Would you support the DPRK in a War against the US and ROK?

[Rafiq]

If the DPRK would go to war with South Korea and the US, would you support it in a War?

Please note, that supporting it in a War doesn't mean you have to support their Regime, it simply means you would support the people of North Korea against Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists.

Yes or No,

If you have another opinion, state it.

Thanks.

[Magón]

I think the answer's pretty obvious on a Leftist Forum when you're telling the people they're not voting to support the DPRK Regime necessarily, but the people under the Regime. If it was a question on whether we supported strictly the DPRK Regime, you'd get a more fluxed answer.

[Rafiq]

Well what I meant was that supporting the DPRK in general against ROK.

And I meant that even though you are supporting the DPRK against ROK, it doesn't mean you are strictly supporting their regime, but rather supporting that Nation in General in a time of War.

[Manic Impressive]

It depends on the reason for the war and who is the aggressor. But you do know that they are already at war right? No peace treaty was ever signed and occasionally they shoot each other. Also why would we support a regime which has totally betrayed socialism? I'd support the people of both countries as they both have oppressive regimes that they need to overthrow.

[Magón]

Well what I meant was that supporting the DPRK in general against ROK.

And I meant that even though you are supporting the DPRK against ROK, it doesn't mean you are strictly supporting their regime, but rather supporting that Nation in General in a time of War.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but the DPRK is only a Government Title, it's not the people of North Korea. Who, obviously, all Leftists support, even if they don't support the Government. Your title is just a little miss leading is all since you're not necessarily talking Government Titles.

[ArrowLance]

I would support the DPRK largely in a war against US imperialism (I voted Yes). It's not so much that I support the war as an object but that I support the DPRK against US imperialism regardless of its actual political stance. There are things about the DPRK that are obviously far from any leftist vision of process or paradise but it is a strong symbol of resistance and freedom.

[Os Cangaceiros]

it simply means you would support the people of North Korea against Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists.

Hmm. Well, I was going to vote "yes", but all of the nuance and subtlety that you just added here has made me reconsider.

People of North Korea, or mass murdering rapists...hmm...

[Lee Van Cleef]

If the question is if I would support the North Korean regime, I voted no. While things are likely not as bad in the North as the Western media would have us believe, Juche has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism, and the country is basically a militarist "monarchy" of sorts based on a Kim Il-Sung personality cult.

Economically, it has been struggling since the terrible famine of '94. I also read somewhere a while back that some Chinese companies are now outsourcing labor to North Korea, as it is the cheapest labor in the world due to the state's utter inability to pay all it's workers on time.

Although I in no way support US imperialism and its sway in South Korea, I think it's time for North Korea to go. I also believe that a united Korea would go a long way to weaken American influence there, especially if half the country comes from a socialist, rabidly anti-American tradition, on top of the popular disdain for the US already in the South.

[Fawkes]

No, I wouldn't.

This is a pretty lame question. I'm not going to support the killing of anyone for the benefit of the rich, regardless of whether they hail from DPRK, USA, or Venezuela. Would I support the people of DPRK in the event that they're invaded by the U.S.? Of course. Just as I would support the people of the U.S. in the case of them being invaded or attacked by the DPRK.

I don't choose sides between states.

[Peace on Earth]

I would support and encourage people of both sides to overthrow their governments and join together to advance the cause of socialism.

Neither the DPRK nor South Korea should be supported, as regimes, by anyone here.

[scarletghoul]

Hmm. Well, I was going to vote "yes", but all of the nuance and subtlety that you just added here has made me reconsider.

People of North Korea, or mass murdering rapists...hmm...
5 people chose the latter O_o

[graymouser]

I would support and encourage people of both sides to overthrow their governments and join together to advance the cause of socialism.

Neither the DPRK nor South Korea should be supported, as regimes, by anyone here.
First: socialists in imperialist countries should generally be defeatists toward "their own" country in an imperialist war. In a war between imperialist powers, that means the common defeat of all imperialists as the war becomes transformed into a civil war. In a predatory war, as a US war on the DPRK no doubt would be, it means standing against the US and RoK and for their defeat by the DPRK.

