North Korea Poll

[scarletghoul]

Just thought it would be good to see what people's views on North Korea are on this website. No doubt the 2nd option will get the most votes. Probably the 1st (correct) option will get the least but ah well.

NOTE: those of us who consider it a socialist country do not think its perfect, we just recognise that it runs on a collectivised economy with an empowered working class.

[Weezer]

I support North Korea against imperialism. I realize that the Western media paints them in a bad light, but there are somethings definitely wrong with the state.

They may or may not be socialist, but they renounced their goals for communism in their newest constitutional revision. I can't support their government because of that. I voted as 'I am not sure'.

[Optiow]

I support them as a state standing against imperialism. However, when it comes to communism, the DPRK just does not have it.

[Stephen Colbert]

I think its novel that they have a voice against imperialism.. however my tolerance ends there. I don't know anything about them.

[Chimurenga.]

"I support them as a socialist state and against imperialism"

[Weezer]

It's sad to see the third option getting so many votes. North Korea's government is one thing, but to not support them at all you're basically telling North Korean proletarians "fuck you man."

[RedSonRising]

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can show evidence that the working populace control the decision-making processes within their communities as opposed to a State-incorporated elite, and that all those depictions of divine leadership and whatnot are either completely false or just decorations the Korean workers like to have around.

Hard to get around the denouncement of communism in their constitution.

I support them against imperialism, but I'm not sure I can favor a local ruling class over a foreign ruling class with too much fervor.

[Kassad]

Anyone saying they do not support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in any way are not communists. I'm sorry, but even if you think it is capitalist, as an oppressed nation it needs to be defended from imperialism. Honestly, looking at these results truly makes me sick.

[Chimurenga.]

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can show evidence that the working populace control the decision-making processes within their communities as opposed to a State-incorporated elite, and that all those depictions of divine leadership and whatnot are either completely false or just decorations the Korean workers like to have around.

I have posted about this a few times.

The General Federation Of Trade Unions Of Korea's, the largest Union in the DPRK, elected chairman is a member of the Supreme Peoples Assembly, the largest state organ. Any complaint, need, criticism, etc, is taken and discussed at the meetings.

http://www.kcckp.net/en/great/political.php - Here you can find parties, unions, organizations, etc.


Hard to get around the denouncement of communism in their constitution.

Not really. The final communist stage isn't in the cards for a while.



Anyone saying they do not support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in any way are not communists. I'm sorry, but even if you think it is capitalist, as an oppressed nation it needs to be defended from imperialism. Honestly, looking at these results truly makes me sick.

Quoted for truth.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I believe them to be along the lines of capitalist, though they really have no choice during these stressing times. I support them against imperialism & hope that they'll eventually rise as a powerful socialist state.

[The Red Next Door]

Anyone saying they do not support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in any way are not communists. I'm sorry, but even if you think it is capitalist, as an oppressed nation it needs to be defended from imperialism. Honestly, looking at these results truly makes me sick.

Claim down, you have an election to worry about. :) is okay to say this on revleft?

[Invincible Summer]

I don't know enough about them to say that they're socialist, but I wouldn't go as far as saying they're capitalist.

I support them under anti-imperialist lines

[Pretty Flaco]

I don't even know what the hell's going on in North Korea.

[MarxSchmarx]

Anyone saying they do not support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in any way are not communists. I'm sorry, but even if you think it is capitalist, as an oppressed nation it needs to be defended from imperialism. Honestly, looking at these results truly makes me sick.

Is this also the PSL line as well?

[scarletghoul]

I don't know enough about them to say that they're socialist, but I wouldn't go as far as saying they're capitalist.Yeah I cleverly termed the options to emphasise that dichotomy.. before someone says 'theyre not socialist' they should make sure they consider the country capitalist.. (Unless they think its feudalism or some magical new mode of production or something)

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can show evidence that the working populace control the decision-making processes within their communities as opposed to a State-incorporated elite, and that all those depictions of divine leadership and whatnot are either completely false or just decorations the Korean workers like to have around.

Hard to get around the denouncement of communism in their constitution.
Well first of all the debate is around whether or not they're socialism. Communism, being an end ideal, is not the most immediately important thing. They never 'denounced' communism btw, just removed references of it from the constitution. It has had no noticable practicle impact as the country is still strongly socialist.

Anyway the main point. Obviously there is no proof either way given the isolation of the country and most info has some bias. Best we can do is to look at all the claims from all the sources, and see which ones stand up to scrutiny. Doing this, especially with some of the links posted in recent threads on DPRK (like the lawyers' report for example), I have come to conclude that North Korea seems to have a generally democratic system..
But yes, there is obviously a big cult of personality around the Kims. This is also obviously exaggerated by the western media, but certainly it exists, and it's something we should be critical of. However, having a personality cult and too much emphasis on the top leadership does not mean the country is not socialist, and does not mean that the workers have no power. To use an extreme example, Maoist China was home to one of history's most ridiculous personality cults alongside the most radical empowerment of the working masses.


And I'm honestly shocked to see so many people voting against anti-imperialism (in other words, voting in favour of imperialism)

[Kassad]

Is this also the PSL line as well?

We do not consider North Korea to be capitalist. We consider it to be a state working towards socialist construction in the face of imperialist intervention, destruction and economic sanctions.

Here's an article from PSLWeb.org called Socialist Construction in Korea: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6178&news_iv_ctrl=1701

That should summarize our general line.

[Invincible Summer]

To use an extreme example, Maoist China was home to one of history's most ridiculous personality cults alongside the most radical empowerment of the working masses.


Is the Kim personality cult self-generated (i.e. the Kims themselves promoted it), or was it sort of like Mao's where some party guy did it and Mao himself denounced it?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Is the Kim personality cult self-generated (i.e. the Kims themselves promoted it), or was it sort of like Mao's where some party guy did it and Mao himself denounced it?

I've never seen, out of everything that I've read about the DPRK, that the Kim's promoted the "personality cult" by themselves. Though, I could be wrong.

[scarletghoul]

Is the Kim personality cult self-generated (i.e. the Kims themselves promoted it), or was it sort of like Mao's where some party guy did it and Mao himself denounced it?
Honestly I never bought the idea that Mao completely denounced his cult.. There must have been at least some mild approval; he could have got stopped it if he'd really wanted to. In an interview with Edgar Snow I think he said the cult was useful to rally people during the early GPCR but he had toned it down since. though maybe that wasnt true and he was trying to cover up all the Lin Biao stuff. I am never sure how much power Mao really had, especially during the later years. But really I do think he must be blamed at least partially for the personality cult, even if he did see the silly side to it.

Kim likewise seems to be ultimately responsible for his. I've never heard of him denouncing it. But then again, I've not heard of them saying "I am the greatest man in the world" either (obviously they don't want to appear arrogent). Never have read any frank non-official statements from either Kims so it is impossible to know really what they think of it.

[redSHARP]

i put not sure, i need more information and need to gather my thoughts in order to make an educated opinion.

I really hope it doesnt come to war. But from what i read from history and scholarly journals, N. Korea is practicing brinkmanship and will back down and detente will prevail.

I also would be in favor of demilitarizing the peninsula, the end of all nuclear weapons in the koreas, the ending of US forces in S.korea, the end of the personality cult of the kims, and the end of sanctions against N. Korea.

[The Vegan Marxist]

i put not sure, i need more information and need to gather my thoughts in order to make an educated opinion.

I really hope it doesnt come to war. But from what i read from history and scholarly journals, N. Korea is practicing brinkmanship and will back down and detente will prevail.

I also would be in favor of demilitarizing the peninsula, the end of all nuclear weapons in the koreas, the ending of US forces in S.korea, the end of the personality cult of the kims, and the end of sanctions against N. Korea.

Not going to happen if the US overthrows NKorea then. So I'm pretty sure you know what to support, even if you don't support NKorea, itself, necessarily.

[this is an invasion]

I do not support the DRPK. In the case of an invasion (and this goes for any country) I would not support the invading country, nor would I support the DPRK. This has more to do with the fact that it's a country, and I do not support any country ever, than it does with whether or not the DPRK is capitalist (although it is capitalist).

[scarletghoul]

I do not support the DRPK. In the case of an invasion (and this goes for any country) I would not support the invading country, nor would I support the DPRK. This has more to do with the fact that it's a country, and I do not support any country ever, than it does with whether or not the DPRK is capitalist (although it is capitalist).
A textbook example of ultra-left crap.

In practice, your position translates to a support for US imperialism and domination over the Korean people.

[this is an invasion]

A textbook example of ultra-left crap.

In practice, your position translates to a support for US imperialism and domination over the Korean people.

blah blah blah I don't really see the difference between the domination over working people by one state or another. As far as I'm concerned, the working class of North Korea has yet to abolish itself (and with it class society).

In practice, your position is the support of a ruling class that isn't quite as powerful as the US, so where does that leave us?

[redSHARP]

Not going to happen if the US overthrows NKorea then. So I'm pretty sure you know what to support, even if you don't support NKorea, itself, necessarily.


yeah i know, but the list is more of a wish list than anything.

[The Vegan Marxist]

blah blah blah I don't really see the difference between the domination over working people by one state or another. As far as I'm concerned, the working class of North Korea has yet to abolish itself (and with it class society).

In practice, your position is the support of a ruling class that isn't quite as powerful as the US, so where does that leave us?

And in your position, it's the indirect support of imperialism by the highest ruling class. This is strictly anti-communist & you should get the fuck out of this forum if this is your way of thought, because you're not a communist nor part of any revolutionary left. You're an imperialist sympathizer, which makes you a capitalist sympathizer.

[scarletghoul]

yeah i know, but the list is more of a wish list than anything.
Wish lists are a good place to start with these things imo. I see it as like a logical puzzle, where you have a list of wishes but you have to rearrange them into order of which wish will enable the other and so on..

Anyone doing this with the Korean situation will reach the conclusion that the main task right now is to get the US out of Korea. That's the primary contradiction/wish and only after that can the other contradictions be resolved/wishes come true.

[scarletghoul]

blah blah blah I don't really see the difference between the domination over working people by one state or another. As far as I'm concerned, the working class of North Korea has yet to abolish itself (and with it class society).

In practice, your position is the support of a ruling class that isn't quite as powerful as the US, so where does that leave us?
Christ you really need things spelt out for you dont you.. Imperialism is a type of oppression. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Korea is therefore one of the front lines against capitalism.

Sorry I overestimated your intelligence and thought you could put 2 and 2 together.

Now, assuming you are anti-capitalist, and unless you are willing to write a critique of Lenin's work on imperialism, you really have no justification for rejecting anti-imperialist struggle.

[Invincible Summer]

blah blah blah I don't really see the difference between the domination over working people by one state or another. As far as I'm concerned, the working class of North Korea has yet to abolish itself (and with it class society).

In practice, your position is the support of a ruling class that isn't quite as powerful as the US, so where does that leave us?

I can appreciate your line of thought. It's swell to be against all ruling classes, but in practice... how do we get to the point where we don't have to choose between ruling classes? I mean, it's sort of sociopathic to basically say "I don't care if a large superpower extends its imperialist reach over another people because I don't want to support its ruling class in any way, shape, or form."

Anti-imperialism is not so much supporting the politics of the ruling class as much as it is solidarity with its people to be subjected to the whims of a greater ruling class.

[robbo203]

It's sad to see the third option getting so many votes. North Korea's government is one thing, but to not support them at all you're basically telling North Korean proletarians "fuck you man."


Thats rubbish. It is about indicting an particularly oppressive, disgusting and lets face it - capitalist - regime. Not to do so is to condone what this same regime does to its own proletarian workforce. So quite the opposite is the case. By supporting this regime in any way all you're basically telling North Korean proletarians "fuck you man."

[this is an invasion]

And in your position, it's the indirect support of imperialism by the highest ruling class. This is strictly anti-communist & you should get the fuck out of this forum if this is your way of thought, because you're not a communist nor part of any revolutionary left. You're an imperialist sympathizer, which makes you a capitalist sympathizer.

Take a chill pill, kill bill.

The USSR was (state)capitalist, and so was China. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is therefore capitalist. All Ya'll should leave.


See? I can do the same thing. Now, care to reply with something that isn't a kneejerk reaction?

[this is an invasion]

Anti-imperialism is not so much supporting the politics of the ruling class as much as it is solidarity with its people to be subjected to the whims of a greater ruling class.

We should vote democrat because the republicans are the greater enemy.
:thumbup1:

[The Vegan Marxist]

Take a chill pill, kill bill.

The USSR was (state)capitalist, and so was China. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is therefore capitalist. All Ya'll should leave.


See? I can do the same thing. Now, care to reply with something that isn't a kneejerk reaction?

Can you post anything that isn't remotely revisionist or just complete bullshit? I'm sorry if I'm going at you hard, but really, your latest posts are just a complete joke & I don't see how you can even take yourself as serious.

[scarletghoul]

Thats rubbish. It is about indicting an particularly oppressive, disgusting and lets face it - capitalist - regime. Not to do so is to condone what this same regime does to its own proletarian workforce. So quite the opposite is the case. By supporting this regime in any way all you're basically telling North Korean proletarians "fuck you man."
Are you saying an American invasion/occupation of North Korea would not be oppressive, disgusting, and capitalist ? :lol:

Maybe you feel good about yourself when laying down this puritanical "RARRR I HATE ALL OPRESSIONS" bullshit but you are completely divorcing yourself from reality and resorting to idealism. Fact is, the choice is between DPRK and US imperialism. We could all just say about how we want people to be free and we hate every state and blar blarrghh but those of us who wish to have any relevence to the real world must work with the real situation, and assess the real contradictions, and take real sides. Only then can we get real freedom.

[robbo203]

Are you saying an American invasion/occupation of North Korea would not be oppressive, disgusting, and capitalist ? :lol:.

