie Girl]

"And in exactly 356 days, it shall rain frogs and cats upon Manchester. Any who disagree are liars, reformists, and state-capitalists. Thus is the prophecy of Red Dave. Thus has the LORD Trotsky spoken. Amen."

Have you realized how arrogant you sound here, buddy? How can you know what will happen in Nepal in the next few years? How can you know the Maoists will even win the revolution?

Again we see old white "revolutionaries" putting all those stupid brown communists into the static, predictable, and tiring category of "state-capitalists".

"State-capitalism" isn't even an original Trotskyist idea. Trotsky himself never ever used this term.

Even in his exile, Trotsky had the firm belief that the Soviet Union was still essentially a worker's state, just severely deformed.

I think the concept of "deformed worker's state" makes far more sense than "state-capitalism".

Funny how some "Trotskyists" today go around with ideas and concepts which even Leon Trotsky himself would reject.

NK is a deformed worker's state IMO.

[scarletghoul]

Yes. The whole "state capitalism" thing is so annoying. It shows pretty clearly that these people are just ultra-left opportunists, and that they like Trotsky not for his theories but just because he wasn't Stalin.

I'm not a huge fan of Trotsky but he's a million times better than the third-campist Trotskyites, and I'm pretty sure he would regard DPRK as a workers' state.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I like Trotsky when it comes to his views of cops :D - "The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker."

[Homo Songun]

"State-capitalism" isn't even an original Trotskyist idea. Trotsky himself never ever used this term.

Even in his exile, Trotsky had the firm belief that the Soviet Union was still essentially a worker's state, just severely deformed.

I think the concept of "deformed worker's state" makes far more sense than "state-capitalism".

Funny how some "Trotskyists" today go around with ideas and concepts which even Leon Trotsky himself would reject.


True. That said, I give the State Cappers credit for not mechanically applying a political programme developed by someone who (being human after all) could not possibly envisage the radically changed circumstances wrought by history in the ensuing 70+ years since it was developed. Trotsky never saw the rise of the "Peoples Democracies". There is a real sense of religiosity in the way some groups continue to apply a specific platform derived from a specific historical conjucture as if it was universally applicable in all circumstances for all time.

Of course, this coming from someone with a non-Trotskyist analysis, so I don't have a horse to bet on in the Orthos vs. Statecappers debate. ;) In my view, neither the "congenital deformities" nor the "just another kind of capitalism" paradigm ever had a lot of explanatory power. And, if the Nepalese, (and after them, others) do ever succeed, I predict that these theses will get even weaker.

[DaringMehring]

What I don't understand is --- in one thread, discussing something from Prachanda like this:

" “In good English, he declares that 'we are trying our best to build a new Nepal', in which the feudal political and economic structures will be replaced by 'a more dynamic, more capitalistic, mode of production'. Did he say capitalistic? 'You are surprised to hear that from the mouth of a Maoist,' he chuckles. 'The main thing is that we are against feudalism,' by which he appears to mean a political and business establishment, working closely with the now-abolished monarchy, which was noted for a high degree of corruption. 'We have to have capitalism before we can have socialism.'"


Some Maoists say "of course, that's the two stage theory" etc. etc.


But if a Trotskyist says "state capitalist" or something similar, they blow a gasket.


Isn't it obvious, that at present, the CPN(M) is not aiming for communism and will put in some kind of social democracy or state capitalism if they get in power --- but at the same time, they are clearly the side to support in the power struggle in Nepal as there is no other formation that is as progressive as they? That's my opinion at least.

[RED DAVE]

"State-capitalism" isn't even an original Trotskyist idea. Trotsky himself never ever used this term.Correct. The term he used was "degenerated workers state."


Even in his exile, Trotsky had the firm belief that the Soviet Union was still essentially a worker's state, just severely deformed.Be careful with the word "deformed." According to Orthodox Trotskyism, a "degerated workers state" and a "deformed workers state" are two different things.

A degenerated workers state, by which is generally meant the former USSR, is a state that was once a workers state, but which has degenerated bureaucratically.

A deformed workers state, by which is meant the former East European "satellites" and China, which are structurally identical to a degenerated workers state, were never workers states in the first place. Go figure.


I think the concept of "deformed worker's state" makes far more sense than "state-capitalism".Why, when the workers have no control over industry, top, bottom or anywhere in between?


Funny how some "Trotskyists" today go around with ideas and concepts which even Leon Trotsky himself would reject.Probably so.


NK is a deformed worker's state IMO.Let's see: it had no workers revolution; workers do not control industry. So, why call it that? State capitalism, where the decisions on the rate of extraction of surplus value and the allocation of surplus value are made by a bureaucracy is accurately called state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Why, when the workers have no control over industry, top, bottom or anywhere in between?


The lack of direct political control does not imply private ownership. It's clearly not "either...or". Just because in a particular state there is no worker's democracy in the direct sense doesn't imply it must be capitalist.

Now in NK there is no real worker's democracy, true, but there is still extensive public ownership and good social welfare. I once watched a NK-made clip on the Chinese version of Youtube showing that in NK, everyone gets free housing from the state, so there are no homeless or desperately poor people like in the West. Also the Ginni index of NK is significantly lower than most Western capitalist countries. NK is economically a much more equal place, despite all its limitations on freedom. How can you say there aren't any partially progressive elements in the NK system at all? If you think the NK system should be rejected completely simply due to the lack of direct proletarian democracy, you are not being objective.

Marx says, base determines superstructure. Frankly economic equality is more important than political freedom. The "freedom" to say whatever you like means nothing if you are a homeless street rat sleeping on a street in downtown New York. I'd rather live in a country in which I can't say whatever I like but I get free housing than in a country in which I can say whatever I like but whatever I say will never be put into practice, and I'm homeless and barely live above the breadline.

"Freedom" without economic equality is a fucking joke. Every socialist should understand this.

People must first feed and clothe themselves before they can even begin to consider abstract "noble" political conceptions like "freedom".

Food is more important than "freedom". The holy grail of all political movements is ultimately to improve the daily lives of the people, not masturbate over some political slogan which sounds good and beautiful. Productive force determines productive relation. Socialism primarily cares about economic equality and living standards, and only secondarily about political "freedom". "Freedom" is important in socialism as a means to an end, not an abstract end in itself, because the lack of freedom and democracy would in the long-run inevitably lead to the restoration of bureaucratic capitalism. "Freedom" exists to guarantee that "Bread" exists for everyone, not the other way around.



Let's see: it had no workers revolution; workers do not control industry. So, why call it that? State capitalism, where the decisions on the rate of extraction of surplus value and the allocation of surplus value are made by a bureaucracy is accurately called state capitalism.
If there is no private ownership, it's not capitalism. The economy of NK is technically still public-owned, not privately-owned, just that since workers don't have direct democratic control objectively their economic rights are limited in practice. In NK the decisions on the rate of extraction of surplus value and the allocation of surplus value are still technically made collectively, by the state as a whole, but due to the absence of direct democracy, in objective reality a bureaucratic caste holds onto most of the economic power. But economic inequality is still quite insignificant in NK, compared with the capitalist West. The bureaucracy may be making decisions on behalf of the entire people, but it is not making these decisions primarily for its own private benefit. This is the same with Stalin. Stalin was a political dictator, no doubt about it, but he was also quite frugal. Economic inequality was not a problem in Stalin's deformed Soviet Union. Subjectively he was still a genuine socialist, in other words, he still thought of himself as a genuine socialist, just that he has taken the vanguardism of Lenin too far and consider everyone else as inferior and incapable of making any decisions for the good of socialism in general.