Second: the DPRK is a degenerate workers' state, and for Trotskyists that means that we support it critically in a military intervention, although we do not change our line that a proletarian political revolution is necessary to overthrow the bureaucracy and institute workers' democracy. The property foms of the DPRK are progressive and deserve defending, as their liquidation would mean intensified suffering by the North Korean people, but the bureaucratic regime is only defended critically against imperialism.

[scarletghoul]

I would support and encourage people of both sides to overthrow their governments and join together to advance the cause of socialism.

Neither the DPRK nor South Korea should be supported, as regimes, by anyone here.
Try to imagine a war breaking out in real life though. There is a 0% possibility of the people in the north overthrowing both the DPRK government and the US/ROK invaders. It's pretty certain that they'd fight under the banner of DPRK.

It's all very well to take the puritan leftist high ground and say "I don't support any state", but if you want to have any relevance to reality you will have to pick an existing side.

[freepalestine]

as in any war the usa creates, i'd support those fighting against the usa aggression

[Fawkes]

It's all very well to take the puritan leftist high ground and say "I don't support any state", but if you want to have any relevance to reality you will have to pick an existing side.

So are you suggesting that if we were to be having this discussion 70 years ago, my position of supporting neither the Axis nor the Allied powers would make me irrelevant? It doesn't work like that, refusing to ally oneself with one oppressive state (that's a double-negative if I've ever seen one) does not relegate ones' view to a position of irrelevancy. I never said I wouldn't pick a side, but supporting the people facing an invasion of their homes in their attempts to expel an invading force does not equate to supporting one state or the other. The world's not a binary.

[Manic Impressive]

You're all assuming that the USA invades, if it were likely to happen it would have already. The USA has more than it can handle already it would not need another front in north korea. The more likely scenario is a North Korean invasion of the south as they are already at war at which point the US would obviously be involved. Is a North Korean invasion of the south imperialism or reunification and if so are you advocating putting more people under the militaristic regime in DPRK?

[William Howe]

Though I strongly disagree with NK's regime, I'd support them in a war against countries like SK and the US any day.

[Manic Impressive]

Also what do you guys mean by support? typical Revleft "I'd take their side in a debate" or Spain 1936 kind of support.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also what do you guys mean by support? typical Revleft "I'd take their side in a debate" or Spain 1936 kind of support.

The former of course, unless there are arms dealers who post on this board that I'm unaware of.

[freepalestine]

Also what do you guys mean by support? typical Revleft "I'd take their side in a debate" or Spain 1936 kind of support.
support-as in a country/apopulation that is invaded bythe u.s.a. etc-it wouldnt exactly mean supporting the policys/politics of the north korean regime,the afghan resistance,iraqi baath govt or whatever.

[Peace on Earth]

Try to imagine a war breaking out in real life though. There is a 0% possibility of the people in the north overthrowing both the DPRK government and the US/ROK invaders. It's pretty certain that they'd fight under the banner of DPRK.
And I would do my best to convince anyone involved in the conflict that they are pawns of higher powers who don't care for their well-being, and that it would be in their best interests to defeat the aggressor (whoever it may be) and then proceed to stage rebellion.


It's all very well to take the puritan leftist high ground and say "I don't support any state", but if you want to have any relevance to reality you will have to pick an existing side.
That's like saying you have to vote in a presidential election if yuo have any relevence to reality. No, because if you don't favor either side, you don't have to. It's best to realize both sides of worthless to the struggle.



Second: the DPRK is a degenerate workers' state,
*cough dictatorship cough*

[gorillafuck]

I wouldn't enlist in the DPRK Military or send them aid, no. I would argue against US involvement in the Korean peninsula, though.

[scarletghoul]

You're all assuming that the USA invades, if it were likely to happen it would have already. The USA has more than it can handle already it would not need another front in north korea. The more likely scenario is a North Korean invasion of the south as they are already at war at which point the US would obviously be involved. Is a North Korean invasion of the south imperialism or reunification and if so are you advocating putting more people under the militaristic regime in DPRK?1. Korea is one country, and one people, artificially divided, and the vast majority of Koreans want reunification.

2. The US would not just have 'another front in north korea', it would be a war taking place over the whole peninsula. Because Korea is one country.