I am not saying anything of the sort. Stop trying to put words in my mouth


Maybe you feel good about yourself when laying down this puritanical "RARRR I HATE ALL OPRESSIONS" bullshit but you are completely divorcing yourself from reality and resorting to idealism. Fact is, the choice is between DPRK and US imperialism. We could all just say about how we want people to be free and we hate every state and blar blarrghh but those of us who wish to have any relevence to the real world must work with the real situation, and assess the real contradictions, and take real sides. Only then can we get real freedom.

Sigh. Here we go again. To say a plague on all your houses is to resort to "idealism" and to be "divorced from reality". The premiss upon which this dodgy unprincipled claim is made is that the enemy of an enemy must be your friend. Which is sheer bollocks.

All this talk about North Korea being a bulwark against something called "imperialism" is bullshit anyway. Its just a front which useful idiots fall for in rendering service to this nasty little regime. Every state on the face of the planet is "imperialist" in a fundamental sense - either latently (in most cases) or manifestly (in a few). This is because all states are capitalist (including North Korea). For all North Korea's so called anti-imperialism this hasnt stopped the regime cosying up to its big imperialist neighbour , the PRC, has it? Nor has it stopped the North Korean capitalist regime desparately trying to induce imperialist investors to sink their capital into its free trade zone with its easily exploitable cheap labour force

[Invincible Summer]

We should vote democrat because the republicans are the greater enemy.
:thumbup1:

It's not quite the same thing.

Tell me, are you saying that you're willing to let the people of the DPRK to be the subject of the American war machine and be blase about it, simply because you don't want to even be mistaken to be a supporter of the DPRK ruling class?

[mollymae]

Anyone saying they do not support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in any way are not communists. I'm sorry, but even if you think it is capitalist, as an oppressed nation it needs to be defended from imperialism. Honestly, looking at these results truly makes me sick.

Perhaps the people who voted that way were only thinking of the nature of the government of the DPRK instead of the nation as a whole.

I personally voted 'I am not sure' because I am ignorant about North Korea.

[RedSonRising]

I have posted about this a few times.

The General Federation Of Trade Unions Of Korea's, the largest Union in the DPRK, elected chairman is a member of the Supreme Peoples Assembly, the largest state organ. Any complaint, need, criticism, etc, is taken and discussed at the meetings.

http://www.kcckp.net/en/great/political.php - Here you can find parties, unions, organizations, etc.



Those are nice descriptions from a clearly pro-government site, but could you point to any published accounts, elaborate observations, footage, or firsthand interviews on the process by which these organizations incorporate the working class into the governing institutions of the country? I'd appreciate a better look if the resources are available.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Those are nice descriptions from a clearly pro-government site, but could you point to any published accounts, elaborate observations, footage, or firsthand interviews on the process by which these organizations incorporate the working class into the governing institutions of the country? I'd appreciate a better look if the resources are available.

Hell, even wikipedia, a US funded site, says what proletarianrevolution states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Federation_of_Trade_Unions_of_Korea

[this is an invasion]

It's not quite the same thing.

Tell me, are you saying that you're willing to let the people of the DPRK to be the subject of the American war machine and be blase about it, simply because you don't want to even be mistaken to be a supporter of the DPRK ruling class?

Um, what does me saying "I support the DPRK" do to stop any of that? I won't be letting anything happen because I won't have any power of what will happen. To think I do, or to think that somehow saying "I support the DPRK" will actually accomplish anything for them is ridiculous.

What do you people even do to support the DPRK?

[Adi Shankara]

I voted "do not support in any way" because I don't see the North Korean state as in the interests of North Korean people.

do I support the North Korean people against NATO/Western hegemony? absolutely. does that mean I have to support the bogus North Korean monarchy? no.

I can be both supportive of the North Korean people, and be completely against the Kim Dynasty. they are not one in the same.

so theoretically, i'd like to see the Kim Dynasty toppled, then replaced with North Korean Marxists, who then would have a legitimate communist state to defend against imperialism--because right now, it's a lesser of the two evil sitaution.

Right now, as it stands, what is the difference between Western imperialism and the Kim Monarchy in North Korea? they're both shitty, anti-worker choices! whoever wins, the North Korean people still lose, thus I oppose both.

[Adi Shankara]

I think they are capitalist, but support them against imperialism does anyone else see the irony in this choice?

Imperialism and capitalism are both fruit from the same fucking tree! they are the exact same thing!

So what this choice is basically asking is "do you support and defend a capitalist state against other rival capitalists?"

[The Vegan Marxist]

I voted "do not support in any way" because I don't see the North Korean state as in the interests of North Korean people.

do I support the North Korean people against NATO/Western hegemony? absolutely. does that mean I have to support the bogus North Korean monarchy? no.

I can be both supportive of the North Korean people, and be completely against the Kim Dynasty. they are not one in the same.

so theoretically, i'd like to see the Kim Dynasty toppled, then replaced with North Korean Marxists, who then would have a legitimate communist state to defend against imperialism--because right now, it's a lesser of the two evil sitaution.

Right now, as it stands, what is the difference between Western imperialism and the Kim Monarchy in North Korea? they're both shitty choices! whoever wins, the North Korean people still lose, thus I oppose both.

"I do not support in any way" means you support US imperialism against them, or at least don't care if the US attacks. That was the point of the poll, to determine whether you support the DPRK's independence against imperialism or US imperialism against the DPRK.

[this is an invasion]

"I do not support in any way" means you support US imperialism against them, or at least don't care if the US attacks. That was the point of the poll, to determine whether you support the DPRK's independence against imperialism or US imperialism against the DPRK.

Uh.....




wat

[Pretty Flaco]

"I do not support in any way" means you support US imperialism against them, or at least don't care if the US attacks. That was the point of the poll, to determine whether you support the DPRK's independence against imperialism or US imperialism against the DPRK.

I think he interpreted it as meaning "I do not support the North korean government in any way".

[Adi Shankara]

That was the point of the poll, to determine whether you support the DPRK's independence against imperialism or US imperialism against the DPRK.

are you saying you have to be one or the other, you can't be against both? because the DPRK isn't exactly a worker's state, if you haven't noticed, but that doesn't mean I want the USA to come in and take over either.

Why can't we work towards a worker state in North Korea? why are communists so willing to settle for less? For "communist in name only"?

I hate the US imperialist agenda. I hate the Kim Dynasty agenda. I want to see both perish. i want to see a worker state in North Korea led by a dictatorship of the proletariat, not a dictatorship of one family, but that does not mean I want to see the USA come over and "help out" either.

it's not that hard to understand, really.

[ContrarianLemming]

This thread makes me feel very disillusioned with leninist and anarchist alliance :(

[Invincible Summer]

I voted "do not support in any way" because I don't see the North Korean state as in the interests of North Korean people.

do I support the North Korean people against NATO/Western hegemony? absolutely. does that mean I have to support the bogus North Korean monarchy? no.

I can be both supportive of the North Korean people, and be completely against the Kim Dynasty. they are not one in the same.

so theoretically, i'd like to see the Kim Dynasty toppled, then replaced with North Korean Marxists, who then would have a legitimate communist state to defend against imperialism--because right now, it's a lesser of the two evil sitaution.

Right now, as it stands, what is the difference between Western imperialism and the Kim Monarchy in North Korea? they're both shitty, anti-worker choices! whoever wins, the North Korean people still lose, thus I oppose both.


This is a good response, and what I was trying to get you to say, this_is_an_invasion.

[The Vegan Marxist]

are you saying you have to be one or the other, you can't be against both? because the DPRK isn't exactly a worker's state, if you haven't noticed, but that doesn't mean I want the USA to come in and take over either.

Why can't we work towards a worker state in North Korea? why are communists so willing to settle for less? For "communist in name only"?

I hate the US imperialist agenda. I hate the Kim Dynasty agenda. I want to see both perish. i want to see a worker state in North Korea led by a dictatorship of the proletariat, not a dictatorship of one family.

it's not that hard to understand, really.

Who says we don't want a workers state to come about in the DPRK? We don't support the Juche system necessarily, but as of right now, if the US were to overthrow the DPRK, they'd be much further from gaining a workers state than they are now.

[ContrarianLemming]

oh and question: I'm unclear on what it means to say that NK is not socialist, but I support it as anti imperialism.
What exactly does it mean to vote for this? It's pretty vague, I support there people against imperialism and recognise there abuse and difficulties, however I see no reports of workers control so I don't think it's socialist.
Beyond that I have no strong opinions on NK, considering no source is unbiased.

[RedSonRising]

Hell, even wikipedia, a US funded site, says what proletarianrevolution states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Federation_of_Trade_Unions_of_Korea


Yes I recognize the existence of these organizations, but what I was asking was if proleterianrevolution had any valuable articles or firsthand accounts that take a close look at the process of these unions and federations as opposed to just vague descriptions of their names and supposed functions.

[Adi Shankara]

Who says we don't want a workers state to come about in the DPRK? We don't support the Juche system necessarily, but as of right now, if the US were to overthrow the DPRK, they'd be much further from gaining a workers state than they are now.

what makes one form of exploitation different from another form of exploitation if, at the end of the day, it's still all exploitation?

[ContrarianLemming]

what makes one form of exploitation different from another form of exploitation if, at the end of the day, it's still all exploitation?

I think what Vegan means is: state control, as opposed to corporate control, it preferable and closer to stateless communism.

[Adi Shankara]

I think what Vegan means is: state control, as opposed to corporate control, it preferable and closer to stateless communism.

again, state control without communism is just another form of bourgeois exploitation, because if workers aren't in charge of the state (since communists believe that only communism can bring about complete worker control, thus democracy)...then who is?

hint: it's not the North Korean people.

[ContrarianLemming]

again, state control without communism is just another form of bourgeoisie exploitation, because if workers aren't in charge of the state...then who is?

hint: it's not the North Korean people.

I'm just explaining what i think vegan meant, not arguing it :p

[Pretty Flaco]

One could say that the lesser of two evils are still nonetheless evil.

[Adi Shankara]

Here is a good question for you all: why does one capitalist state deserve our support over another capitalist state, if both of their end goals are to fuck over the proletariat?

[The Vegan Marxist]

again, state control without communism is just another form of bourgeois exploitation, because if workers aren't in charge of the state (since communists believe that only communism can bring about complete worker control, thus democracy)...then who is?

hint: it's not the North Korean people.

Well, naturally we're going to go from corporate capitalism to state capitalism before socialism. This is a step-by-step process. And to think that it doesn't matter which step they're in, if they're not socialist, then they're of no need to be supported against imperialism, which is absolutely absurd!

[ContrarianLemming]

Here is a good question for you all: why does one capitalist state deserve our support over another capitalist state, if both of their end goals are to fuck over the proletariat?

One of them has the term "democratic socialist" in there name.

[Adi Shankara]

Personally, I'd almost support a US invasion of North Korea--because then it'd be like afghanistan; the old dictators are gone, the new ones can't get established, and the North Korean people have a chance to assert themselves and kick both occupiers, the USA and the Kim family, out of Korea for good, through a long, drawn out insurgency. It would be bloody, yes; but the current North korean state would be toppled, and the USA wouldn't stand a chance establishing themselves (if we can barely take on a bunch of loosely organized feuding tribes, we can't take on a unified, indivisible people)

[ContrarianLemming]

Personally, I'd almost support a US invasion of North Korea--because then it'd be like afghanistan; the old dictators are gone, the new ones can't get established, and the North Korean people have a chance to assert themselves and kick both occupiers, the USA and the Kim family, out of Korea for good, through a long, drawn out insurgency.

The old dictators arn't gone, they just have new parties..

[Rousedruminations]

I think you forgot the people in the South ( South Korea) ?! ?!

[M-26-7]

I support them as socialist, but do not support them against imperialism: they should be invaded by Cuba, and a new regime installed. The two countries (Cuba, and the no-longer-revisionist DPRK) will then jointly invade the United States. They will invade through Canada, and a combined force of the EZLN, FARC, and the Venezuelan armed forces will come up from Mexico and meet them somewhere around Boise, Idaho. The Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (Hoxhaist) will contribute one man to the peacekeeping when the dust settles.

[Delenda Carthago]

I support USA against them.

[ContrarianLemming]

I support them as socialist, but do not support them against imperialism: they should be invaded by Cuba, and a new regime installed. The two countries (Cuba, and the no-longer-revisionist DPRK) will then jointly invade the United States. They will invade through Canada, and a combined force of the EZLN, FARC, and the Venezuelan armed forces will come up from Mexico and meet them somewhere around Boise, Idaho. The Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (Hoxhaist) will contribute one man to the peacekeeping when the dust settles.

This man has it all planned out!

[∞]

Anyone saying they do not support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in any way are not communists. I'm sorry, but even if you think it is capitalist, as an oppressed nation it needs to be defended from imperialism. Honestly, looking at these results truly makes me sick.

And thinking about North Korean concentration camps makes me sick.

[AK]

A textbook example of ultra-left crap.

In practice, your position translates to a support for US imperialism and domination over the Korean people.
No clue where that assumption came from:

I would not support the invading country

And in your position, it's the indirect support of imperialism by the highest ruling class. This is strictly anti-communist & you should get the fuck out of this forum if this is your way of thought, because you're not a communist nor part of any revolutionary left. You're an imperialist sympathizer, which makes you a capitalist sympathizer.
No, you can't even fucking read can you?

I would not support the invading country

Your position is the direct support of the North Korean ruling class, which just makes you a fool.

My line is that I support the right of all the lower classes of the world to not have to suffer through imperialist conquest and occupation, whilst still giving a big "fuck you" to all ruling classes - as all communists who actually want to achieve a stateless, classless society should. So no, I don't support the DPRK, I support the workers and peasants living within its territory.

[robbo203]

It's not quite the same thing.

Tell me, are you saying that you're willing to let the people of the DPRK to be the subject of the American war machine and be blase about it, simply because you don't want to even be mistaken to be a supporter of the DPRK ruling class?