Since there is no direct private ownership of the means of production in such systems, and the de facto bureaucratic control of the means of production is not primarily utilised to satisfy private ends, it is not capitalism.

Even according to the orthodox Trotskyist line, NK is clearly a deformed worker's state, since it began its existence as a "satellite country" of the Soviet camp.

[Queercommie Girl]

A deformed workers state, by which is meant the former East European "satellites" and China, which are structurally identical to a degenerated workers state, were never workers states in the first place. Go figure.


Perhaps you should "go figure" yourself. Deformed worker's state are still "worker's states" technically, otherwise the phrase "worker's state" wouldn't even appear in this term. They just never had a historical phase where they were un-deformed and truly democratic like the USSR did under Lenin.

And the necessary solution to the deformation in the system is exactly identical for deformed worker's states and degenerated worker's states: a political revolution, not a social revolution that completely smashes the state structure for capitalist countries. That's the important practical implication of "deformed worker's states" Trots vs. "third-campist state-capitalist" Trots.

[RED DAVE]

A deformed workers state, by which is meant the former East European "satellites" and China, which are structurally identical to a degenerated workers state, were never workers states in the first place. Go figure.
Perhaps you should "go figure" yourself. Deformed worker's state are still "worker's states" technically, otherwise the phrase "worker's state" wouldn't even appear in this term.They can use any term they want. Just because they're called "workers states" doesn't make them any such things. So-called "glass lizards" are not made of glass.


They just never had a historical phase where they were un-deformed and truly democratic like the USSR did under Lenin.So tell me how a workers state can be a workers state, real, degenerated or deformed, when the workers never had state power?


And the necessary solution to the deformation in the system is exactly identical for deformed worker's states and degenerated worker's states: a political revolution, not a social revolution that completely smashes the state structure for capitalist countries. That's the important practical implication of "deformed worker's states" Trots vs. "third-campist state-capitalist" Trots.Yeah, and it never made the slightest sense. A state is an institution of class power. The stalinists states in Eastern Europe were institutions of power of the bureaucracy itself. Such a state could never be "politically" transformed into a workers state. It would have to be smashed, like the bourgeois state and replaced by a workers state.

RED DAVE

[Victory]

They can use any term they want. Just because they're called "workers states" doesn't make them any such things. So-called "glass lizards" are not made of glass.
RED DAVE

That's correct. And just because Trotskyists claim to be revolutionaries, it doesn't make them so.

Victory

[Proletarian Ultra]

State Capitalism is what we have here in the US under the Military-Industrial and FIRE complexes.

If DPRK is state capitalist they're doing it wrong. What do its functionaries get but a half-decent luxury car, a few cases of Johnny Walker and Marlboros? Maybe the odd handjob at annual party conferences. But really, peanuts.

[Lyev]

That's correct. And I'm a wanker.

VictoryFixed for you. I haven't formed a position on the degenerated workers' state vs. state capitalist debate yet but I will add, even though it's in contradiction to the CWI's official line, that it seems strange that throughout the writing's of Marx and Engels you'll constantly hear them referring to the state as "an instrument of class rule" or something along these lines. Ah found the quote, the "modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital." I realise that if the workers in any country or region seized the state-power and overthrew the bourgeoisie as a class then the "state" longer exists in the traditional sense. But at any rate how could the current PRC or former USSR have been "workers' states" when the state is "essentially a capitalist machine"? As Marx said, we cannot seize the ready-made state machinery and use it for our own purposes.

[Chimurenga.]

You're acting like the workers have control in North Korea, which is ridiculous.

You know, I've asked countless times for people to prove that workers in the DPRK have no control and no one has been able to yet. Maybe you could change that?

[Lyev]

You know, I've asked countless times for people to prove that workers in the DPRK have no control and no one has been able to yet. Maybe you could change that?Well neither can you prove that the workers have in the DPRK democratically run and control their workplaces, can you? Because we're all getting our information from the same sources. It's a very closed and secretive country. So we will be interpreting the constitution or some personality cult nonsense worshipping Kim-Jong-Il, or something from someone who has defected which most likely be greatly exaggerated and/or made-up in part or lastly something from an organisation like Amnesty International which isn't going to be very reliable either. But, from what we do know, I would wager that workers' control and democracy is somewhat thin.

[Queercommie Girl]

They can use any term they want. Just because they're called "workers states" doesn't make them any such things. So-called "glass lizards" are not made of glass.


There is no structural difference between deformed worker's states and the USSR under Stalin which was a degenerated worker's state. Historical origins are irrelevant. One could arrive at the same destination via different routes.

If you accept that Stalinist USSR was a "worker's state", the same would apply for the likes of NK and Cuba.



So tell me how a workers state can be a workers state, real, degenerated or deformed, when the workers never had state power?
Because politics is not primary, economics is. Productive forces determines productive relation. Base determines super-structure. Bread is more important than Freedom. This is Marxism 101. "Worker's states" are primarily an economic adjective, not a political one. A state is a worker's state if the overall majority of the economy is publicly/collective owned instead of privately owned, either de jure or de facto.



Yeah, and it never made the slightest sense. A state is an institution of class power. The stalinists states in Eastern Europe were institutions of power of the bureaucracy itself. Such a state could never be "politically" transformed into a workers state. It would have to be smashed, like the bourgeois state and replaced by a workers state.
So how come the USSR under Stalin was any different? In structural form there is no difference what-so-ever between a deformed worker's state and a degenerated worker's state. Historical origins are irrelevant as far as revolutionary strategy for the future is concerned.

I'm not using a Stalinist line here, I'm using a Trotskyist line. Leon Trotsky himself always thought of the Soviet Union as fundamentally still a "worker's state" even when he was still in exile.

The "bureaucracy" is not an independent class in its own right. Why? Because class is determined by economic base, not political superstructure. The bureaucracy in imperial China was still a part of the feudal landlord class, the bureaucracy in the USSR under Stalin was still a part of the proletarian class.

One problem with dogmatists and sectarians is that all they ever seem to care about is the abstract political line. Why have you not examined the low Ginni index, free public housing, comprehensive welfare, lack of homelessness etc. that exists in states like NK and Cuba? Objectively speaking are these features not relatively progressive over the capitalist USA, where if you have no money, they would let you die on the hospital bed? Is socialism primarily about economic equality and people's livelihood or is it about abstract notions of "liberty"?

I am a socialist because I care more about economic equality and equality in general than "freedom". If I cared more about freedom than equality, I would have become a political liberal, not a Marxist. Marxism never believes in abstract freedom, or a concept of freedom that is detached from its economic base.