3. " if it were likely to happen it would have already." has it ever occurred to you that the world moves round and things change ? What's unthinkable one minute can become unavoidable the next. (though an invasion of the North has never even been unthinkable..)

4. the DPRK is only 'militaristic' because of the 10,000s of US troops across its border, not to mention the ROK puppet troops, posing a constant threat. If imperialism was expelled from Korea there would be a sharp drop in 'militarism' I'm sure.

5. You, like many others here, seem to just view this as a conflict between 2 sides, 2 competing states in Korea. It's worth remembering which of these states has required over 6 decades of US occupation to keep it propped up and which one had Soviet forces withdraw within a few months, which state was originally composed of puppets left over from the old japanese regime and which state was administered by the anti-japanese guerillas, in other words, which state is the legitimate government of the korean people and which state is imposed by imperialists.

[gorillafuck]

1. Korea is one country, and one people, artificially divided, and the vast majority of Koreans want reunification.
The United States and Canada are artificially divided and the people are fairly similar.

I don't see how Korean nationalism is progressive. Most of the people in the ROK want Korea reunited.....under the ROK.


2. The US would not just have 'another front in north korea', it would be a war taking place over the whole peninsula. Because Korea is one country.The two parts of Korea are artificially divided, yeah. Borders are all artificial divisions. But if it was one country then there wouldn't be two countries in it. And, as of now, Korea is divided into two countries.


4. the DPRK is only 'militaristic' because of the 10,000s of US troops across its border, not to mention the ROK puppet troops, posing a constant threat. If imperialism was expelled from Korea there would be a sharp drop in 'militarism' I'm sure.There have been plenty of governments that are not even close to as militaristic as the DPRK when under US aggression. Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe.

[Manic Impressive]

support-as in a country/apopulation that is invaded bythe u.s.a. etc-it wouldnt exactly mean supporting the policys/politics of the north korean regime,the afghan resistance or whatever.
Well here's where we really differ as I would never support a reactionary resistance who would prefer a system more akin to feudalism and the oppression of their own people as in Afghanistan. All this the enemy of my enemy is my friend stuff is bull shit. I would give my support to the people of Afghanistan and I would demonstrate and fight my own government for their freedom but not for someone else to oppress them. Similar shit in DPRK.

[~Spectre]

If you give a shit about the people in NK, you'd probably support the Korean state capitulating before actually engaging in a full out war with the United States.

These kinds of question are usually nothing more than raving nationalists intellectually masturbating.

[Manic Impressive]

3. " if it were likely to happen it would have already." has it ever occurred to you that the world moves round and things change ? What's unthinkable one minute can become unavoidable the next. (though an invasion of the North has never even been unthinkable..

It's not unthinkable at all but it's not likely once they've pulled out of Afghanistan the USA will not enter another war for at least 5-10 years unless they have to that's how these things work. The next one on their hit list is probably Iran or possibly even Pakistan. The USA has little motive for engaging a very strong military in DPRK not to mention that China would not be too pleased (not that they'd defend them either) Where as on the other side in our beloved deformed workers state the goal is reunification and they are still technically at war. So DPRK invading a country they are already at war with is more likely than the USA taking on more than it can handle imo


5. You, like many others here, seem to just view this as a conflict between 2 sides, 2 competing states in Korea. It's worth remembering which of these states has required over 6 decades of US occupation to keep it propped up and which one had Soviet forces withdraw within a few months, which state was originally composed of puppets left over from the old japanese regime and which state was administered by the anti-japanese guerillas, in other words, which state is the legitimate government of the korean people and which state is imposed by imperialists.

Dude sorry to burst your bubble here but DPRK have had international aid. They've not lasted entirely on their own, that's DPRK propaganda.

[gorillafuck]

These kinds of question are usually nothing more than raving nationalists intellectually masturbating.
I don't think that it's necessarily nationalist. Having your argument be that Korea is one country and one people, on the other hand, is very nationalist.