Whats the problem? Its quite possible to oppose war and oppose the regime against which a hypothetical war might be waged. In fact , I think one's oppostion to the war would carry a damn sight more weight if you made it crystal clear that you had no truck with this nasty little capitalist regime for all its pseudo "anti-imperialist" posturing and that it is the interest of the north korean workers you have in mind, not its scumbag ruling class and its disgusting leadership cult

[AK]

I support them as socialist, but do not support them against imperialism: they should be invaded by Cuba, and a new regime installed. The two countries (Cuba, and the no-longer-revisionist DPRK) will then jointly invade the United States. They will invade through Canada, and a combined force of the EZLN, FARC, and the Venezuelan armed forces will come up from Mexico and meet them somewhere around Boise, Idaho. The Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (Hoxhaist) will contribute one man to the peacekeeping when the dust settles.
If this is serious...

Yeah, fuck US imperialism - but who gives a shit if Cuba and the DPRK invade the USA?

"The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself." - Marx

[AK]

I support USA against them.
What an idiot...

[Delenda Carthago]

What an idiot...
democracy will win!Death to the socialfascists!

[Delenda Carthago]

Is revleft accesable from N.Korea?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I support them as a socialist state and against imperialism

[Delenda Carthago]

PLus,anyone who thinks that N.Korea,a state that has declared that marxism is a thing of the past and that they moved forward,is "socialist",really needs to check himself.

[AK]

democracy will win!Death to the socialfascists!
But supporting the USA? Seriously? It's just as bad.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Is revleft accesable from N.Korea?
I believe the DPRK has no broadband connection to the internet, but perhaps Revleft is accesible from Kwangmyong intranet, and via satellite internet coverage.

[Delenda Carthago]

But supporting the USA? Seriously? It's just as bad.
OK,I am exaggerating.Even though I in no way think its as just as bad.USA comparing to coutries like Russia or China is 10 times more democratic.Comparing to N.Korea,is heaven.Of course its not DEMOCRATIC.But in a dialectic scale,its way better.

Plus I really think we should be over with socialfascism.Its one of the worst things that happened to revolutionary movement nowdays,supporting that kind of crap is strictly reactionary,not progresive.

[Delenda Carthago]

I believe the DPRK has no broadband connection to the internet, but perhaps Revleft is accesible from Kwangmyong intranet, and via satellite internet coverage.
then lets get in touch with someone from there and ask him what he truly believes about N.Korea.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

How the hell is the third option leading? Are there seriously people who want Imperialism to conquer NK? Would that be considered a victory for Socialism to some people?

''Don't worry, workers of North Korea. You'll be much better off in the clutches of American multi-natinals.''

...the fuck is going on?

[robbo203]

But supporting the USA? Seriously? It's just as bad.

I agree. Democracy is not something that can be "imposed" anyway. Hard as it might be for some people on this list to comprehend, the only convincing and principled line to take is to say a plague on all your houses! No support to the USA capitalist regime. No support to the north Korean capitalist regime. The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend and in this instance is most definitely not

[∞]

would you guys rather live in S. Korea or N. Korea?

[Delenda Carthago]

would you guys rather live in S. Korea or N. Korea?
I d rather live in Europe/US/Canada.

[bricolage]

"I think they are capitalist, but support them against imperialism"

The problem with this is it takes a geographical conception of imperialism or assumes that only certain states can be imperialist. Imperialism however must be construed as a world system, resultant from capitalism itself and in this way on the eradication of capitalism can ensure the eradication of imperialism. To take the assumption that 'imperialism is invasion' or 'the us is imperialist' leaves you open to all kinds of problems, for example I've seen people describe the PRC as 'anti-imperialst', I mean come on...

[AK]

How the hell is the third option leading? Are there seriously people who want Imperialism to conquer NK? Would that be considered a victory for Socialism to some people?

''Don't worry, workers of North Korea. You'll be much better off in the clutches of American multi-natinals.''

...the fuck is going on?
No-one should support the North Korean ruling class. We should support the working class of North Korea without hesitation. That is why the third option is leading - because we support the working class and not the state of North Korea (and the question asks what we think of the state that is the DPRK - not the working class).

[ContrarianLemming]

This thread is a farce, a sectarian circle jerk.

[durhamleft]

I don't support them at all. They have no respect for human life. In October 2007, a South Pyongan province factory chief convicted of making international phone calls from 13 phones he installed in his factory basement was executed by firing squad in front of a crowd of 150,000 people in a stadium. In another instance, 15 people were publicly executed for crossing into China

[Wanted Man]

would you guys rather live in S. Korea or N. Korea?

I'd rather live in the Playboy Mansion. This question is perfectly irrelevant.

[meow]

It's sad to see the third option getting so many votes. North Korea's government is one thing, but to not support them at all you're basically telling North Korean proletarians "fuck you man."
no. to not support government is telling government "fuck you".

How the hell is the third option leading? Are there seriously people who want Imperialism to conquer NK? Would that be considered a victory for Socialism to some people?

''Don't worry, workers of North Korea. You'll be much better off in the clutches of American multi-natinals.''

...the fuck is going on?
to not support governmetn does not mean to support imperialism. you and others have presented false dichotomy. it is not "support nk" or "support imperialism and want them to crush everyone" as only option. 3rd option is "fuck all government fuck imperialism and no war but the class war". which is what people are voting when they vote they dont support nk at all.

this thread is a troll thread like the one where would you rather live. it provides a simplistic view of the world. sensible people realize that many options exist. communists and anarchists support the option expressed "fuck all government" and at most support a government only to the extent of oppose imperialism. especially when that government has kept communication from people in that country (how many people have internet access in nk?) and all the other things the nk govt does.

[robbo203]

I don't support them at all. They have no respect for human life. In October 2007, a South Pyongan province factory chief convicted of making international phone calls from 13 phones he installed in his factory basement was executed by firing squad in front of a crowd of 150,000 people in a stadium. In another instance, 15 people were publicly executed for crossing into China

That is truly disgusting. It strikes me that these useful idiots who seek to apologise for this abhorrent regime are typical of the kind of armchair revolutionaries in love with the mere political rhetoric in which such a regime clothes itself - like its pseudo anti-imperialist posturing - but who given a chance to actually live under such a regime would run a mile from it. Call a spade a spade. I dont care what bloody label you attach to the regime, it is facts like this that condemn it absolutely and without question.

[bricolage]

And what does 'support' North Korea even mean? Is everyone about to run off with guns blazing shooting down US soldiers? .... although given the crap that was in the Venezuela thread maybe this doesn't seem so ridiculous...

[Invincible Summer]

I don't support them at all. They have no respect for human life. In October 2007, a South Pyongan province factory chief convicted of making international phone calls from 13 phones he installed in his factory basement was executed by firing squad in front of a crowd of 150,000 people in a stadium. In another instance, 15 people were publicly executed for crossing into China

If that's true, then it's sad. But like with all things, context is important. We can't just rely on sensationalist headlines, or else Glenn Beck would be the best source for anything.


Why does a factory chief have 13 phones? Who was he calling? Were those 15 people spies? Fugitives? etc.

[durhamleft]

That is truly disgusting. It strikes me that these useful idiots who seek to apologise for this abhorrent regime are typical of the kind of armchair revolutionaries in love with the mere political rhetoric in which such a regime clothes itself - like its pseudo anti-imperialist posturing - but who given a chance to actually live under such a regime would run a mile from it. Call a spade a spade. I dont care what bloody label you attach to the regime, it is facts like this that condemn it absolutely and without question.

Yes, certainly the Socialist Party I'm attached to have actually been active in helping Socialists in China and North Korea who are being persecuted by their Government because they believe the "socialism" being practised is a disgrace to the true meaning of Socialism.

The left should be against oppression of all sorts, whether it is class oppression or oppression of those with other views to yourself. Some of the authoritarian Stalinists in the left really don't do us any favours in my opinion.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

no. to not support government is telling government "fuck you".

to not support governmetn does not mean to support imperialism. you and others have presented false dichotomy. it is not "support nk" or "support imperialism and want them to crush everyone" as only option. 3rd option is "fuck all government fuck imperialism and no war but the class war". which is what people are voting when they vote they dont support nk at all.

this thread is a troll thread like the one where would you rather live. it provides a simplistic view of the world. sensible people realize that many options exist. communists and anarchists support the option expressed "fuck all government" and at most support a government only to the extent of oppose imperialism. especially when that government has kept communication from people in that country (how many people have internet access in nk?) and all the other things the nk govt does.

If you don't support the DPRK in any way, then you do never support the DPRK in any way, not even if it is attacked by international imperialism. The third option leads to defaitism at best.

[bricolage]

The third option leads to defaitism at best.

revolutionary defeatism

[durhamleft]

If that's true, then it's sad. But like with all things, context is important. We can't just rely on sensationalist headlines, or else Glenn Beck would be the best source for anything.


Why does a factory chief have 13 phones? Who was he calling? Were those 15 people spies? Fugitives? etc.

Honestly, it goes on and on. One can look at their treatment of those with disabilities, the state allowed prostitution or the massive internment camps they have for political prisoners. Marx's vision is not what is being practiced in N.Korea.

And of course- there are capitalist government's who do things just as bad, and I would say America's government is just as bad with human rights in many ways, however just because DPRK fly the flag of socialism doesn't mean they aren't a very oppressive and unjust regime.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

revolutionary defeatism
Which in many occasions equals betrayal of the Working Class.

[bricolage]

Which in many occasions equals betrayal of the Working Class.

The working class are betrayed once they start fighting for the victory one capitalist state against another in an imperialist war.

[Wanted Man]

revolutionary defeatism

Revolutionary defeatism against a country that gets attacked by your own government? Elaborate.

[bricolage]

Revolutionary defeatism against a country that gets attacked by your own government? Elaborate.

revolutionary defeatism in a war between the US and North Korea

[AK]

Which in many occasions equals betrayal of the Working Class.

Revolutionary Defeatism is a concept made most prominent by Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) in World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I). It is based on the Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) idea of class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle). Arguing that the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat) could not win or gain in a capitalist war, Lenin declared its true enemy is the imperialist leaders who sent their lower classes into battle. Workers would gain more from their own nations’ defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.
In what way does the realisation that the working class gains nothing in a capitalist war equate to being anti-working class?

[Wanted Man]

revolutionary defeatism in a war between the US and North Korea

I.e. pushing for the defeat of your own nation (the US in this case?).

[Adi Shankara]

Is revleft accesable from N.Korea?

Of course not, Glorious North Korea doesn't allow it's citizens access to bourgeois internet access because megabytes of bandwidth aren't equally distributed amongst the revolutionary anti-imperialist e-proletariat, so for now, only Marshall Kim Jong Il has access to the imperialist website Revleft, for only his brain (which equally distributes neurons) can withstand the capitalist concept of the world wide web.

[bricolage]

I.e. pushing for the defeat of your own nation (the US in this case?).

most people here aren't american I don't think.
additionally revolutionary defeatism would call for the defeat of the North Korean ruling class as well, it would be the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war, or rather a civil war in both the US and North Korea.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

In what way does the realisation that the working class gains nothing in a capitalist war equate to being anti-working class?
Defeatism in a war between the DPRK and the USA is treason of the Working Class of North Korea. A US victory would lead to the full destruction of all achievements of the DPRK and the complete restoration of capitalism.
And you want to stand idly by and watch the Proletarians getting massacred by American imperialism just because the DPRK doesn't represent your ideas for the full 100%... Great...

[Adi Shankara]

Here is a good scenario that we can compare this to:

corrupt brutal pasha, raja, negus--you name it--rules over his people with an iron fist, as they starve in the country side and he collects and assumes massive amounts of wealth.

the British come and invade, to impose the exact same exploitation that the ruler is, except it's a foreign government.

now then: Who would you support in this war, and for what reason?

Personally, I'd say to hell with all of them.

[AK]

Defeatism in a war between the DPRK and the USA is treason of the Working Class of North Korea. A US victory would lead to the full destruction of all achievements of the DPRK and the complete restoration of capitalism.
And you want to stand idly by and watch the Proletarians getting massacred by American imperialism just because the DPRK doesn't represent your ideas for the full 100%... Great...
There should be a popular resistance by the workers. No-one is saying to stand idle.

[Wanted Man]

most people here aren't american I don't think.
additionally revolutionary defeatism would call for the defeat of the North Korean ruling class as well, it would be the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war, or rather a civil war in both the US and North Korea.

If you say so. Of course, the difference is that American workers can actively help defeat their own nation by sabotaging the war effort, whereas they can't do the same thing to North Korea. So practically speaking, the former is far more relevant than any opinions one may have on North Korea.

Another major difference is the power differences between the two. You'd have to wear pretty thick left-communist blinders to argue that such a war is simply an inter-imperialist conflict between two imperialist states, looking to dominate the world for themselves.

Furthermore, not all of us live in the US, but it's very well possible that such a war would involve a coalition of several or all NATO nations. Those living in these other nations could do the same thing.

Of course, this entire discussion presupposes that such an all-out war will happen in the near future, which is highly unlikely. With the two ongoing occupations stemming from ground invasions in the Middle-East, the chances of a similar thing happening in Korea are very low. A more interesting discussion might be how to organise against a limited bombing campaign or something like that, although any kind of military intervention seems unlikely at this time.


Of course not, Glorious North Korea doesn't allow it's citizens access to bourgeois internet access because megabytes of bandwidth aren't equally distributed amongst the revolutionary anti-imperialist e-proletariat, so for now, only Marshall Kim Jong Il has access to the imperialist website Revleft, for only his brain (which equally distributes neurons) can withstand the capitalist concept of the world wide web.

Oh for fuck's sake, shut up.

[bricolage]

If you say so. Of course, the difference is that American workers can actively help defeat their own nation by sabotaging the war effort, whereas they can't do the same thing to North Korea.
However North Korean workers could theoretically do that.