Of course, this is not to say that I don't recognise the severe problems in the NK state due to the lack of worker's democracy. However, as I said before it's not a matter of "either or", but "both and". States like NK and Cuba possess both positive and negative, both progressive and reactionary elements, but I don't see why one can't hold both as opinions at the same time, recognising both its progressive and reactionary features.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well neither can you prove that the workers have in the DPRK democratically run and control their workplaces, can you? Because we're all getting our information from the same sources. It's a very closed and secretive country. So we will be interpreting the constitution or some personality cult nonsense worshipping Kim-Jong-Il, or something from someone who has defected which most likely be greatly exaggerated and/or made-up in part or lastly something from an organisation like Amnesty International which isn't going to be very reliable either. But, from what we do know, I would wager that workers' control and democracy is somewhat thin.

The lack of worker's democratic control is obviously a problem, and in principle without proletarian democracy, the eventual restoration of bureaucratic capitalism would be inevitable. But at the moment this has not happened in North Korea yet.

On the other hand, it is not objective to ignore some of the partially progressive features of the NK or Cuban economy: majority public-ownership, comprehensive social welfare, low Ginni index, lack of homelessness etc.

What is socialism primarily about? Is it about economic equality or some abstract notion of "political freedom"? I believe the food on my dinner table is more important than freedom. For socialists economic equality comes before political freedom. Political freedom is of course very important but it is only a means to an end, which is to guarantee economic equality. Don't turn base and superstructure upside-down. Freedom is important because it would guarantee the food on my dinner table, the food on my dinner table does not exist to guarantee freedom.

In fact, you must know Peter Taafe. In his book that mainly aims as a criticism of the SWP, he pointed out the incorrect idea of third-campist state-capitalism of the SWP, and stated that objectively speaking, the USSR and China were still very progressive in many ways, despite the lack of direct worker's democracy.

[~Spectre]

What is socialism primarily about?

Worker control of production.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

It is good to see the liberators of Nepal and the DPRK working closely together.

[Kiev Communard]

It is good to see the liberators of Nepal and the DPRK working closely together.

It is upsetting to see Nepali Maoists trying to follow the dead-ends of Juche-style "National Communism" and "national development" without taking due account of the material conditions changing drastically. They had better try to tread more principled, internationalist course, if they aspire to be something more than just one more "national liberation" movement that fell victim to the incompatibility of nationalism (patriotism) with the idea of class struggle and social liberation as a whole.

[RED DAVE]

It is good to see the liberators of Nepal and the DPRK working closely together.Wake up and smell the corpses. The DPRK is a vicious state capitalism masquerading as some kind of socialism. The Nepali Maoists, if they're going to accompish anything but state capitalism, as in China, USSR, etc., are going to have to avoid the likes of the DPRK.

RED DAVE

[kasama-rl]

I agree with much of what MDR writes above.

But then she says:


"EDIT: To add one more thought to this, there's still another implication here with respect to the UCPN(M)'s political position. The leaders of China's Cultural Revolution rejected the idea that Kim Il Sung was a sincere communist (e.g. Jiang Jing's reference to him as a "fat revisionist"), holding that North Korea was basically a Soviet puppet and a police state."

This is factually mistaken: there is no evidence (that I know of) that the leaders of the GPCR made public statements describing the DPRK as revisionist.

There is no statement by jiang jing about "fat revisionist." There was one faction of the red guards who set up loudspeakers on the Yalu Rivier and broadcast that Kim Il Sung was a fat revisionist across the border into North Korea. But this was considered rather infantile by the Chinese government, and stopped.

I tend to agree that the DPRK was not a revolutinary society. But I just wanted to make this minor factual correction.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

What is socialism primarily about? Is it about economic equality or some abstract notion of "political freedom"? I believe the food on my dinner table is more important than freedom. For socialists economic equality comes before political freedom. Political freedom is of course very important but it is only a means to an end, which is to guarantee economic equality. Don't turn base and superstructure upside-down. Freedom is important because it would guarantee the food on my dinner table, the food on my dinner table does not exist to guarantee freedom.

Actually, you have it entirely backwards. The whole point of socialism is to liberate man from the present, degrading condition of being unfree, because the evil of capitalism is that it compels a man to dedicate the bulk of his life to satisfying the economic needs of the capitalist system, rather than his own rational, creative, and social needs as an individual and as a human being.

The Marxist idea goes that because capitalism seeks to maximize production for its own sake (this is the profit motive) while minimizing the wages of the laborers (again, due to the profit motive), the system compels the worker to work as much as possible in order to produce as much as possible -- not for his own needs, which are left unsatisfied to a great extent, but for the needs of the market. This is why capitalism overproduces goods and creates an abundance of wealth while at the same time the living standards of many members of society are perpetually kept far lower than they presumably would be if production were regulated by actual human needs. The worker has no control over this.

In this way, capitalism retards the freedom and well-being of the worker, and the solution is to organize the production process in a rational and efficient way that is compelled by human needs, rather than the market's laws.

Notably, whereas in capitalist society the capitalist is permitted to enjoy freedom -- that is, to more-or-less live his life as he wants to, because of his abundant wealth -- the worker is subjected to a relatively miserable, unfree, and slave-like existence because he is compelled to work rather than develop himself as a human being. His intellectual and cultural level of development is kept down, and he is denied the opportunity to exercise his own will.

Ignorant, miserable, tattered, and hungry people -- compelled to work in order to satisfy the needs or desires of others -- aren't free human beings. All of this logically follows. It also logically follows that real freedom is simply liberation from copulsion of every conceivable sort. The whole aim of socialism is to rescue mankind from this kind of drudgery in order to enjoy a maximum level of freedom as human beings. (So it is not that "the food on my dinner table is more important than freedom" -- it's that "the food on my dinner table allows me to be free.")

That's why Marx did what he did and wrote what he wrote. That's why Marx conceived of liberation as socialism.

As Marxists, we criticize the traditional Western-liberal idea of freedom because this popular idea of "political freedom" is largely worthless without economic liberation to accompany it. Economic equality without power in the hands of the workers a contradiction in itself -- for how is it that everyone supposed to be equal if some people should exercise more powers than others? (Doesn't Marxism teach us that political and economic power do go hand-in-hand?) And if economic equality is simplified to material equality, that too is shallow: if "economic equality" of that kind were the true end in itself, then theoretically it would be enough to strip everyone alike of all but the most essential of material possessions and a new "socialist golden age" would instantly come into being.

You ask what socialism is primarily about. The answer is that socialism (at least of the Marxist type) does not simply express a pining for economic equality; it asks for a worker-run egalitarian social organization in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" in place of current bourgeois society. Dogmatic Marxists-Leninists and others who incessantly condemn the other left-wing sects for their "revisionism" may think about trying harder to grasp the content of that famous Manifesto phrase.

Moreover, I can see no evidence in favor of regarding North Korea as a workers' state, deformed or otherwise -- let alone as some kind of socialist society. The fact that its all-powerful bureaucracy makes some concessions to the working-class does not signify that it's a workers' state: the capitalist class throughout the West makes some concessions to the working class as well.