[freepalestine]

Well here's where we really differ as I would never support a reactionary resistance who would prefer a system more akin to feudalism and the oppression of their own people as in Afghanistan. All this the enemy of my enemy is my friend stuff is bull shit. I would give my support to the people of Afghanistan[etc] and I would demonstrate and fight my own government for their freedom but not for someone else to oppress them. Similar shit in DPRK.what i highighted in bold text,was basically what i said in the quote you replied to.as long has usa imperialism is attacked,then all the good.

[~Spectre]

The fact that anyone votes 'no' on this poll who associates with the label 'revolutionary left' is disturbing.

Why is that?

[Magón]

Because if you can't support an oppressed state--whether you consider it "capitalist" or socialist or whatever--in the event of an invasion by an imperialist power, you aren't a revolutionary leftist. I love this bogus idea that somehow taking a purely rhetorical stance in support of "the Korean people" but not the state that would actually be repelling a US invasion somehow makes one a more "revolutionary" (or righteous, for some) leftist. Like the DPRK or not, if you vote no on this poll, you are saying that US invasion/occupation/subjugation of North Korea is no worse than--and possibly preferable to--a sovereign, independent North Korea.

What if you're an Anarchist and oppose all States, whether the DPRK, PRC, Vietnam, or other "Socialist" States, yet have no problem with the people and would prefer to help the people in the situation, rather than side with either State Powers? For example, work to help the people free themselves from DPRK AND US Imperialism, allowing them to make their own decisions, rather than kick one backward State out and replace it with another?

[Devrim]

as long has usa imperialism is attacked,then all the good.

I think that much of the anti-working class nature of much of the left is here in this statement.

It completely misunderstands the nature of imperialism in this epoch, which is not merely the policy of states, but a world system, which no state is outside. Smaller states such as North Korea become the tools of the larger powers, and opposing 'US Imperialism' by supporting other national states in no way damages imperialism, but rather merely changes the balance of power between the differing imperialists.

North Korea has absolutely no chance of winning a war against the US except if it is heavily backed by China. Anybody backing the North Korean state in this instance would be calling on workers to sacrifice themselves for Chinese imperialism.

The communist approach in this sort of situation is to call for revolutionary defeatism and turning the imperialist war into a civil war.


First: socialists in imperialist countries should generally be defeatists toward "their own" country in an imperialist war. In a war between imperialist powers, that means the common defeat of all imperialists as the war becomes transformed into a civil war. In a predatory war, as a US war on the DPRK no doubt would be, it means standing against the US and RoK and for their defeat by the DPRK.

I think that Lenin's most quoted formulation formulation is ambiguous:


During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its own government.

Of course revolutionaries 'wish' for the defeat of their own country, and work towards it. This does not mean supporting the opposing powers though. At the time revolutionaries were struggling against the social patriots who were supporting their own country, such as Kautsky, or the anarchist Kropotkin. Revolutionaries are against all sides:


Present-day democracy will remain true to itself only if it joins neither one nor the other imperialist bourgeoisie, only if it says that the two sides are equally bad, and if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie in every country. Any other decision will, in reality, be national-liberal and have nothing in common with genuine internationalism.

Let's be clear. There can be absolutely no support for our 'own states'. Any socialist in the US arguing, with whatever rhetoric, for support of the US' imperialist adventures is a class traitor. That doesn't mean that we should 'support' the other side.


It's all very well to take the puritan leftist high ground and say "I don't support any state", but if you want to have any relevance to reality you will have to pick an existing side.

You are of course aware that this is exactly the same argument that was used against Lenin and the Zimmerwald left during the First World War.


Also what do you guys mean by support? typical Revleft "I'd take their side in a debate" or Spain 1936 kind of support.

Of course much of the support expressed by the left is absurd and meaningless, particularly the modern Trotskyist formulation of military support'. It has as much to do with real support as some kid in the mid-West deciding he supports the Yankees.


I would argue against US involvement in the Korean peninsula, though.

Which to put it in very simple terms would be the first task of socialists in the US today in the case of a war in Korea. Of course there will be many on the left who will be running around shouting 'support' North Korea, and arguing that it is crucial important to do so. Essentially it is an empty slogan though, and the task of socialists in the US is to oppose their own government.