Another major difference is the power differences between the two. You'd have to wear pretty thick left-communist blinders to argue that such a war is simply an inter-imperialist conflict between two imperialist states, looking to dominate the world for themselves.
I think the argument goes that in the age of imperialism, in which it is a totalising world system, all conflict are imperialist conflicts and all states have (if in many cases extremely latent) imperialist interests. You'd have to get someone else to explan it better than me though. I suppose one way of looking at this is the relationship the PRC would have to North Korea, contributing an additional imperialist dimension.


With the two ongoing occupations stemming from ground invasions in the Middle-East, the chances of a similar thing happening in Korea are very low.... any kind of military intervention seems unlikely at this time.
I agree with this, all this talk of conflicts is entirely hypothetical, there will be no invasion of or attack on North Korea just as there will be none on Venezuela, most of this is just so internet warriors can get hard ons about running off with guns to defend 'the workers state'.

[Chambered Word]

There should be a popular resistance by the workers. No-one is saying to stand idle.

So you are basically saying you support the DPRK against imperialism?

That does not equal support for the DPRK's ruling class per se, it just means you support North Korea against invasion.

[AK]

So you are basically saying you support the DPRK against imperialism?

That does not equal support for the DPRK's ruling class per se, it just means you support North Korea against invasion.
No, I support it's workers. The workers are not the DPRK.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Its hard to understand that 35% of people who have voted on a poll on a left wing site do not support the North Korean population in their struggle against imperialism.

I think those who have voted for the third option need to have a serious look at their commitment to 'socialism'.

[AK]

Its hard to understand that 35% of people who have voted on a poll on a left wing site do not support the North Korean population in their struggle against imperialism.

I think those who have voted for the third option need to have a serious look at their commitment to 'socialism'.
The poll asked what we think of the DPRK. The DPRK is not working class. Of course I support the North Korean working class in it's struggle against imperialism and oppression, but I don't support either side in the DPRK-USA ruling class squabble.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

No-one should support the North Korean ruling class. We should support the working class of North Korea without hesitation. That is why the third option is leading - because we support the working class and not the state of North Korea (and the question asks what we think of the state that is the DPRK - not the working class).
But what I want to know is whether anyone who voted for the third option thinks an Imperialist victory in North Korea is somehow progressive? And if not, why not pick the second option which clearly labels the country Capitalist?

It's one thing to not like(or even hate) the North Korean state, but a whole different thing to not even take a stance against US Imperialism.

[meow]

no war but class war. remember that!


Defeatism in a war between the DPRK and the USA is treason of the Working Class of North Korea. A US victory would lead to the full destruction of all achievements of the DPRK and the complete restoration of capitalism.
And you want to stand idly by and watch the Proletarians getting massacred by American imperialism just because the DPRK doesn't represent your ideas for the full 100%... Great...
no. fuck you.

we dont stand by and watch people get killed. we fight against both enemies. bother the nk govt and the us govt. there are no achievements worth fighting for in nk for the international working class. we want true socialism and revolution. and in nk they dont have either. they have imposed dictatorship from ussr which some how survived until now. if nk was truely socialist they would be trying to export by propaganda. they would allow mass communication (suhc as internet) to outside world. if nk is so great why dont they allow the people to say how great it is?

hey? how come we onyl have people from not nk say how great nk is? we never have people from nk because nk does not have true socialism.

[Chambered Word]

The poll asked what we think of the DPRK. The DPRK is not working class. Of course I support the North Korean working class in it's struggle against imperialism and oppression, but I don't support either side in the DPRK-USA ruling class squabble.

I don't think you understand this completely. It's more than a 'ruling class squabble', workers are actually much worse off under imperialist regimes. Do you support Iraq and Afghanistan against invasion by the Coalition?

[AK]

But what I want to know is whether anyone who voted for the third option thinks an Imperialist victory in North Korea is somehow progressive? And if not, why not pick the second option which clearly labels the country Capitalist?
Because we don't support the ruling class of the DPRK against imperialism (or at all, actually). They can die in a fire. And I truly doubt anyone here thinks that the addition of North Korea to the capitalists' global empire is "progressive".


It's one thing to not like(or even hate) the North Korean state, but a whole different thing to not even take a stance against US Imperialism.
Ok then, let me rephrase: fuck both North Korea and the United States. It's quite silly of you to draw the unfounded conclusion that I don't take any stance at all against imperialism.

[AK]

I don't think you understand this completely. It's more than a 'ruling class squabble', workers are actually much worse off under imperialist regimes. Do you support Iraq and Afghanistan against invasion by the Coalition?
I say fuck the Iraqi and Afghan states - neither state deserves any support. Sure, the US must be condemned for the act of imperialist greed and aggression, but I only support the innocent workers and peasants. Remember that if we were to look at this from a ruling class perspective, we would plainly see that the invasion is just a conflict between different ruling classes - but they all use the working class as cannon-fodder as they are the ruling class and are hardly going to grab some M16s and head off to Baghdad and Kabul when they can get the indoctrinated lower classes to do it for them.

[Adi Shankara]

The poll asked what we think of the DPRK. The DPRK is not working class. Of course I support the North Korean working class in it's struggle against imperialism and oppression, but I don't support either side in the DPRK-USA ruling class squabble.

You think this would be an easy concept to understand...BUT NOT ON REVLEFT, where people have to turn everything into a final battle between good or evil, imperalist or proletarian, no middle ground, even if the question is "coke or pepsi".

[AK]

You think this would be an easy concept to understand...BUT NOT ON REVLEFT!!! :laugh:
You'd think, wouldn't you? But on Revleft I get accused of being in bed with the US imperialists...

[Wanted Man]

You think this would be an easy concept to understand...BUT NOT ON REVLEFT, where people have to turn everything into a final battle between good or evil, imperalist or proletarian, no middle ground, even if the question is "coke or pepsi".


You'd think, wouldn't you? But on Revleft I get accused of being in bed with the US imperialists...

What a horrible place Revleft is, with all those people critically examining what you say and shit. :(

[Adi Shankara]

What a horrible place Revleft is, with all those people critically examining what you say and shit. :(

critically examining what I said? it was very straight forward, which can be broken down into 5 points:

* against US imperialism/aggression

* against the Kim Dynasty

*destruction of the North Korean monarchy

*destruction of the US capitalist empire

* marxist states replace both nations.

that's ideal, but that's not too high of a goal for communism, I don't think. but it's not anymore complicated than that. nowhere did I or Alpha say that we wanted to see North Korea invaded by the United States, or that the USA would do a good job of running the DPRK; we just both said we oppose both nations, and their capitalist plans. that simple.

[Wanted Man]

critically examining what I said? it was very straight forward, which can be broken down into 5 points:

* against US imperialism/aggression

* against the Kim Dynasty

*destruction of the North Korean monarchy

*destruction of the US capitalist empire

* marxist states replace both nations.

that's ideal, but that's not too high of a goal for communism, I don't think. but it's not anymore complicated than that.

Yeah okay. Revleft would be so much nicer if everyone took what everyone else said at face value. We all want statelessness and classlessness, and we all want to support the workers of every country in the world in their struggle towards this, so what is there to debate? Disband the forum!

Apparently, it's a bit more complicated. ;)

[durhamleft]

Yeah okay. Revleft would be so much nicer if everyone took what everyone else said at face value. We all want statelessness and classlessness, and we all want to support the workers of every country in the world in their struggle towards this, so what is there to debate? Disband the forum!

Apparently, it's a bit more complicated. ;)

I don't want statelessness so :lol:

[AK]

What a horrible place Revleft is, with all those people critically examining what you say and shit. :(
Claiming I support the US counts as critical examination?

[Wanted Man]

I don't want statelessness so :lol:

You're a statist?

[ContrarianLemming]

You're a statist?

dude, you're surrounded by them.

[Wanted Man]

Where?

[ContrarianLemming]

Where?

there

[Wanted Man]

Ah right.

[durhamleft]

Ah right.

I think most the socialists on here would believe in having a state.

[Chambered Word]

Despite all efforts to explain the thread's question, I'm not sure that we've been clear enough. 'I do not support them in any way' means that you are apathetic towards the outcome of an imperialist conflict between the US and the DPRK. Otherwise you support the US or you support the DPRK (as a socialist or non-socialist state).

Apathy towards the outcome would imply that imperialism does not faze you.

My personal opinion is that the DPRK is state-capitalist, but it should be defended against imperialism.

[durhamleft]

Despite all efforts to explain the thread's question, I'm not sure that we've been clear enough. 'I do not support them in any way' means that you are apathetic towards the outcome of an imperialist conflict between the US and the DPRK. Otherwise you support the US or you support the DPRK (as a socialist or non-socialist state).

Apathy towards the outcome would imply that imperialism does not faze you.

My personal opinion is that the DPRK is state-capitalist, but it should be defended against imperialism.

Couldn't you have apathy towards the outcome of conflict not because you are not bothered by imperialism, but because you regard DPRK in such contempt as a capitalist state that treats its workers as shit that you would not be overly fazed if they ended up in conflict with the US, especially considering they seem to me to being pretty aggressive?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

There should be a popular resistance by the workers. No-one is saying to stand idle.
Oh yes, don't stand idly by. Just destroy the DPRK entirely from within. That will help defend the Proletariat in the war against imperialism for sure...
Right...

[durhamleft]

Oh yes, don't stand idly by. Just destroy the DPRK entirely from within. That will help defend the Proletariat in the war against imperialism for sure...
Right...

The workers deserve so much better than the crap offered by the DPRK government.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

no war but class war. remember that!


no. fuck you.

we dont stand by and watch people get killed. we fight against both enemies. bother the nk govt and the us govt. there are no achievements worth fighting for in nk for the international working class. we want true socialism and revolution. and in nk they dont have either. they have imposed dictatorship from ussr which some how survived until now. if nk was truely socialist they would be trying to export by propaganda. they would allow mass communication (suhc as internet) to outside world. if nk is so great why dont they allow the people to say how great it is?

hey? how come we onyl have people from not nk say how great nk is? we never have people from nk because nk does not have true socialism.

:laugh:
So your justification for the claim that the DPRK is not Socialist is the fact that they do not "export" or expand? What do you want? A DPRK invasion of the South? Massove funding from the DPRK to rebel movements across the globe?
Oh right, mass communication... Off course, why didn't I think of that?
It's obvious that when the DPRK established mass internet lines that the Revolution in South Korea will break out immediately because of the masses of online North Korean propaganda that will be sent throughout the world...
You know what, I believe the DPRK can even start the World Revolution over the internet, if only they had a broadband connection...
The loads and loads of anticommunist, reactionary, fascist and capitalist propaganda on millions and millions of internet sites will be no match for North Korean internet propaganda.
We've found out what the core principle of Socialism is:
mass communication! Whenever you have mass communication, there will be Socialism!
:laugh:

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The workers deserve so much better than the crap offered by the DPRK government.
Ah yes, and you're going to give it to them by starting an armed group and start shooting both sides if a conflict between the DPRK and the USA were to break out... That will work...

[durhamleft]

Ah yes, and you're going to give it to them by starting an armed group and start shooting both sides if a conflict between the DPRK and the USA were to break out... That will work...

I think many workers there would rather violence in order to overthrow their government.

[Chambered Word]

Couldn't you have apathy towards the outcome of conflict not because you are not bothered by imperialism, but because you regard DPRK in such contempt as a capitalist state that treats its workers as shit that you would not be overly fazed if they ended up in conflict with the US, especially considering they seem to me to being pretty aggressive?

Do you care less about imperialism than authoritarian governments?

The DPRK being 'pretty aggressive' is not really a materialist analysis. As Marxists we should try not to be emotional about issues and instead apply logic to come up with solutions.

Every non-imperialist country must be defended against imperialism. Imperialism feeds capital accumulation in societies where capitalism has reached the highest level of development and imposes another set of shackles upon workers, who will have to overthrow a new bourgeoisie which is stronger and has already consolidated its power elsewhere. If you don't see the logic in this, I can't help you - especially as my knowledge around imperialism is not as good as it should be.

[Zanthorus]

Every non-imperialist country

Well here's your first problem.

[Adil3tr]

I do not support them in any way shape or form.

[Wanted Man]

I think most the socialists on here would believe in having a state.

But the state will never disappear?

[Sir Comradical]

I'd say that many communist states can justify their repressive policies on the grounds of defending the revolution from counter-revolutionary pressures originating from both inside and outside the country. However much of the repression in the DPRK cannot be justified on the grounds of defending the revolution, for example the story of defector Shin Dong Hyuk is rife with torture beatings and all kinds of sickening savagery. Are we to believe that this is class violence? No.

Having said this, the DPRK should absolutely be defended by the left if faced with imperialist aggression. I think this is a fairly basic anti-imperialist stance.

[Sir Comradical]

does anyone else see the irony in this choice?

Imperialism and capitalism are both fruit from the same fucking tree! they are the exact same thing!

So what this choice is basically asking is "do you support and defend a capitalist state against other rival capitalists?"

As for the question you've boiled it down to: "Do you support and defend a capitalist state against other rival capitalists?"

Absolutely. Saddam-era Iraq was a capitalist state, did we all oppose the US-led invasion? Of course we did. So yes, anti-imperialism does mean opposing capitalist aggression against other capitalist states.

[Adi Shankara]

As for the question you've boiled it down to: "Do you support and defend a capitalist state against other rival capitalists?"

Absolutely. Saddam-era Iraq was a capitalist state, did we all oppose the US-led invasion? Of course we did. So yes, anti-imperialism does mean opposing capitalist aggression against other capitalist states.

That didn't mean we supported Saddam Hussein though.

[Sir Comradical]

That didn't mean we supported Saddam Hussein though.

Ohh yes, I get what you mean.

[Chambered Word]

That didn't mean we supported Saddam Hussein though.

No one here supports the Taliban or Saddam Hussein and even Trotskyists, - who generally reject the idea of already existing socialism at this point in time - believe the DPRK should be defended against imperialism. Anti-imperialism comes seperately to supporting countries under the pretext of socialism.


Well here's your first problem.