The fact that North Korea is a quite inadequate society as a whole doesn't entail that it is reactionary and bad in every last way; indeed, as socailists we can applaud the expropriation of the capitalist class and should support each and every one of the progressive measures introduced here and there. Does this mean we should support the North Korean system as a socialist society in general or laud it as some kind of model? No. Socialism brings progress, but it cannot consequently follow that evidence of progress here and there is evidence of socialism.

The question of whether you regard the all-powerful bureaucracy as a separate class or as a parasitical higher caste is theoretically interesting, but is of little practical importance as far as our stand on North Korea is concerned. Its progressive elements can be praised, but I can see no reason to speak warmly of North Korea in general terms, so long as it remains to be demonstrated how any society whose members are perpetually under the thumb of an oligarchic bureaucracy (not subject to their control) bears a proper resemblance to what Marxism actually sets out to accomplish.

I thus do not see how anyone can regard the UCPN(M) member's glowing praise of North Korea as a democratic workers' state on socialist track as a meaningful contribution.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

kasama-rl wrote:
I agree with much of what MDR writes above.

But then she says:


"EDIT: To add one more thought to this, there's still another implication here with respect to the UCPN(M)'s political position. The leaders of China's Cultural Revolution rejected the idea that Kim Il Sung was a sincere communist (e.g. Jiang Jing's reference to him as a "fat revisionist"), holding that North Korea was basically a Soviet puppet and a police state."
This is factually mistaken: there is no evidence (that I know of) that the leaders of the GPCR made public statements describing the DPRK as revisionist.

There is no statement by jiang jing about "fat revisionist." There was one faction of the red guards who set up loudspeakers on the Yalu Rivier and broadcast that Kim Il Sung was a fat revisionist across the border into North Korea. But this was considered rather infantile by the Chinese government, and stopped.

I tend to agree that the DPRK was not a revolutinary society. But I just wanted to make this minor factual correction.
I swear the source I had on that specifically mentioned Jiang Qing! Lemme see if I can find it again. It's been a while since I actually made that post now...

Ah! Here it is! Okay, I see where the source of confusion is now. The actual wording on this source is that Kim Il Sung was "denounced as a fat revisionist by the followers of Jiang Qing". I guess I had perhaps mistakenly associated "the followers of" with the person herself. Regardless, I would hold that the said assertion (revisionism on Kim Il Sung's part), however "infantile" it may have been criticized as being, really was correct.

[black magick hustla]

I guess ive done the race baiting from the opposite lense, i.e. accusing western maoists of having a fetish of brown people with guns. Both sides can play that card yout know. Anyway, now that I think about, I dont appreciate when white westerners say that my politics are eurocentric or some bullshit. Its essentially white people patronizing me and telling me I am uncletomming. Supririsingly,t no colored radical has even implied I was uncletomming, and it were always dumb white students.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually, you have it entirely backwards. The whole point of socialism is to liberate man from the present, degrading condition of being unfree, because the evil of capitalism is that it compels a man to dedicate the bulk of his life to satisfying the economic needs of the capitalist system, rather than his own rational, creative, and social needs as an individual and as a human being.

The Marxist idea goes that because capitalism seeks to maximize production for its own sake (this is the profit motive) while minimizing the wages of the laborers (again, due to the profit motive), the system compels the worker to work as much as possible in order to produce as much as possible -- not for his own needs, which are left unsatisfied to a great extent, but for the needs of the market. This is why capitalism overproduces goods and creates an abundance of wealth while at the same time the living standards of many members of society are perpetually kept far lower than they presumably would be if production were regulated by actual human needs. The worker has no control over this.

In this way, capitalism retards the freedom and well-being of the worker, and the solution is to organize the production process in a rational and efficient way that is compelled by human needs, rather than the market's laws.

Notably, whereas in capitalist society the capitalist is permitted to enjoy freedom -- that is, to more-or-less live his life as he wants to, because of his abundant wealth -- the worker is subjected to a relatively miserable, unfree, and slave-like existence because he is compelled to work rather than develop himself as a human being. His intellectual and cultural level of development is kept down, and he is denied the opportunity to exercise his own will.

Ignorant, miserable, tattered, and hungry people -- compelled to work in order to satisfy the needs or desires of others -- aren't free human beings. All of this logically follows. It also logically follows that real freedom is simply liberation from copulsion of every conceivable sort. The whole aim of socialism is to rescue mankind from this kind of drudgery in order to enjoy a maximum level of freedom as human beings. (So it is not that "the food on my dinner table is more important than freedom" -- it's that "the food on my dinner table allows me to be free.")


No need for your little Marxism 101 here. But the question is: What is freedom? For Marxists freedom is not abstract freedom, it is material freedom. It is not that "food allows you to be free", but rather food is freedom, having food means I'm free to not starve, and there can be no freedom completely detached from food. People must first feed and clothe themselves before they can engage in art and philosophy.



That's why Marx did what he did and wrote what he wrote. That's why Marx conceived of liberation as socialism.


Yes, but "liberation" primarily in terms of acquiring economic rights.



Economic equality without power in the hands of the workers a contradiction in itself -- for how is it that everyone supposed to be equal if some people should exercise more powers than others? (Doesn't Marxism teach us that political and economic power do go hand-in-hand?)


Politics and economics do go hand-in-hand in principle, but in reality it's much more complicated, hence the existence of "deformed worker's state". A discrepancy between economics and politics can indeed exist, and has existed in the past, it takes time for the situation to "correct" itself in one of two ways: either a successful political revolution of workers against the bureaucratic caste, or a social counter-revolution and changing back to capitalism. Neither has happened in NK yet, which is why it is still a deformed worker's state - a political dictatorship with a socialist economic basis based on the planned economy and public ownership of the means of production. But of course without a worker's democratic revolution in NK, it will inevitably at some point degenerate back to capitalism.



And if economic equality is simplified to material equality, that too is shallow: if "economic equality" of that kind were the true end in itself, then theoretically it would be enough to strip everyone alike of all but the most essential of material possessions and a new "socialist golden age" would instantly come into being.


Well to "strip everyone alike" in your example would clearly still require a socialist revolution.

I didn't say economic equality is just material equality in the banal sense. It is not just equality for all, but also prosperity for all, the rights of economic development for all. Poverty is not socialism.



You ask what socialism is primarily about. The answer is that socialism (at least of the Marxist type) does not simply express a pining for economic equality;


But economic equality is the most fundamental desire of Marxist socialism.



it asks for a worker-run egalitarian social organization in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" in place of current bourgeois society. Dogmatic Marxists-Leninists and others who incessantly condemn the other left-wing sects for their "revisionism" may think about trying harder to grasp the content of that famous Manifesto phrase.


Worker's democracy is important because without it economic equality can never be guaranteed. But "democracy" in the abstract sense is not the ultimate end of socialism.

"Free development" is still primarily material freedom, not abstract freedom. Consequently for there to be "free development for all" there necessarily must be economic equality and prosperity for all.