Explain, comrade.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

That didn't mean we supported Saddam Hussein though.
You don't have to support Hussein, or the Kims, to oppose imperialism.

This thread is mental, some people are actually supporting a US invasion of NK! Many innocent workers will die, only to have their system replaced by one which is the root of most of the exploitation on the planet.

I wonder what the NK workers would make of us "communists" defending a US invasion of NK, to "save then" from exploitation? It would be like defending the Iraqi war because we don't like Hussein.

Maybe these people are right, the NK people will be grateful when their people are slaughtered in the name of Western democracy. Just like the Iraqi citizens are loving our troops right now, after they've destroyed their homes and shot dead their families and friends in cold blood. Surely this is better than the current powers in NK eh?

[scarletghoul]

I think most the socialists on here would believe in having a state. For the record, my goal is classless statelessness. The higher stage of communism. Anarchy.

The state is a means, not an end. This is the standard Marxist-Leninist outlook.

The problem with many ultra-leftists is that they can't distinguish between means and ends. They think that us 'stalinists' support authoritarianism and statism because we somehow like it, that it's our ideal fantasy.. I can't speak for the others, but I myself would not support any state unless I thought it would help in the struggle for true freedom (communism/anarchy). I support North Korea not because I think its the ideal utopia, but because the only way to reach such ideal freedom is through the defeat of US imperialism and capitalism in general, and the DPRK is a leading force in that. A means to an end. This is what separates us from ultra-leftists, and means that we have a chance to change the world for the better. The ultra-leftists who reject all means but focus only on the ends, they are good for nothing and have no hope of achieving anything. Mao said "In order to get rid of the gun, it is necessary to take up the gun." I think we should add to this - In order to get rid of the state, it is necessary to take up the state.

[gorillafuck]

It depends on your definition of support. I oppose imperialism against North Korea, does that constitute support?

I think that NK is state-capitalist and I oppose imperialism against them and any country. That's my answer because it is less confusing and I am not quite sure what "support" means in this case.

[scarletghoul]

It depends on your definition of support. I oppose imperialism against North Korea, does that constitute support?

I think that NK is state-capitalist and I oppose imperialism against them and any country. That's my answer because it is less confusing and I am not quite sure what "support" means in this case.
If you oppose imperialism against North Korea then you support North Korea against imperialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

I support North Korea not because I think its the ideal utopia, but because the only way to reach such ideal freedom is through the defeat of US imperialism and capitalism in general, and the DPRK is a leading force in that. A means to an end.
Please elaborate why exactly do you believe that DPRK is a leading force in revolutionary struggle (of the global proletariat) against capitalism.

[robbo203]

Defeatism in a war between the DPRK and the USA is treason of the Working Class of North Korea. A US victory would lead to the full destruction of all achievements of the DPRK and the complete restoration of capitalism.
And you want to stand idly by and watch the Proletarians getting massacred by American imperialism just because the DPRK doesn't represent your ideas for the full 100%... Great...

North Korea is a fully capitalist state and always has been. There is no question of capitalism being "restored" but only of capitalism being abolished - there and everywhere else in global capitalism. You dont have to support a despicable capitalist state like the North Korean regime in order to oppose any hypothetical war waged against it by some other capitalist state. Revolutionary socialists do not take sides in the wars between capitalist states but we do oppose workers being drawn into supporting one side or another. We would equally urge our fellow workers in both the USA and North Korea not to support any such war. This may not have much effect on the outcome - though nor would actively supporting the North Korean regime - but at least it is a principled and socialist in orientation. To support the North Korean capitalist regime amounts to selling out on any vestige of socialist principle for the cause of bourgeois nationalism and pseudo "anti imperialism"

[Zanthorus]

Explain, comrade.

All capitalist nations have tendencies towards imperialist war in order to alleviate their internal economic contradictions. It is eroneous to believe, as some on the left seem to do, that only the US and it's allies are "imperialist" and that backing various nationalist movements and states worldwide which are hostile to US interests constitutes any kind of "anti-imperialism". If these projects were succesful the most likely outcome would be to create a new international locus for world imperialism. Need I cite the case of Germany, which after the versailles treaty was regarded by some on the left as an ally against western imperialism, to the extent that they nurtured German militarism and the far right.

The reason the US constitutes the center of world imperialism is not because imperialism is something specific to US foreign policy, but because the way history so far has played out has left the US with the military strength to pursue such a policy. This leads into the next part of my argument, which is on feasability. You can talk about defending the DPRK against American imperialism all you like, but your position amounts to nothing if you don't have some way to back it up. What exact maneveurs do you believe socialists could take to defend North Korea against hostile invasion from the west? Keeping in mind that wars are not democratic. 70% of the UK population for example, opposes the war in Afghanistan. Also keeping in mind that there were huge protests against the Iraq war back when it first kicked off and that didn't do squat to change anything. Without a concrete way to put the defence of NK into action all your position amounts to is a moral position. Of course I have nothing against moral positions per se, but I should think it's clear that defence of NK by itself is not a virtue. The only motive force here is opposing imperialist aggression, but defence of NK doesn't automatically flow from that without some intermediate steps. The only thing that flows from it is to end the system that causes wars, along with the various national chauvinisms that fuel it. Especially with regards to the latter the best line for the left to take would be a staunch internationalism, pointing out the identity of interests between the western and North Korean working classes.

As for those who believe the not taking sides stance to be "defeatist" or "idealist", what stance did the First International take on the Franco-Prussian war again? What was the actual response of the French and specifically Parisian working class to that war? What was Lenin's position on the First World War? How about Luxemburg and Trotsky?

[it_ain't_me]

most people here aren't american I don't think.
additionally revolutionary defeatism would call for the defeat of the North Korean ruling class as well, it would be the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war, or rather a civil war in both the US and North Korea.

hmmm yes, you can really see that the u.s. would break into a class-based civil war over an invasion of north korea, just as it did over the invasions of iraq, afghanistan, haiti, somalia, panama, grenada, vietnam, cuba, korea, etc.

[Invincible Summer]

No, I support it's workers. The workers are not the DPRK.

But if a conflict was to arise, a great number of the workers would be involved in the defense of their homeland.

In some cases, the people are not necessarily distinguishable from the nation.



we dont stand by and watch people get killed. we fight against both enemies. bother the nk govt and the us govt.
I think fighting would require more than bothering governments :lol:

Seriously though, wouldn't you support the DPRK's working class against imperialism so the would survive to resist another day?

You have to pick your battles - you can't have it all at once.


there are no achievements worth fighting for in nk for the international working class. we want true socialism and revolution. and in nk they dont have either.
Aren't revolution and socialism something to "achieve?" Why does a country already have to have revolution and socialism to be worthy of defense?



they have imposed dictatorship from ussr which some how survived until now. if nk was truely socialist they would be trying to export by propaganda. they would allow mass communication (suhc as internet) to outside world. if nk is so great why dont they allow the people to say how great it is?
I'm not read up on the infrastructure in the DPRK, but do they even have internet access on a wide scale? They may just not have the resources to distribute it as widely as other nations.


hey? how come we onyl have people from not nk say how great nk is? we never have people from nk because nk does not have true socialism.
Maybe because only assholes go around and say to people "Soo.... I'm from this really fuckin' awesome place. Wanna hear about it?"

[Zanthorus]

hmmm yes, you can really see that the u.s. would break into a class-based civil war over an invasion of north korea, just as it did over the invasions of iraq, afghanistan, haiti, somalia, panama, grenada, vietnam, cuba, korea, etc.

I think the point was that that's what socialists should be struggling for, not necessarily what the outcome of any hypothetical war between NK and the US would be. Really that's what we should be struggling for on all occasions, the war just gives us a better chance to point out the barbarism engendered by the present system.

EDIT:


But if a conflict was to arise, a great number of the workers would be involved in the defense of their homeland.

In some cases, the people are not necessarily distinguishable from the nation.

True. The same was true of various western nations during the two world wars however. I doubt anyone here would take that as a good excuse to support the west in either war.

[it_ain't_me]

I think the point was that that's what socialists should be struggling for, not necessarily what the outcome of any hypothetical war between NK and the US would be. no, or s/he wouldn't have brought it up in a discussion about north korea.


Really that's what we should be struggling for on all occasions, the war just gives us a better chance to point out the barbarism engendered by the present system.

so - and please, tell me if i am interpreting your post wrong here - you are in favor of allowing the u.s. military to slaughter north korean workers in a war of imperialist aggression because it would provide the u.s. left with valuable talking points?

[Zanthorus]

so socialists should be struggling for something that they know won't happen, basically.

No, it just means that the outcome of any war between NK and the US would not necessarily be a class war but that socialists should struggle for such anyway instead of rooting for the anti-imperialist crowd like they've done in every previous conflict and which has gotten us precisely nowhere so far.


so - and please, tell me if i am interpreting your post wrong here - you are in favor of allowing the u.s. military to slaughter north korean workers in a war of imperialist aggression because it would provide the u.s. left with valuable talking points?

I am not in favour of any kind of war being carried out by the US against NK. However in the event of one it would provide us with a good propaganda opportunity against the US state which could feed into aforementioned civil war against that state. How you got from my last post to me supporting US aggression I don't know. Saying that saying war provides a good propaganda opportunity means you support war is equivalent to saying that saying that harsh working conditions provide good propaganda means that you support harsh working conditions.

[it_ain't_me]

I am not in favour of any kind of war being carried out by the US against NK. However in the event of one it would provide us with a good propaganda opportunity against the US state which could feed into aforementioned civil war against that state.

no, it wouldn't, because as i already pointed out in a previous post, no previous invasion of a country by the u.s. has ever led to anything approaching open class war in the u.s. itself. you're full of it and you probably know it. if not, then have fun with your fantasy i guess.

[Zanthorus]

no, it wouldn't, because as i already pointed out in a previous post, no previous invasion of a country by the u.s. has ever led to anything approaching open class war in the u.s. itself. you're full of it and you probably know it. if not, then have fun with your fantasy i guess.

Have fun with your fantasy of defeating imperialism by supporting every demagogue hostile to US foreign interests no matter how reactionary.

[it_ain't_me]

Not my fantasy, bricolage's.

oh right, i forgot that trick where someone defends another person's post for a long time and then says ''hey, it wasn't my position anyway, it was his''. well played.

[Zanthorus]

oh right, i forgot that trick where someone defends another person's post for a long time and then says ''hey, it wasn't my position anyway, it was his''. well played.

Well you've got me there.

I would like to point out that by your reasoning we should all just give up, considering how there has never been a class based civil war in the US, however. You could say that your position amounts to a kind of... defeatism.

[Nachie]

Is there any question as to where the term "loony left" comes from?

I wish some of y'all would take a step back, look in the mirror, and say out loud "I support North Korea."

North. Korea.

Before the Afghan war it was plenty acceptable to just be against war, period. You didn't have to defend the Taleban as a STALWART BASTION OF ANTI-IMPERIALISM.

FOR THE MOTHERLAND!

[Wanted Man]

Oh noes moral panic!!! :ohmy:

[Invincible Summer]

Is there any question as to where the term "loony left" comes from?

I wish some of y'all would take a step back, look in the mirror, and say out loud "I support North Korea."

North. Korea.!

What a shitty argument. All this does is support the inane, baseless propaganda spewed out by the West in order to discredit anything that happens in the DPRK.

I'm not saying the DPRK is perfect - far from it - but at least come up with something constructive.


I'm getting really sick of this. It's in the same vein as "Oh well y'all know that black people are criminals, so why are you surprised when they get put in prison?"

[scarletghoul]

Is there any question as to where the term "loony left" comes from?

I wish some of y'all would take a step back, look in the mirror, and say out loud "I support North Korea."

North. Korea.

you are more or less admitting that your position just stems from the fact that north korea is generally considered evil and crazy in the west, and you dont wanna appear evil/crazy too.

Nothing to do with objective truth

[LaRiposte]

I voted for the first option, but I would like to clarify that North Korea is not socialist (and it certainly isn't any sort of capitalist either). It is a transitional society which has (poorly) implemented a planned economy and in which, at least formally, all productive property is in the hands of the state. I defend these advances against imperialism unconditionally.

I call for the North Korean proletariat and peasantry to wage an implacable struggle against the bureaucracy in order that the DPRK earn the title "democratic people's republic."

[bricolage]

hmmm yes, you can really see that the u.s. would break into a class-based civil war over an invasion of north korea, just as it did over the invasions of iraq, afghanistan, haiti, somalia, panama, grenada, vietnam, cuba, korea, etc.

No I don't think that will happen, I'm just saying that is the correct line to be pressing for.
If we only stuck by things that were bound to happen then I'm sure we'd win a lot of times but we sure as hell wouldn't ever reach communism.

[LeninBalls]

does anyone else see the irony in this choice?

Imperialism and capitalism are both fruit from the same fucking tree! they are the exact same thing!



Because the living conditions of the Iraqi proletariat pre US imperialist occupation and post US imperialist occupation are the exact same.

Twat.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Those who support the DPRK against imperialism: 59

Those who don't support the DPRK against imperialism: 39
:thumbup1:

[scarletghoul]

Those who support the DPRK against imperialism: 59

Those who don't support the DPRK against imperialism: 39
:thumbup1:
That's great until you remember this forum is for Revolutionary Leftists :laugh::lol::confused::(:crying:

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ lol, ehhh, we'll be alright. We're now at 60!

[meow]

:laugh:
So your justification for the claim that the DPRK is not Socialist is the fact that they do not "export" or expand? What do you want? A DPRK invasion of the South? Massove funding from the DPRK to rebel movements across the globe?
Oh right, mass communication... Off course, why didn't I think of that?
It's obvious that when the DPRK established mass internet lines that the Revolution in South Korea will break out immediately because of the masses of online North Korean propaganda that will be sent throughout the world...
You know what, I believe the DPRK can even start the World Revolution over the internet, if only they had a broadband connection...
The loads and loads of anticommunist, reactionary, fascist and capitalist propaganda on millions and millions of internet sites will be no match for North Korean internet propaganda.
We've found out what the core principle of Socialism is:
mass communication! Whenever you have mass communication, there will be Socialism!
:laugh:
haha. everyone has internet except dictatorships. heck even dictatorships have internet. dprk as you put it (the "democratic" "people's" "republic" when it is none of them) is virtually the only country without internet. they can trade with china. therefore they can get goods need from china. heck south korea will be happy to have internet connection from north. (for propaganda of course).

mass communication is not a sign of socialism. it is a sign that the government trusts the people. at least to a certain extent. so nk does not trust the people. dont yuo think if they were socialist they would trust the people to say how wonderful life is?

cuba has internet and you can easily find cubans saying how wonderful cuba is. yet funny thing they are also have horrid embargo. and if the us invaded i would call upon the us people to rise against there govt. and the cuban people to rise against theres.

You don't have to support Hussein, or the Kims, to oppose imperialism.

This thread is mental, some people are actually supporting a US invasion of NK! Many innocent workers will die, only to have their system replaced by one which is the root of most of the exploitation on the planet.

I wonder what the NK workers would make of us "communists" defending a US invasion of NK, to "save then" from exploitation? It would be like defending the Iraqi war because we don't like Hussein.

Maybe these people are right, the NK people will be grateful when their people are slaughtered in the name of Western democracy. Just like the Iraqi citizens are loving our troops right now, after they've destroyed their homes and shot dead their families and friends in cold blood. Surely this is better than the current powers in NK eh?
no one is sensibly support us invasion of anywhere. no one has said that. no one supports us invasion of iraq. no we oppose war. and the nk govt. and the us govt. we oppose the iraqi govt. and the former iraqi govt.

it is not that hard a concept to understand. "a pox on all there houses". neither moscow or washington or bejing or delhi or pyongyang.we call for only one war. the class war. just like all socialists do.

[Who?]

I support them as a socialist state and against imperialism, as all communists should.

I am shocked to see the number of people who don't support them in anyway, shame on you. :(

[The Vegan Marxist]

no one is sensibly support us invasion of anywhere. no one has said that. no one supports us invasion of iraq. no we oppose war. and the nk govt. and the us govt. we oppose the iraqi govt. and the former iraqi govt.

it is not that hard a concept to understand. "a pox on all there houses". neither moscow or washington or bejing or delhi or pyongyang.we call for only one war. the class war. just like all socialists do.

Thomas Sankara did.

[this is an invasion]

Thomas Sankara did.

which means we all do believe the same thing, right?



I still want to know what you people do to support the DPRK.

[scarletghoul]

Sorry meow but every single line of that post is complete bullshit.
haha. everyone has internet except dictatorships. heck even dictatorships have internet.
Do you know what dictatorship even means ? Are you aware that countries are ruled by classes, not individuals ? If you want a proper communist view, you must see systems as defined by which class is ruling, not the bourgeois false dichotomy between 'democracy' and 'dictatorship'.


dprk as you put it (the "democratic" "people's" "republic" when it is none of them)if you seriously think North Korea is not even a republic, then you are a complete fucking moron. I honestly don't know what else to say.


is virtually the only country without internet. they can trade with china. therefore they can get goods need from china. heck south korea will be happy to have internet connection from north. (for propaganda of course).They do have the internet, and there are South Korean connections with the North. However as you point out its very vulnerable for misinformation and infiltration purposes, so its censored. But in general the country has not developed a full internet access as they have more pressing demands


mass communication is not a sign of socialism. it is a sign that the government trusts the people. at least to a certain extent. No its a sign of how developed the country is and how much money they can spare on consumer electronics when theres a chronic food shortage and a direct threat of foreign invasion.


so nk does not trust the people. is that why they dont have police patrolling the streets with even batons ? is that why unarmed soldiers help the peasants with their work etc etc. there is a huge level of trust between the citizens and the state.


cuba has internet and you can easily find cubans saying how wonderful cuba is. yet funny thing they are also have horrid embargo. and if the us invaded i would call upon the us people to rise against there govt. and the cuban people to rise against theres. wait what the fuck. you would support the overthrow of the cuban state in the event of a US invasion ?? you really are a fucking turd brain


it is not that hard a concept to understand. "a pox on all there houses". neither moscow or washington or bejing or delhi or pyongyang.we call for only one war. the class war. just like all socialists do.The class war already exists, you don't need to 'call for' it. It's right there, and whether you know it or not, you are objectively taking the side of the international bourgeoisie.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I may consider the DPRK revisionist, but anyone who doesn't side with them against U.S. imperialism should join Christopher Hitchens and all that crowd in their circlejerk.

C'mon, this shouldn't even be a fucking question.

[Nachie]

you are more or less admitting that your position just stems from the fact that north korea is generally considered evil and crazy in the west, and you dont wanna appear evil/crazy too.

Nothing to do with objective truth

LOL yeah guys, I'm the one with no connection to objective reality. Good thing you have all those happy vacation photos from your extensive first hand experiences with the place to prove otherwise.

You're right you're right, North Korea just gets a bad rap (http://www.slate.com/id/2243112/).

Seriously? You people are a sterling example of what happens to the quality of discussion in any venue where authoritarian ideologies are not nipped in the bud for what they are.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ You did not just use Christopher Hitchens to determine your stand on the DPRK, did you?


anyone who doesn't side with them against U.S. imperialism should join Christopher Hitchens and all that crowd in their circlejerk.

[this is an invasion]

which means we all do believe the same thing, right?



I still want to know what you people do to support the DPRK.

guys...

[The Vegan Marxist]

guys...

Ever heard of protests? Ever heard of PSL? Ever heard of A.N.S.W.E.R.? If so, you wouldn't be asking this question.

[Crux]

Ever heard of protests? Ever heard of PSL? Ever heard of A.N.S.W.E.R.? If so, you wouldn't be asking this question.
Wouldn't that make the qestion even more important? I mean if they were just a bunch of bunker stalinophiles who would even care. Since the PSL critically supports the CPC regime I assume they support their proxy state in the south.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Wouldn't that make the qestion even more important? I man if they were just a bunch of bunker stalinophiles who would even care. Since they critically support the CPC regime I assume they support their proxy state in the south.

They critically go against the CPC on many segments. What they support is what's still left from Mao's ruling, in which they then support China against imperialism. For if the US were to overthrow China, you can say goodbye to whatever's left of anything socialist within China. Same thing goes with the DPRK.

[Crux]

Not at all. The capitalist class does not hold state power in the PRC. The market that exists is under the firm control of the CPC, and recently the market has been cut back and restricted even further. The vanguard party remains in control of Chinese society, not the market.

They also defend the Tianmen square massacre on the chinese worker's and students going against the autocratic regimes marketliberalizations and despotism.
But let's not derail.

The DPRK even, for some reason is more #popular# in certain leftwing circles than the chinese regime, so I don't think that's really a far-fetched to suggest that the PSL support DPRK.

[this is an invasion]

Ever heard of protests? Ever heard of PSL? Ever heard of A.N.S.W.E.R.? If so, you wouldn't be asking this question.

Oh I've heard of them. I was actually figuring I would get an answer like this (lol ANSWER). Essentially what you propose to do is the same thing that worked out so very wonderfully for the anti-war movement, right?

Wouldn't the best way to show solidarity with the working class of the DPRK be to organize ourselves and fight capitalism here?

[Nachie]

^ You did not just use Christopher Hitchens to determine your stand on the DPRK, did you?

My bad, I forgot y'all have the ability to invent reality as you go along.

[KC]

They critically go against the CPC on many segments. What they support is what's still left from Mao's ruling, in which they then support China against imperialism. For if the US were to overthrow China, you can say goodbye to whatever's left of anything socialist within China. Same thing goes with the DPRK.

What if China overthrows the US?


Ever heard of protests? Ever heard of PSL? Ever heard of A.N.S.W.E.R.? If so, you wouldn't be asking this question.

How's that been going for you the past 40 years?

[Chimurenga.]

(lol ANSWER).

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/29/arrest.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100729/capt.c1aea8f2a9b0425f8c795154e6352234-c1aea8f2a9b0425f8c795154e6352234-0.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100729/i/r3986025063.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100729/i/r1615442765.jpg

Yep, lol ANSWER. These were taken today, by the way.

So where is RAAN in all of this? Are they out with the working class in the streets? I don't think so.

:lol:

[Crux]

Good work. Shame it's not an argument though.

[this is an invasion]

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/29/arrest.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100729/capt.c1aea8f2a9b0425f8c795154e6352234-c1aea8f2a9b0425f8c795154e6352234-0.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100729/i/r3986025063.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100729/i/r1615442765.jpg

Yep, lol ANSWER. These were taken today, by the way.

So where is RAAN in all of this? Are they out with the working class in the streets? I don't think so.

:lol:
I was actually loling about the fact that I expected ANSWER to be the answer. Play on words, get it?

And people affiliated with RAAN have been at several major mass protests in Northern California over the last year, as well as some small local ones too. But, I personally have some opinions on the effectiveness of mass protests like that, and I prefer to spend most of my time in local projects.

[Chimurenga.]

Good work. Shame it's not an argument though.

How isn't it? RAANtards are driven by sectarianism but are divorced from working class struggles. They make no attempt to correct this and get involved. How do you claim to be a Revolutionary organization and not participate in actual struggles?

ANSWER has comrades moving to Arizona to dedicate their time to the struggle against SB1070. One member in particular, Carlos Alvarez, running for CA Governor, moved down there to fight against this bill.

What the fuck has RAAN ever done?

[this is an invasion]

How isn't it? RAANtards are driven by sectarianism but are divorced from working class struggles. They make no attempt to correct this and get involved. How do you claim to be a Revolutionary organization and not participate in actual struggles?

"First and foremost, you must rid yourself of the misconception that RAAN is or seeks to become a “revolutionary organization”. Without notable exception, such organizations have without fail betrayed the working class again and again, and sought to impose their own means of control over autonomous movements against capitalism. In addition, the task of creating revolutions has never fallen to organized radical groups, regardless of how radical their analysis. We can create the tools and consciousness for revolution, but never the revolution itself." -Culture of the Red and Anarchist Action Network, Emotional Poverty #3

Also, I don't know how you know what people involved with RAAN do...


ANSWER has comrades moving to Arizona to dedicate their time to the struggle against SB1070. One member in particular, Carlos Alvarez, running for CA Governor, moved down there to fight against this bill.

What the fuck has RAAN ever done?

You can check our history page, if you'd like. You can also look at the things Modesto Anarcho has done, as some of them are affiliated with RAAN, and as a crew are directly influenced by some of the writings that have out of the Network.

[Nachie]

How isn't it? RAANtards are driven by sectarianism but are divorced from working class struggles. They make no attempt to correct this and get involved. How do you claim to be a Revolutionary organization and not participate in actual struggles?

These appear to be a bunch of assumptions.


ANSWER has comrades moving to Arizona to dedicate their time to the struggle against SB1070. One member in particular, Carlos Alvarez, running for CA Governor, moved down there to fight against this bill.

What the fuck has RAAN ever done?

I'm sorry, but moving people and funds around the country does not actually mean you're accomplishing something.

[soyonstout]

It's sad to see the third option getting so many votes. North Korea's government is one thing, but to not support them at all you're basically telling North Korean proletarians "fuck you man."
No. The way the question is worded it seems to imply support for the DPRK state. If you don't support the state, you are mostly telling the state and/or its rulers (which if you don't think there's anything socialist about NK are not proletarians) "fuck you man." If the question is meant to be about individual North Koreans, or the entire population of North Korea, then one who doesn't support is saying to all classes in that nation (I don't agree with this because I don't think workers gain anything from nation-states) "fuck you man," but in no way can answer 3 to that question be construed as telling North Korean proletarians, specifically, to fuck off.

If one says they don't support the USA or Germany, are they 'basically telling American/German proletarians "fuck you man"? The idea that bourgeois states are to be supported when losing at the imperialist game, and denounced when winning the game is completely incomprehensible to me. It is essentially a moralist position and has no grounding in what is actually concretely, materially progressive for humanity. Will it ever be possible for nation states to still be capitalist and not have some of them dominating the others? If the answer to this is no, and if world revolution against capitalism is the only cure for imperialism, why not just advocate that, instead of backing bourgeois states who are, by definition, the enemy of world revolution?


-soyons tout

[Crux]

How isn't it? RAANtards are driven by sectarianism but are divorced from working class struggles. They make no attempt to correct this and get involved. How do you claim to be a Revolutionary organization and not participate in actual struggles?

ANSWER has comrades moving to Arizona to dedicate their time to the struggle against SB1070. One member in particular, Carlos Alvarez, running for CA Governor, moved down there to fight against this bill.

What the fuck has RAAN ever done?
I couldn't care less about RAAN, to be honest. Are you implying I should know anything about them? And pray tell what does this have to do with PSL's possible support for the DPRK regime? Dodging questions much?