Moreover, I can see no evidence in favor of regarding North Korea as a workers' state, deformed or otherwise -- let alone as some kind of socialist society. The fact that its all-powerful bureaucracy makes some concessions to the working-class does not signify that it's a workers' state: the capitalist class throughout the West makes some concessions to the working class as well.


There are fundamental differences between the bureaucratic caste in NK and the government in Western capitalist countries:

1) In NK the bureaucracy virtually completely owns all of the means of production in the entire country; In Western countries much of the means of production in the country is directly owned by big capitalists, not the government or state;

2) In the West, the partially de facto ownership of the means of production by the government is legally based on the de jure capitalist mode of productive relation; In NK, the full de facto ownership of the means of production by the bureaucracy is legally based on the de jure socialist mode of productive relation;

3) In the West, the bureaucracy uses its de facto ownership of the means of production to direct the country's economic resources towards private ends; In NK, the bureaucracy uses its de facto ownership of the means of production not to use the country's economic resources for their own private ends, but to develop the country's public economy as a whole; therefore in NK despite being political dictators, the bureaucrats are relatively frugal (completely different from the bureaucrats in contemporary China), and consequently economic inequality is much less in NK than it is in much of the West and in China, and the NK state is able to proportionally speaking invest much more money in public welfare. (So there are no homeless people for instance since everyone gets free public housing)

The NK is no political model for socialism, and clearly it has severe structural problems that if left unchecked will inevitably lead to the restoration of bureaucratic capitalism in the country. But not to be able to qualitatively differentiate between a state like the NK and a state like China right now, for instance, will lead to the ridiculous conclusion that because both NK and China are ruled directly by the "bureaucracy", they are essentially the same kind of country, whereas in actual fact they are a world apart.



The question of whether you regard the all-powerful bureaucracy as a separate class or as a parasitical higher caste is theoretically interesting, but is of little practical importance as far as our stand on North Korea is concerned. Its progressive elements can be praised, but I can see no reason to speak warmly of North Korea in general terms, so long as it remains to be demonstrated how any society whose members are perpetually under the thumb of an oligarchic bureaucracy (not subject to their control) bears a proper resemblance to what Marxism actually sets out to accomplish.

I thus do not see how anyone can regard the UCPN(M) member's glowing praise of North Korea as a democratic workers' state on socialist track as a meaningful contribution.

NK is clearly not a democratic worker's state, due to the lack of direct worker's democracy. But the fundamental nature of the NK state is important not just in a theoretical sense. The fact that NK is a deformed worker's state means that we should be aiming for a political revolution in NK which would keep most of its state institutions intact, rather than a full-scale social revolution that we should be prepared to engage in for the Western countries. It also means externally we should still defend the NK state politically against Western imperialism.

[kasama-rl]

"I swear the source I had on that specifically mentioned Jiang Qing! Lemme see if I can find it again. It's been a while since I actually made that post now...

Ah! Here it is! Okay, I see where the source of confusion is now. The actual wording on this source is that Kim Il Sung was "denounced as a fat revisionist by the followers of Jiang Qing". "

Do we really consider an uncited sentence in wikipedia to be "a source"? The wikipedia statement is also mistaken. The act was done by Red Guards, but there is no evidence they were tied to Jiang Qing.

Why claim to have real information and research, when you are just channeling a wiki page?

MrD writes:


"Regardless, I would hold that the said assertion (revisionism on Kim Il Sung's part), however "infantile" it may have been criticized as being, really was correct."Of course Kim Il Sung was a revisionist.

You misread the discussion (again): what was criticized as infantile was not that analysis (as you mistakenly state), it was going to the border of the country and denouncing neighboring governments over loudspeakers (without thinking through the implications.)

[RED DAVE]

Jesus, Lord, give me strength.:D


NK is clearly not a democratic worker's stateNK is no kind of workers state. A workers state is based on workers control of production.


due to the lack of direct worker's democracy.There is no workers democracy, direct or indirect. Never was; never will be.


But the fundamental nature of the NK state is important not just in a theoretical sense.Uhh, okay.


The fact that NK is a deformed worker's stateHow a state where the workers have never had control over the means of production can be a workers state, deformed, crippled or challenged, is beyond me.


means that we should be aiming for a political revolution in NK which would keep most of its state institutions intact, rather than a full-scale social revolution that we should be prepared to engage in for the Western countries.And here we have it Comrade: the fundamental error of orthodox trotskyism: that countries like the USSR were basically okay; all that was needed to be done was to replace the bureaucracy of the workers. This notion completely misses that fact that the purpose of the state in the USSR, et al., as the is the purpose of the states of corporate capitalism is to preserve the fundamental economic relationship: the exploitation of labor.

Such states needed to be overthrown with a full-scale social revolution, exactly in the manner of bourgeois states. In fact, these same states, in Russia and China,which oppressed the workers under state capialism, are performing much of the same role, with the same personnel, as partners to the native and foreign bourgeoisie.


It also means externally we should still defend the NK state politically against Western imperialism.We should certainly oppose any imperialist intervention in NK. However, at the same time, we need to call for the revolutionary overthrow of the state by the working class.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

NK is no kind of workers state. A workers state is based on workers control of production.


A worker's state is where there is public ownership of the means of production and the working class as a whole controls the economic production in the country.

Technically in NK the working class still controls production, but only through the executive power of the bureaucratic caste. However, the bureaucratic caste in countries like NK and Cuba is not an independent class in its own right, it is still a part of the working class. Just as the bureaucracy in imperial China was a part of the feudal landlord class. Most bureaucrats in NK aren't corrupt and are quite frugal, that they have control over political decision-making power at the expense of ordinary workers in general there is no doubt, but their de facto control of the means of production is not directed towards private ends, so it is not state-capitalism. And the extensive public welfare that is available in states like NK and Cuba is evidence that the public ownership of the means of production is still at a far higher stage in NK and Cuba than in any capitalist or state-capitalist country.



There is no workers democracy, direct or indirect. Never was; never will be.
There is actually indirect worker's democracy in NK, that is to say, worker's democracy is officially in the country's constitution and even in the country's name, but workers do not directly control the direct and mode of production in the country.



Uhh, okay.

How a state where the workers have never had control over the means of production can be a workers state, deformed, crippled or challenged, is beyond me.

And here we have it Comrade: the fundamental error of orthodox trotskyism: that countries like the USSR were basically okay; all that was needed to be done was to replace the bureaucracy of the workers. This notion completely misses that fact that the purpose of the state in the USSR, et al., as the is the purpose of the states of corporate capitalism is to preserve the fundamental economic relationship: the exploitation of labor.
Orthodox Trotskyism represents the original serious analysis of Trotsky himself, unlike a lot of the incorrect later formulations.

No, just because the USSR and NK are still fundamentally worker's state does not mean "they are basically ok". The deformation is not just a slight one, which strictly speaking existed even in Lenin's day, but it is a very severe one. No only do the people have no direct control over production, they do not have many basic democratic rights. For instance, homosexuality was illegal in the USSR and in NK now.

You make it sound "so easy": "all that need to be done is to replace the bureaucracy by the workers". Technically this is indeed what needs to be done, but it is far from easy.