[it_ain't_me]

I would like to point out that by your reasoning we should all just give up, considering how there has never been a class based civil war in the US, however. You could say that your position amounts to a kind of... defeatism.

alright, this is going to be partly a reply to zanthorus' post, and partly my own thoughts on this entire topic.

is my position defeatist? no, i think we should continue to agitate for socialist revolution. and i think that it could happen (although i do think it will take a major crisis of capitalism to make the material conditions ripe). frankly, i see defense of nk from imperialism as an entirely different issue. and no, i don't defend them because i see nk as a socialist paradise, i defend them in the same way i would defend iran, venezuela, or any other country the u.s. might set its sights on.

you were right to say earlier in the thread that every country is imperialist. i don't know about that as a literal statement, but it's true that virtually every country is imperialist, and its definitely true that every country with developed capitalism is imperialist. however there is a disconnect between left communists who talk about imperialism in purely an economic sense, and marxist-leninists who tend to talk about imperialism in a military/political sense. in my opinion military/political imperialism is the highest stage of imperialism. yes, every capitalist country is imperialist in the sense of investing in other countries, but not every country is militarily/politically imperialist--for the most part, a handful of countries are the major offenders in this type of imperialism, the u.s. being chief among them. i see nothing wrong with opposing military imperialism of strong states against weaker ones, in fact i see it as a necessity. and the left communist habit of repeating the mantra that ''every country is imperialist'' doesn't help much in my opinion. certainly it doesn't do anything to change my opinion that iran or north korea has a right not to be occupied and subjugated on a daily basis by foreign troops. if they form grassroots socialist militias to defend themselves against foreign aggression, sure i'll back those. if they choose to back their state as a means of self defense, seeing it as preferable to foreign attack and occupation, who am i to tell them they are wrong?

the only solution to this pickle is for foreign aggressors to stop their aggression; *only* then will the workers of iran and north korea have a free hand to oppose their capitalist governments. until then they are only choosing the lesser evil, and i don't blame them.

when lenin preached revolutionary defeatism, it was not in any way comparable. russia was a great power, an imperialist power, out to annex territory; militarily and in terms of size, it was basically equal to germany. there was no chance that germany was going to occupy russia the way the u.s. now occupies iraq, and the way it would certainly occupy north korea (using south korean troops and possibly u.n. troops, no doubt). if the u.s. were to attack north korea, would north korea be seeking to annex territories the way russia was in wwi? so the analogy falls apart the second you start to examine it, and comparing lenin's stance on wwi to the socialist stance on a u.s. attack against north korea is utterly absurd. lenin would have had nothing to hear of it. here is what lenin actually had to say about ''revolutionary defensism'' in cases of great imperialist powers threatening to subjugate small countries:


The history of the 20th century, this century of “unbridled imperialism,” is replete with colonial wars. But what we Europeans, the imperialist oppressors of the majority of the world’s peoples, with our habitual, despicable European chauvinism, call “colonial wars” are often national wars, or national rebellions of these oppressed peoples. .... To deny all possibility of national wars under imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and tantamount to European chauvinism in practice: we who belong to nations that oppress hundreds of millions in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., are invited to tell the oppressed peoples that it is “impossible” for them to wage war against “our” nations! .... We must not allow ourselves to be led astray by words. The term “defense of the fatherland”, for instance, is hateful to many because both avowed opportunists and Kautskyites use it to cover up and gloss over the bourgeois lie about the present predatory war. This is a fact. But it does not follow that we must no longer see through to the meaning of political slogans. To accept “defense of the fatherland” in the present war is no more nor less than to accept it as a “just” war, a war in the interests of the proletariat—no more nor less, we repeat, because invasions may occur in any war. It would be sheer folly to repudiate “defense of the fatherland” on the part of oppressed nations in their wars against the imperialist Great Powers

i mean, how does that not settle it? either you take the left communist stance and side against lenin, or you take lenin's stance and side against the left communist position. people are free to take whatever position they want, but i am really tired of people trying to pretend lenin is on the left communist side when it comes to colonial/imperialist wars (putting lenin quotes in their sig from writings that actually refer to *inter-imperialist* wars like wwi, for instance), when he so obviously wasn't.


haha. everyone has internet except dictatorships.

right, that's why revleft posters come from every country of the world. oh wait, they all come from about five or six rich countries.

[Chimurenga.]

"First and foremost, you must rid yourself of the misconception that RAAN is or seeks to become a “revolutionary organization”. Without notable exception, such organizations have without fail betrayed the working class again and again, and sought to impose their own means of control over autonomous movements against capitalism. In addition, the task of creating revolutions has never fallen to organized radical groups, regardless of how radical their analysis. We can create the tools and consciousness for revolution, but never the revolution itself." -Culture of the Red and Anarchist Action Network, Emotional Poverty #3

So what is the point of this? Making PDF pamphlets that you claim with provide the "consciousness for revolution" and trolling the internet? Yeah, your criticisms of the dictatorship of the proletariat will really get people wanting to make revolution. :rolleyes:


Also, I don't know how you know what people involved with RAAN do...

Actually, I'm going by the lack of events on both your website and forum.


You can check our history page, if you'd like. You can also look at the things Modesto Anarcho has done, as some of them are affiliated with RAAN, and as a crew are directly influenced by some of the writings that have out of the Network.

I'm finding that your "network" broke a few windows, held a few workshops, went to Venezuela, and held some fundraisers. Also, it hasn't been updated since 2007, which leads me to believe that for three years now, RAAN hasn't done shit.

I must thank you for recommending this page. Otherwise, I would not have seen this goldmine of a picture:

http://www.redanarchist.org/images/stillkickinit.jpg

:laugh:


These appear to be a bunch of assumptions.

Not really, your history page which "this is an invasion" thankfully pointed out to me only reiterates my point.



I'm sorry, but moving people and funds around the country does not actually mean you're accomplishing something.

No, it doesn't, you're right. It does however mean that we have dedicated revolutionaries who will leave everything at the drop of the hat to go fight and struggle with the working people of that area.

[Chimurenga.]

I couldn't care less about RAAN, to be honest. Are you implying I should know anything about them? And pray tell what does this have to do with PSL's possible support for the DPRK regime? Dodging questions much?

Kassad already posted about this. You can find our parties position on the DPRK by finding his post.

[Jazzhands]

this stuff from the #2 voters about North Korea being a fighter against imperialism as grounds for support is precisely what we denounce when in the context of Democrats vs. Republicans and in most other contexts, albeit for different reasons.

[gorillafuck]

If you oppose imperialism against North Korea then you support North Korea against imperialism.
I also am against western imperialism against Afghanistan but that doesn't mean I support the Taliban. How is this different?

[Nachie]

Also, it hasn't been updated since 2007, which leads me to believe that for three years now, RAAN hasn't done shit.

It's actually more like 2 years (history page needs to be updated, website was offline from 2007-2009) and the forum is only a month old as of tomorrow, so hey what can I say.

The "History" is really more for stand-alone actions that were taken solely in the network's name and does not record any day-to-day activity or participation in the campaigns of other groups, as is made clear on the page. Regardless we do not aspire to the standard of "activism" set by the Leftist milieu, so oh well.

[this is an invasion]

So what is the point of this? Making PDF pamphlets that you claim with provide the "consciousness for revolution" and trolling the internet? Yeah, your criticisms of the dictatorship of the proletariat will really get people wanting to make revolution. :rolleyes: Maybe for you RevLeft is the pinnacle of political activity, but for others it isn't.




Actually, I'm going by the lack of events on both your website and forum.



I'm finding that your "network" broke a few windows, held a few workshops, went to Venezuela, and held some fundraisers. Also, it hasn't been updated since 2007, which leads me to believe that for three years now, RAAN hasn't done shit. Yeah, the network was quiet for a while. You can feel free to check out Modesto Anarcho's blog though for things RAANistas have been involved with over the last several years (www.modestoanarcho.org).


I must thank you for recommending this page. Otherwise, I would not have seen this goldmine of a picture:

http://www.redanarchist.org/images/stillkickinit.jpg:thumbup1:

What can I say? We have fun.



No, it doesn't, you're right. It does however mean that we have dedicated revolutionaries who will leave everything at the drop of the hat to go fight and struggle with the working people of that area.
Yeah I think Christians have a similar activity that they like. It's called being a missionary.

[The Vegan Marxist]

My bad, I forgot y'all have the ability to invent reality as you go along.

No, we just choose to not use drunk pro-Bush "trotskyists" as our backup resource.

[this is an invasion]

No, we just choose to not use drunk pro-Bush "trotskyists" as our backup resource.

reply to my reply to you, guy

[The Douche]

Just to mix things up, I am in RAAN and I would say (and did so vote in the poll) that I think the DPRK is a capitalist state, but I would support them in the event of a US invasion.

[this is an invasion]

Just to mix things up, I am in RAAN and I would say (and did so vote in the poll) that I think the DPRK is a capitalist state, but I would support them in the event of a US invasion.

You dare stray from Party line, comrade?! D:

[KC]

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/29/arrest.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100729/capt.c1aea8f2a9b0425f8c795154e6352234-c1aea8f2a9b0425f8c795154e6352234-0.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100729/i/r3986025063.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100729/i/r1615442765.jpg

Yep, lol ANSWER. These were taken today, by the way.

So where is RAAN in all of this? Are they out with the working class in the streets? I don't think so.

:lol:


Once again, how's that been going for you the past 40 years?

[The Douche]

You dare stray from Party line, comrade?! D:

Please oh please don't report me to the CC.

[The Douche]

Also, :rolleyes: at RAAN being "with the working class", RAAN is working class. To imply that communists exist as a sperate entity gets me lolin.

My crew has worked with local anti-war groups and the local chapter of SDS, but we didn't do it as any sort of "RAAN" activity. There are also lots of illegal things that happen by RAANistas which people are certainly not chomping at the bit to openly claim.

[Nachie]

No, we just choose to not use drunk pro-Bush "trotskyists" as our backup resource.

Considering the rather dubious quality of your upfront resources, I don't really see why not?

Unless of course you were locked into an ideological rigidity whereby the world became a stark black and white millenarian "us versus them" and you weren't allowed to critically examine various sources without having to swallow everything that is presented to you.

...oh, wait.

[Glenn Beck]

Unless of course you were locked into an ideological rigidity whereby the world became a stark black and white millenarian "us versus them" and you weren't allowed to critically examine various sources without having to swallow everything that is presented to you.

Oh man oh man and then he loved Big Brother WHAT A COOL STORY BRO

[Nachie]

and then he loved Big Brother

haha it's funny because

http://axisofeviltour.com/nk-images/nk-schoolchildrens-palace-kimilsung.jpg

[Adi Shankara]

http://axisofeviltour.com/nk-images/nk-schoolchildrens-palace-kimilsung.jpg

It's funny: I have a hard time believing Marx or Engels would approve of this. ;)

[Invincible Summer]

So what did that Hitchens article prove other than that he has a prejudice against short people?

[Adi Shankara]

So what did that Hitchens article prove other than that he has a prejudice against short people?

totally random, but your avatar is gloriously proletarian :P







WANT

[Theoneontheleft]

I honestly have not paid much attention to what is going on in Korea.

[robbo203]

alright, this is going to be partly a reply to zanthorus' post, and partly my own thoughts on this entire topic.

is my position defeatist? no, i think we should continue to agitate for socialist revolution. and i think that it could happen (although i do think it will take a major crisis of capitalism to make the material conditions ripe). frankly, i see defense of nk from imperialism as an entirely different issue. and no, i don't defend them because i see nk as a socialist paradise, i defend them in the same way i would defend iran, venezuela, or any other country the u.s. might set its sights on.

you were right to say earlier in the thread that every country is imperialist. i don't know about that as a literal statement, but it's true that virtually every country is imperialist, and its definitely true that every country with developed capitalism is imperialist. however there is a disconnect between left communists who talk about imperialism in purely an economic sense, and marxist-leninists who tend to talk about imperialism in a military/political sense. in my opinion military/political imperialism is the highest stage of imperialism. yes, every capitalist country is imperialist in the sense of investing in other countries, but not every country is militarily/politically imperialist--for the most part, a handful of countries are the major offenders in this type of imperialism, the u.s. being chief among them. i see nothing wrong with opposing military imperialism of strong states against weaker ones, in fact i see it as a necessity. and the left communist habit of repeating the mantra that ''every country is imperialist'' doesn't help much in my opinion. certainly it doesn't do anything to change my opinion that iran or north korea has a right not to be occupied and subjugated on a daily basis by foreign troops. if they form grassroots socialist militias to defend themselves against foreign aggression, sure i'll back those. if they choose to back their state as a means of self defense, seeing it as preferable to foreign attack and occupation, who am i to tell them they are wrong?.

But once again it needs to pointed out that it is NOT necessary, in order to oppose foreign aggresion or invasion, to take the side of the capitalist state that is being invaded. Why is this so hard to understand? Socialists do not take sides in capitalist wars. End of story. We appeal to workers on BOTH sides of any war not to support their respective masters. Taking sides, supporting bourgeois nationalist mythology about the right of "our" state to defend itself, simply enables the capitalists to divide, and rule over, the global working class

[bricolage]

ANSWER has comrades moving to Arizona to dedicate their time to the struggle against SB1070.

http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm

[it_ain't_me]

But once again it needs to pointed out that it is NOT necessary, in order to oppose foreign aggresion or invasion, to take the side of the capitalist state that is being invaded. Why is this so hard to understand? Socialists do not take sides in capitalist wars. End of story.

thanks for dogmatically repeating some stuff! i'm convinced!

actually, i think i'll stick with lenin's (very sensible) position, but thanks anyway.

[AK]

I don't see what all the fuss is about:
"What do you think of the DPRK?"

See that? It's the poll question. Nowhere does it mention whether or not we support just the working class against imperialism and oppression. It is only asking us what we think of the North Korean state. Everything else is a strawman.

Read the question, guys. Why can't you read the fucking question?


How isn't it? RAANtards are driven by sectarianism but are divorced from working class struggles. They make no attempt to correct this and get involved. How do you claim to be a Revolutionary organization and not participate in actual struggles?

ANSWER has comrades moving to Arizona to dedicate their time to the struggle against SB1070. One member in particular, Carlos Alvarez, running for CA Governor, moved down there to fight against this bill.

What the fuck has RAAN ever done?
This is your argument? That you have a member fighting to become Bourgeois? I'm so jealous. If only I could be a class-collaborator like Alvarez :crying:


I voted South because it isn't under military and economic siege.

I know you're all really amused by the little yellow man in the sunglasses but please try to stop coming up with a lame "communist" fig leaf for your racist obsession with a poor and isolated country.