Unless you think the original Leninist state after 1917 was not a genuine worker's state either, having a political revolution but keeping the institutions of the state intact makes sense: the basic state structure of every state in the Soviet camp was originally formulated by the Bolsheviks and then copied in form elsewhere - China, Cuba, NK etc.



Such states needed to be overthrown with a full-scale social revolution, exactly in the manner of bourgeois states. In fact, these same states, in Russia and China,which oppressed the workers under state capialism, are performing much of the same role, with the same personnel, as partners to the native and foreign bourgeoisie.
The problem with this view is that it often puts state-capitalist Trots and anarchists on the side of "bourgeois colour revolution"-style "national liberation" movements in ethnic minority regions of existing deformed worker's states that are essentially supported directly or indirectly by Western imperialism, (since the deformed worker's state is already fully capitalist, splitting it up into ethnic regions which are also capitalist states is certainly not a step backward politically) and as a result, objectively actually contributes to the growth of power of imperialists.

Furthermore, labeling NK as "state-capitalist" does not qualitatively differentiate it from states like contemporary China, even though in practice they are a world apart.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

kasama-rl:
Do we really consider an uncited sentence in wikipedia to be "a source"? The wikipedia statement is also mistaken. The act was done by Red Guards, but there is no evidence they were tied to Jiang Qing.

Why claim to have real information and research, when you are just channeling a wiki page?

Okay, sorry. It was just a footnote anyway.


You misread the discussion (again): what was criticized as infantile was not that analysis (as you mistakenly state), it was going to the border of the country and denouncing neighboring governments over loudspeakers (without thinking through the implications.)

Believe it or not, I'm not that slow. I understand the difference between theory and tactics and was defending these Red Guards, based on the info you provided, in respect to both. I'm not as "simple" and stupid as you really think I am. I'm just several decades newer to the study of communism and the history of socialism than you and maybe sometimes have been more trusting of the sources I've found than I should have been. For that I apologize.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

No need for your little Marxism 101 here. But the question is: What is freedom? For Marxists freedom is not abstract freedom, it is material freedom. It is not that "food allows you to be free", but rather food is freedom, having food means I'm free to not starve, and there can be no freedom completely detached from food. People must first feed and clothe themselves before they can engage in art and philosophy. You do happen to be correct in this concrete instance -- indeed, "there can be no freedom completely detached from food". (There is no contradiction between us on this point now, however, what you originally wrote above, and even put in bold yourself, was that "Freedom is important because it would guarantee the food on my dinner table, the food on my dinner table does not exist to guarantee freedom." I answered by replying that it is "not that 'the food on my dinner table is more important than freedom' -- it's that 'the food on my dinner table allows me to be free.')

You correctly note that "For Marxists freedom is not abstract freedom, it is material freedom" -- this doesn't really contradict my view. Perhaps I've somehow expressed myself inadequately, so that you’ve thus misunderstood the intended point; additionally, it may be that the slogan "freedom is not abstract freedom, it is material freedom" imparts little information; as a maxim it is correct, but without elaboration it is itself a little too abstract itself and it may be that one of us is not properly understanding it.

For the sake of clarifying my own point of view, I will provide a passage from Engels’ Anti-Dühring:


Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man's judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development. The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom. On the threshold of human history stands the discovery that mechanical motion can be transformed into heat: the production of fire by friction; at the close of the development so far gone through stands the discovery that heat can be transformed into mechanical motion: the steam-engine. — And, in spite of the gigantic liberating revolution in the social world which the steam-engine is carrying through, and which is not yet half completed, it is beyond all doubt that the generation of fire by friction has had an even greater effect on the liberation of mankind. For the generation of fire by friction gave man for the first time control over one of the forces of nature, and thereby separated him for ever from the animal kingdom. The steam-engine will never bring about such a mighty leap forward in human development, however important it may seem in our eyes as representing all those immense productive forces dependent on it — forces which alone make possible a state of society in which there are no longer class distinctions or anxiety over the means of subsistence for the individual, and in which for the first time there can be talk of real human freedom, of an existence in harmony with the laws of nature that have become known. But how young the whole of human history still is, and how ridiculous it would be to attempt to ascribe any absolute validity to our present views, is evident from the simple fact that all past history can be characterised as the history of the epoch from the practical discovery of the transformation of mechanical motion into heat up to that of the transformation of heat into mechanical motion.Above we see Engels' description of freedom going beyond Spinoza's rationalist formula that "freedom = power = knowledge", but the core of the idea is much the same. Having food on your table is a necessary condition for your existence as a free person, but a free human being isn't simply a person with food on his table; more generally, a free human being is a person with a rational understanding of his or her situation, and the capacity to exercise an act of will founded on such rational understanding. It follows that the more rational (comprehending) and powerful (able to affect circumstances) that a person is, the greater his or her level of freedom.

Because the economics of capitalist society keeps people in an ignorant and powerless state (state of subjugation), equality -- that is, the abolition of class -- liberates humankind from subjugation. In this sense, equality (in the sense of abolishing class) is necessary to freedom. Communism leads to freedom it advocates that step.

Sure, freedom is a function of material circumstances -- and I have never maintained that food bears no relation to freedom; however, it remains the case at all times that freedom means putting rational human beings in control of their own lives.

Since my first point in this thread consisted of contradicting your idea that "freedom is important because it would guarantee the food on my dinner table, the food on my dinner table does not exist to guarantee freedom," I thought this kind of stuff worthy of being fleshed out -- however, I don't really believe that you disagree with any of the above in principle, and I agree with you that people first need to "feed and clothe themselves before they can engage in art and philosophy."
Yes, but "liberation" primarily in terms of acquiring economic rights. If meant in the sense that the Marxist vision of liberated humanity entails the expropriation of the capitalist class, yes. The problem arises when you go on to kind of inferences about "what socialism is really about" that you have made.

For instance, you attack criticism of North Korea by writing things like
Is socialism primarily about economic equality and people's livelihood or is it about abstract notions of "liberty"? Socialism does oppose "abstract" notions of "liberty": namely, it opposes the liberal-bourgeois conception of "freedom" that condones oppression of the worker while defending the rights of the exploiter.

But it still supposes that freedom, most fully realized only through the liberation of the working class, is a meaningful and valuable concept, whereas in defending the North Korean state you attempt to greatly oversimplify the issue: you oppose the issue of equality to the issue of freedom and post statements like "I am a socialist because I care more about economic equality and equality in general than "freedom". If I cared more about freedom than equality, I would have become a political liberal, not a Marxist."
Politics and economics do go hand-in-hand in principle, but in reality it's much more complicated, hence the existence of "deformed worker's state". A discrepancy between economics and politics can indeed exist, and has existed in the past, it takes time for the situation to "correct" itself in one of two ways: either a successful political revolution of workers against the bureaucratic caste, or a social counter-revolution and changing back to capitalism. Neither has happened in NK yet, which is why it is still a deformed worker's state - a political dictatorship with a socialist economic basis based on the planned economy and public ownership of the means of production. But of course without a worker's democratic revolution in NK, it will inevitably at some point degenerate back to capitalism.There certainly isn't public ownership: you know, an owner has the power of making decisions and affecting stuff. The North Korean workers do not get that opportunity.
Well to "strip everyone alike" in your example would clearly still require a socialist revolution.Why is this relevant to my point?
I didn't say economic equality is just material equality in the banal sense. It is not just equality for all, but also prosperity for all, the rights of economic development for all. Poverty is not socialism.I'm glad you agree that "economic equality" is not just some banal kind of material equality -- perhaps it implies things like working-class control over production and distribution? A communist society cannot be build while poverty is still around, but a poor country with worker control over production would be a society going in that direction. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not that country.
But economic equality is the most fundamental desire of Marxist socialism. My reason for the long elaborations already made is to show why this is an oversimplification. Your expression of the goal of economic equality as the "fundamental desire of Marxism" only perpetuates it.
Worker's democracy is important because without it economic equality can never be guaranteed. But "democracy" in the abstract sense is not the ultimate end of socialism. It's not just that "worker's [sic] democracy is important because without it economic equality can never be guaranteed." It's that there is no economic equality without workers' control. The only way of reconciling the contradiction is by supposing that rule by "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il, son of "Eternal President" Kim Il Sung, is actually equivalent to rule by the working class. Which happens to be patent nonsense.
"Free development" is still primarily material freedom, not abstract freedom. Consequently for there to be "free development for all" there necessarily must be economic equality and prosperity for all. Agreed. Here you are putting it correctly.
There are fundamental differences between the bureaucratic caste in NK and the government in Western capitalist countries:
1) In NK the bureaucracy virtually completely owns all of the means of production in the entire country; In Western countries much of the means of production in the country is directly owned by big capitalists, not the government or state; Indeed.
2) In the West, the partially de facto ownership of the means of production by the government is legally based on the de jure capitalist mode of productive relation; In NK, the full de facto ownership of the means of production by the bureaucracy is legally based on the de jure socialist mode of productive relation; I understand the difference between North Korea and the West. The problem is that these are not differences created by socialism or the working class.

A brief translation of the second sentence would be the following:

"In North Korea, the means of production are completely owned by a very powerful and selective group of well-connected people who run the lives of all other people as they see fit, and this situation is sanctioned by laws defining North Korea as a socialist society."

In other words, in the West, the capitalists undemocratically hold power over the lives of the working class. In North Korea, that power is completely and just as undemocratically held by a bureaucracy of all-powerful party officials.

This fact is quite obvious and well-known, but far from sufficient as a defense of North Korea.
3) In the West, the bureaucracy uses its de facto ownership of the means of production to direct the country's economic resources towards private ends; In NK, the bureaucracy uses its de facto ownership of the means of production not to use the country's economic resources for their own private ends, but to develop the country's public economy as a whole; therefore in NK despite being political dictators, the bureaucrats are relatively frugal (completely different from the bureaucrats in contemporary China), and consequently economic inequality is much less in NK than it is in much of the West and in China, and the NK state is able to proportionally speaking invest much more money in public welfare. (So there are no homeless people for instance since everyone gets free public housing) You are basically maintaining that the bureaucrats are frugal people who aim for the good of the whole country rather than their own benefit. This is pretty difficult to swallow and has not been empirically demonstrated. (As a statistical measure, the Gini coefficient is not an implement that demonstrates this; incidentally, capitalist Sweden's Gini coefficient is very low.)

And as already pointed out earlier, such genuinely progressive things as public welfare programs are more easily interpreted as the privileged bureaucracy's concessions to the working class. (Plenty of "progressive" capitalist societies also happen to provide such concessions as socialized healthcare and free education.)
The NK is no political model for socialism, and clearly it has severe structural problems that if left unchecked will inevitably lead to the restoration of bureaucratic capitalism in the country.Agreed.

A crucial thing, IMO, is that if North Korea is not a political model for socialism, there is no reason to heap praise on it. That praise should be saved for the actual progressive programs that exist in spite of the dominant caste of party bureaucrats.

Moreover, the difference between mere progress and actual socialism should never be dismissed by any socialist. That difference is too important to sweep under the rug (as in the UCP(N) author's article on the subject).
But not to be able to qualitatively differentiate between a state like the NK and a state like China right now, for instance, will lead to the ridiculous conclusion that because both NK and China are ruled directly by the "bureaucracy", they are essentially the same kind of country, whereas in actual fact they are a world apart.They aren't "the same kind of country." But "they are a world apart" is a flagrant exaggeration.
NK is clearly not a democratic worker's state, due to the lack of direct worker's democracy. But the fundamental nature of the NK state is important not just in a theoretical sense. The fact that NK is a deformed worker's state means that we should be aiming for a political revolution in NK which would keep most of its state institutions intact, rather than a full-scale social revolution that we should be prepared to engage in for the Western countries.Much of the current organization of the state would probably be retained after a successful workers' revolution against the Kim dynasty and its cohorts. If this is what you mean by "a political revolution in NK which would keep most of its state institutions intact, rather than a full-scale social revolution," then I agree.

I certainly don't favor the kind of "full-scale social revolution" that would officially surrender the means of production in the hands of private capitalists.

On the other hand, the bureaucracy's pretensions that North Korea is a socialist society does incalculable harm to the idea of socialism in the minds of the working class in general, which probably will lead to oppressed workers throwing in their lot with the "capitalist-democratic" reformers, either when a revolution spontaneously emerges (as in Romania) or when the bureaucracy puts on a capitalist and "democratic" outfit (as in the old USSR).

And that is why, although we must express our opposition to the "solutions" of the imperialists, criticism of North Korea is an essential thing. And leftist criticism of North Korea should probably be raised at least as frequently as our support for its "progressive" elements.

(And, incidentally, this sort of intelligent and clear Marxist criticism of North Korea is not going to be interpreted as support for capitalist imperialism in any way.)
It also means externally we should still defend the NK state politically against Western imperialism. The Marxist left always speaks out against imperialism, and it should be opposed as much in North Korea's case no less than it would be in any other circumstances.
There is actually indirect worker's democracy in NK, that is to say, worker's democracy is officially in the country's constitution and even in the country's name, but workers do not directly control the direct and mode of production in the country. That is an outright absurdity. The fact that "worker's democracy" [sic] is officially in the country's constitution and even in the country's name is largely irrelevant to anything and everything: the official name of the bourgeois-backed and petty-bourgeois-led Nazis in the Weimar Republic and during the Third Reich was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party." There is a famous canard to the effect that the medieval European state known as the Holy Roman Empire was neither, holy, Roman, or an empire. Across the Yalu River, there is a state known as the People's Republic of China; its political life is dominated by the Communist Party. You know full well that state isn't any kind of people's republic. Its ruling party is not a communist organization.

Back on the Korean side, the reigning political leader happens to be universally hailed as the “Dear Leader” – but since North Korea isn’t democratic in any fashion at all, no real way exists to establish that the North Korean people genuinely feel that way about him.