Considering that there are no avowed Jucheists among this forum's regular userbase the sheer excess of threads on North Korea is clearly a result of you all being a bunch of gullible bigoted fucks who jump on whatever dictator of the month the U.S. media decides to demonize now.
http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab264/AlphaKappa95/Foul-Bachelor-Frog-Accuse-us-of-racism-Conveniently-lack-any-proof.jpg

[AK]

thanks for dogmatically repeating some stuff! i'm convinced!

actually, i think i'll stick with lenin's (very sensible) position, but thanks anyway.
You mean like Revolutionary Defeatism, which states exactly what robbo203 just said?

[Thirsty Crow]

Please elaborate why exactly do you believe that DPRK is a leading force in revolutionary struggle (of the global proletariat) against capitalism.
I believe that this request has gone unnoticed (mainly directed at scarletghoul; but other who feel the same way are free to chime in).

[Chimurenga.]

This is your argument? That you have a member fighting to become Bourgeois? I'm so jealous. If only I could be a class-collaborator like Alvarez :crying:

That isn't even remotely close to what I'm trying to say, you damned fool.

The PSL's stance on elections is not to win them. I mean, if it happens, it happens. The point is to get the idea of Socialism out there. The party does not, in any way shape or form, lean on elections to bring Socialism.

The point I was trying to make that is that we have a member running for Governor of California and on top of that just moved to Arizona to establish a branch and fight against SB1070. Obviously, you don't understand the work load behind that. And why should I expect you or anyone else on this board to?

[bricolage]

I mean, if it happens, it happens.

And then what? You manage capital?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

On the poll, I marked that "I do not support them in any way", but think my position requires more clarification than that. As far as I'm concerned, North Korea is a semi-feudal, semi-colony and specifically a monarchy and ever increasingly a puppet state of China. I think of it like any other such state, regardless of the official rhetoric. There is nothing that justifies support for any reactionary government, including North Korea's. And I'll add that, as far as I'm concerned, only authentic socialist states are progressive states, and none presently exist. This position, however, does not mean that I either condone or take a "neutral" position on the question of such a country being attacked. I am completely opposed to imperialist aggression, period. But my point is that, when it comes to an imperialist country invading or otherwise attacking any other country, I respond to that by coming to the defense of the people of the victimized country, rather than by defending their existing oppressors.

[Chimurenga.]

And then what? You manage capital?

Well, it wont happen regardless. A socialist couldn't be elected to office in 1910 and it sure as hell wont happen now.

[The Douche]

RAAN members and RCPers on the same side...mind=blown!

[robbo203]

thanks for dogmatically repeating some stuff! i'm convinced!

actually, i think i'll stick with lenin's (very sensible) position, but thanks anyway.

Charming. Perhaps instead of dogmatically "sticking with lenin" you might care to regale us with your elevated thoughts on why precisely you think socialists should take sides in capitalist wars rather than say a "plague on both your houses".

The dumb argument that has been trotted out ad nauseum on this thread - that if you refuse to support the disgusting North Korean regime against a disgusting yankee imperialism then that somehow makes you a stooge of Uncle Sam - has been so utterly pulverised beyond any hope of redemption I am surprised there are still some here dumb enough to want to flog this particular dead horse.

[scarletghoul]

RAAN members and RCPers on the same side...mind=blown!
ultraleftists out of touch with any material reality,, not a huge surprise ;)

Also wtf is up with that useless unrelated shit about 'what are you gonna do to support them' ? Way to change the subject. I don't know about ANSWER or what they do, but whatever they do doesnt change the fact that North Korea is standing up to US imperialism, and we should give them our support in whatever way possible.

And why are there all these RAANites suddenly, what is the point of them. Do they exist outside of the internet ?

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab264/AlphaKappa95/Foul-Bachelor-Frog-Accuse-us-of-racism-Conveniently-lack-any-proof.jpg
'im not racist i have black friends'. Racism is not always so fucking obvious. However digging even a little bit below the surface of most discussions of North Korea here, you can see its based around racist presumptions about Kim being 'crazy' and infantile, and all the poor yellow robot peoples doing as they're told*. It's a very common attitude, unfortunately (RedStar2000 described North Korea as a form of 'oriental despotism', and tbh I can only see one reason why he would). Probably you don't mean to be racist, but try and look deeper and you'll see theres some obvious racist presumptions going on about 'those people' who always just blindly follow their crazy leaders...
What is the main differance between Cuba and North Korea ?? Koreans are not white, and there is less info so more room for imagination. Much of your image of North Korea is therefore shaped by racist presumptions. If you seek out objective info on this then your view will change significantly.

*This also can lead you to think of the US military presence in Korea as somewhat liberating, white heros save the koreans from themselves.. glory to south korea the western democracy

[LimitedIdeology]

Well, it wont happen regardless. A socialist couldn't be elected to office in 1910 and it sure as hell wont happen now.

You know, it is sad that socialism had much better prospects in this country 100 years ago.

So much for social progress....

[Chimurenga.]

You know, it is sad that socialism had much better prospects in this country 100 years ago.

So much for social progress....

Considering the US has been through multiple red scares and people killed JUST for being Communist, it's safe to say, to their credit, that the ruling class has done EVERYTHING (and succeeded) in their power to stop any kind of strong Leftist current in the US.

[this is an invasion]

ultraleftists out of touch with any material reality,, not a huge surprise ;)

Also wtf is up with that useless unrelated shit about 'what are you gonna do to support them' ? Way to change the subject. I don't know about ANSWER or what they do, but whatever they do doesnt change the fact that North Korea is standing up to US imperialism, and we should give them our support in whatever way possible. But I'm asking what this support actually is. Because if supporting them just means that you say "I support the DPRK" then it amounts to nothing more than posturing. And if it means organizing actions or demos or whatever, then I'm going to ask why spend so much time and energy on something happening so far away from you, instead of organizing in your own workplace and community to attack and weaken capital, which I think most people will agree is the best way to show solidarity with groups elsewhere. And if you are engaged in projects in your own community and workplace, then I ask why it matters if I say I support the DPRK or not since I am engaged in similar projects where I live. The outcome will be theoretically the same regardless of your or my intentions.


And why are there all these RAANites suddenly, what is the point of them. Do they exist outside of the internet ? Obviously we do.


'im not racist i have black friends'. Racism is not always so fucking obvious. However digging even a little bit below the surface of most discussions of North Korea here, you can see its based around racist presumptions about Kim being 'crazy' and infantile, and all the poor yellow robot peoples doing as they're told*. It's a very common attitude, unfortunately (RedStar2000 described North Korea as a form of 'oriental despotism', and tbh I can only see one reason why he would). Probably you don't mean to be racist, but try and look deeper and you'll see theres some obvious racist presumptions going on about 'those people' who always just blindly follow their crazy leaders...
What is the main differance between Cuba and North Korea ?? Koreans are not white, and there is less info so more room for imagination. Much of your image of North Korea is therefore shaped by racist presumptions. If you seek out objective info on this then your view will change significantly.

*This also can lead you to think of the US military presence in Korea as somewhat liberating, white heros save the koreans from themselves.. glory to south korea the western democracy
What absolute nonsense. You're seriously going to paint people in opposition to you as racist, even though no one has actually said or implied anything racist? Most people have explicitly stated their support for the working class of both North and South Korea. It's strange to have to actually make the distinction between the ruling class of a country and the working class on a communist forum...

[Obs]

'im not racist i have black friends'. Racism is not always so fucking obvious. However digging even a little bit below the surface of most discussions of North Korea here, you can see its based around racist presumptions about Kim being 'crazy'
Assumptions about individuals do not equal racism.


and infantile, and all the poor yellow robot peoples doing as they're told*.
If you can find one leftist on this site who's made any such statement, I'll eat the biggest hat I have.


What is the main differance between Cuba and North Korea ?? Koreans are not white, and there is less info so more room for imagination. Much of your image of North Korea is therefore shaped by racist presumptions. If you seek out objective info on this then your view will change significantly.
In fact, the main difference between Cuba and North Korea is that Cuba has a clearly transparent democracy, whereas North Korea is an isolated fortress of a country that it's almost impossible to get unbiased information about. Also, only a small minority of Cubans can be considered "white".


*This also can lead you to think of the US military presence in Korea as somewhat liberating, white heros save the koreans from themselves.. glory to south korea the western democracy
"Either you think North Korea is a genuine socialist country, or you're with the imperialists!"

Seriously, this is the kind of argument Bill O'Reilly makes.

[bricolage]

Well, it wont happen regardless. A socialist couldn't be elected to office in 1910 and it sure as hell wont happen now.

That's not the point, I'm asking what you'd do if you did get elected, not whether you think it will happen.

[bricolage]

What is the main differance between Cuba and North Korea ?? Koreans are not white,

Neither are lots of Cubans.

[soyonstout]

http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab264/AlphaKappa95/Foul-Bachelor-Frog-Accuse-us-of-racism-Conveniently-lack-any-proof.jpg

maybe i'm not up on my memes but shouldn't this picture be a dog or a clueless teenager?

[Chimurenga.]

That's not the point, I'm asking what you'd do if you did get elected, not whether you think it will happen.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=carlosformayor_archive

There's a list of particular issues. That should give you a rough idea.

Obviously while Capitalism is still the dominant ideology, only so much can be changed. Hence why the party doesn't depend on elections to try to bring change.

[AK]

maybe i'm not up on my memes but shouldn't this picture be a dog or a clueless teenager?
It's whatever I want it to be.

[Obs]

It's whatever I want it to be.
No, you pretty much fucked up this time 'round. Bachelor Frog doesn't deserve to be used in a half-assed political debate.

[AK]

No, you pretty much fucked up this time 'round. Bachelor Frog doesn't deserve to be used in a half-assed political debate.
Would you rather he lurk 4chan and get used to request CP and gore?

[Obs]

Good God, it's not all black and white, you know. :D

[AK]

Several comrades need to ask themselves this question before answering the poll: Do you believe that the Iraqi people are and will continue to be better off because of the US invasion than they were under the national, anti-imperialist Ba'athist regime headed by Saddam Hussein?
Fuck off. We're not here to choose a lesser of two evils. This is not a "you're either with us or you're with them" scenario. Nothing is ever really like that.

The notion that a state can be wholly anti-imperialist is just downright stupid. All ruling classes have an underlying imperialist agenda as it is in their class interests and they dream that they might one day defeat all other ruling classes. It's just that some ruling classes are unable to realise this dream.


In my estimation, answering no to this question means that you need to support the DPRK vis-a-vis Western imperialism. While imperialism grows out of capitalism, many comrades are forgetting that not every capitalist state is imperialist. Even if you believe the DPRK is a capitalist state, a leftist must recognize and distinguish between a comprador bourgeoisie--who actively conspires with the developed capitalist world to sell of the nation's labor and resources--and a national bourgeoisie--who may exploit the masses in some form but also resist more brutal subjugation by foreign powers. I think asserting that the DPRK is capitalist is the product of extremely poor analysis, a rejection of historical materialism, and bourgeois cultural hegemony, but even reaching that conclusion should still lead a leftist to support the state against Western imperialism.
The problem is that the poll did not ask if we supported the workers and peasants of the DPRK. It asked if we supported the DPRK itself; which necessarily entails support of the North Korean ruling class, as the state is the tool of the ruling class.

[Chambered Word]

@Alpha Kappa:

Can you warrant your assertion that "nothing is ever really like that [zero-sum game]"? If you believe that all capitalist states are imperialist, then you necessarily reject a Marxist and materialist analysis of imperialism. Was Saddam Hussein's Iraq imperialist? Is Iran imperialist? That's such a convoluted and objectively wrong understanding of the Marxist theory of imperialism, and if we can't agree that some states are imperialist and others are not, this debate is no longer constructive.

I think his point that all ruling classes have a propensity towards imperialism is valid, but have all countries reached that point of development where they are capable of becoming an imperialist power?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Imperialism would probably be better.

[AK]

Imperialism would probably be better.
Depends on what you consider "better". Does the "freedom" to be able to buy cheap sweatshop-made crap count as better? I think if there was a successful imperialist invasion and occupation of the DPRK, economic sanctions would almost certainly be lifted with the installation of a pro-western government. The problem with that is that lifting the sanctions will only ever be for the ultimate benefit of the capitalists (and of course there's the small matter of another war leaving millions dead).

[Chambered Word]

@WWDD: You're kidding, right?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Depends on what you consider "better". Does the "freedom" to be able to buy cheap sweatshop-made crap count as better?

I'm pretty sure North Korea already has the same "freedom", except their cheap sweatshop-made crap is all nationalized.


I think if there was a successful imperialist invasion and occupation of the DPRK, economic sanctions would almost certainly be lifted with the installation of a pro-western government. The problem with that is that lifting the sanctions will only ever be for the ultimate benefit of the capitalists (and of course there's the small matter of another war leaving millions dead).
You don't need an invasion or occupation to have imperialism. Many states peacefully accept it.

An increase in trade would almost certainly allow for more North Koreans to eat and a higher standard of living more comparable to the South.

Of course the capitalists would profit the most, but that's no different than the capitalist class that already exists in North Korea.


@WWDD: You're kidding, right?

Really? Of course not.

[Peace on Earth]

I wouldn't band together with David Duke in a fight against Israeli aggression. Likewise, I don't view North Korea is a favorable light based solely on the fact that they are resisting imperialism. While that is good, it doesn't discount the numerous flaws with the nation as a whole.

[AK]

I'm pretty sure North Korea already has the same "freedom", except their cheap sweatshop-made crap is all nationalized.
There are numerous private companies operating in the Rajin-Sonbong Economic Special Zone.


You don't need an invasion or occupation to have imperialism. Many states peacefully accept it.
I haven't come across too many states that have peacefully accepted being subjugated to an imperialist power. Governments have been overthrown and wars have been waged. There has always been resistance.


Of course the capitalists would profit the most, but that's no different than the capitalist class that already exists in North Korea.
Some would be of the opinion that the petit-bourgeois bureaucrats, administrators and managers are the ruling class in the DPRK, not those bourgeoisie themselves who personally own the means of production (of which there are very little of outside the ESZ).