The high-up bureaucrats of North Korea cannot legally pass control over the means of production to their own children (although the Kims have had undeniable success in doing so). One may certainly grant that the bureaucracy does not control the means of production in the country the way that the industrialists in the United States legally do (that is, as private individuals). However, as an oligarchic body with all power concentrated in its own hands, the bureaucracy effectively has the same type of control over the means of production. (And its control of the workers is absolute.)

Your claim that "still controls production, but only through the executive power of the bureaucratic caste" strikes me as an outstanding example of wishful thinking. Virtually all available evidence of life in North Korea directly contradicts that assumption.

The ordinary worker has essentially no say in anything. It must follow that it’s just pure faith in North Korea's despotic system that would allow you can even assume that the bureaucracy manages the economic system (or any other affair) in the worker's favor. The worker can, of course, attempt to curry favor with the bureaucracy in order to improve his situation and rise up in the system. But social mobility also exists under capitalism. (Being born to a capitalist mommy and daddy helps you rise up in America, although even a simple worker can theoretically ascend all the way to the top of the economic food chain. Being born to a bureaucratic ma and pa helps you ascend in Korea, though even a simple worker can theoretically rise very high, and maybe even serve to replace a member of Kim Il Sung’s powerful family.)

I suppose that a clarification of your view of the Korean system would greatly help the people looking at this thread. Exactly what kind of "indirect democracy" do you see in North Korea, and exactly how does that "indirect democracy" actually operate?

[RED DAVE]

Just for an appetizer.


NK is no kind of workers state.
A workers state is based on workers control of production.Absolutely!


A worker's state is where there is public ownership of the means of production and the working class as a whole controls the economic production in the country.Half right.

The working class, in a workers state not only controls economic production as a whole, but economic production at the workplace. Any system where the workers do not control production from the bottom up is not a workers state, it is a bureaucracy over the workers. The workers, sooner or later, and sooner rather than later, will, as in the USSR, lose control of that bureaucracy if they don't have industrial control.

In the NK the workers have never had control of production, directly, indirectly, from the bottom up, from the top down or anywhere in between.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Half right.

The working class, in a workers state not only controls economic production as a whole, but economic production at the workplace. Any system where the workers do not control production from the bottom up is not a workers state, it is a bureaucracy over the workers. The workers, sooner or later, and sooner rather than later, will, as in the USSR, lose control of that bureaucracy if they don't have industrial control.

In the NK the workers have never had control of production, directly, indirectly, from the bottom up, from the top down or anywhere in between.

RED DAVE


Not necessarily. If you say it's not a worker's state at all, then which other type of state is it? Which class controls the economy? Capitalists and feudal lords don't exist anymore. The bureaucracy is never an independent class in its own right.

If the bureaucracy of the working class has de facto control over production, then it is still technically a worker's state, albeit a very deformed one, because the bureaucracy in this case still has a proletarian class basis.

[RED DAVE]

Not necessarily. If you say it's not a worker's state at all, then which other type of state is it?State capitalism.


Which class controls the economy?First of all, whatever class it is it is not the working class.


Capitalists and feudal lords don't exist anymore.Okay, but I'll bet if you look at the NK economy closely, you will see a large gray and black market where the Future Capitalists of North Korea are being trained.


The bureaucracy is never an independent class in its own right.And that is where you are wrong. The bureaucracy can be a class in its own right. This was clear in the USSR where the bureaucracy ran the economy from the late 1920s to the late 1980s, running it for their benefit.


If the bureaucracy of the working classWhat the fuck is that? The closest thing I can think of is the trade union leadershpi in the major capitalist countries. This stratum of the workiing class, verging into the petit-bourgeoisie, is constantly at war with the working class and has interests that can clearly be separated from the working class. It is also elected, more or less, by the working class. The bureaucracy in NK is not elected or selected by the working class. It is selected by itself.


has de facto control over production, then it is still technically a worker's state, albeit a very deformed one, because the bureaucracy in this case still has a proletarian class basis.There is not a reason in the world for considering that the bureaucracy in NK, China before it reverted to full capitalism, the USSR after the late 1920s had any kind of proletarian class basis. It was a group in itself and of itself, in the same manner as the bougeoisie. In all these countries, the bureaucratic classes presides over the expropriation of surplus value from the working class. In no way, shape or form does the working class control the rate or manner of this exploitation or the use of the product of it.

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What a slavish, crass article.
Ignores the many defects of the DPRK leadership - ignores the cult of personality. Nobody, even pro-DPRK sympathisers, can really think that the adulation of the Kims is 'unfathomable'. It is fathomable and straightforward: there is a clear cult of personality propogated by the leadership, for the leadership.

In any case, I do not wish to pass judgement on the CPN (Maoist) for this article. Clearly, they need funds/international support, I guess we can all be guilty of supporting positions we don't truly believe in to gain something for our movement.

But let's be clear, this article is not an accurate representation of events in the DPRK. There is simply no negatives even mentioned in the article, hence you'd have to say that this article does not articulate a neutral or balanced viewpoint.

[Saorsa]

I disagree almost completely with the article, but I think El granma has the right idea.

[Homo Songun]

What a slavish, crass article.
The UCPN(M) is slavish? I thought that whole Peoples War, revolution thing would have precluded that.



Ignores the many defects of the DPRK leadership - ignores the cult of personality. Nobody, even pro-DPRK sympathisers, can really think that the adulation of the Kims is 'unfathomable'. It is fathomable and straightforward: there is a clear cult of personality propogated by the leadership, for the leadership.

In any case, I do not wish to pass judgement on the CPN (Maoist) for this article.What do you call the preceding paragraph then? :rolleyes:


Clearly, they need funds/international support, I guess we can all be guilty of supporting positions we don't truly believe in to gain something for our movement.There is a few problems with what you are asserting here. Number one, you claiming that the article writer is being duplicitous in some way, with no evidence that such is the case. I think we ought to take things at face value so long as the aformentioned holds.

Number two, if they were looking for "funds", WTF? Wouldn't this be like panhandling a homeless person? In the case of the more intangible good of "international support", your hypothesis is even more illogical. Why would a group that was simply looking for some kind of international legitimacy look to the DPRK, a virtual pariah state in the West? Haven't they been trying to shake the whole "terrorist" tag for a while now?

No, I think Occam's Razor applies. The UCPN is addressing the WPK as a kindred party, in accordance with its own sense of internationalism. In other words, they simply mean what they say in the document, they seek "friendly relationships between a country advancing ahead to build socialism and our party".

It is just too bizarre and convoluted otherwise.


But let's be clear, this article is not an accurate representation of events in the DPRK. There is simply no negatives even mentioned in the article, Its not true that no negatives are mentioned. They mention several negatives, and debunk them. But never mind. You say this article is not accurate. What did Krishna Bahadur Mahara write about the DPRK that is not true in this article? He says very factual sounding things like "The economy of Korea is neither backward nor advanced". Or did I miss the part about double rainbows over Mt Paektu?


hence you'd have to say that this article does not articulate a neutral or balanced viewpoint.There is no such thing in politics. The sooner you realize this, the better.