Fawkes comes closest to expressing a class position:


This is a pretty lame question. I'm not going to support the killing of anyone for the benefit of the rich, regardless of whether they hail from DPRK, USA, or Venezuela. Would I support the people of DPRK in the event that they're invaded by the U.S.? Of course. Just as I would support the people of the U.S. in the case of them being invaded or attacked by the DPRK.

I don't choose sides between states.

Communists don't take sides in wars between capitalist states. They don't support workers dying for the rich of any country.

However, I think that a certain ambiguity creeps in with the talk of 'supporting the people'. What exactly does that mean?

The OP uses this argument as it has traditionally been used by the anti-working class left:


Please note, that supporting it in a War doesn't mean you have to support their Regime, it simply means you would support the people of North Korea against Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists.

This is exactly the argument that was used in 1914 by the (minority amongst) French anarchists and syndicalists who backed the French state in the First World War.

Of course we have human sympathy with those raped and butchered in imperialist wars. The communist programme makes no concessions though. It wishes for the defeat of the bourgeoisie "in every country". There can be no concessions to national defence. In the event of war the policy of the communists is clear, we argue against all capitalist states, and for disruption of the war machine, strikes, fraternisation, desertion, and ultimately "turning the imperialist war into a civil war".

Devrim

[~Spectre]

Because if you can't support an oppressed state--whether you consider it "capitalist" or socialist or whatever--in the event of an invasion by an imperialist power, you aren't a revolutionary leftist. I love this bogus idea that somehow taking a purely rhetorical stance in support of "the Korean people" but not the state that would actually be repelling a US invasion somehow makes one a more "revolutionary" (or righteous, for some) leftist. Like the DPRK or not, if you vote no on this poll, you are saying that US invasion/occupation/subjugation of North Korea is no worse than--and possibly preferable to--a sovereign, independent North Korea.


As socialists, we don't have states. North Korea engaging in full scale war with the United States is not only the end of North Korea (who gives a shit) but more importantly, the end of the people living inside of North Korea.

You can think it's a "bogus idea" all you'd like, but the fact remains that this romanticized version of fighting the United States is unworthy of even a three year old's imagination.

No one should have to live under occupation, but then again no one should have to live under the North Korean government either. No one should have to die in defense of the North Korean state, which would certainly be the case if NK engaged in war with the United States.

There's nothing about the North Korean government worth preserving at the cost of war with the United States - and that's the point. When faced with two ugly alternatives like that, the people of North Korea would be better off if their government quickly capitulated.

As a "revolutionary leftist" the North Korean state is your enemy, and I don't support Korean workers having to die for my enemies international feuds.

[General Lud]

This is a ridiculous question.

a. It takes into no account the culture of Koreans which transcends the political boundaries we are associating them. Koreans, despite their differing governing bodies see themselves as one people. A catch phrase here

우리 나라

oo-ri-na-rah

Our...our country, our people.

Yes, Korea has had a history of division for the past 60 years...but they also share a deeper history, culture, and language that runs far deeper than this division. I've come to realize, in the West...the conflict between North and South...exists more in the minds of westerns, than in Koreans. My explanation would be, North V South...or anything V anything else...always sells. Conflict is the main component of good narrative. News is a narrative. Find allegorical conflict, and sells some newspapers. In reality, the conflict isn't as stark or heated as you may believe.

B. How the hell would North Korea attacking the South, devastating a country and people (Millions of deaths, destruction of economy, ensuing starvation, etc) hurt U.S imperialism? Really, the lose of Korea, only one of the U.S's satellites is a blow to U.S imperialism? I think a simple cost benefit analysis, looking not at some abstract political position, but at the people directly effected, will reveal a war would only result in the deaths of innocent people, a widening of a split in a once (and still to a degree) unified culture, and little to no loss to the U.S empire as a whole...

Why would you vote yes?


::full disclosure::

I'm currently living in South Korea.

[~Spectre]

you still should be able to recognize that a sovereign state

Who cares?



is superior to one subjugated, conquered, and dominated by an imperialist nation.

At some point, you have to stop to consider reality. To begin with, you have a long way to go before establishing the odious North Korean government as actually been significantly better in the short term for the people of North Korea. And in the long term, the point is to overthrow whatever state is in place regardless.

Really though, you should ask: Is a state "subjugated, conquered, and dominated by an imperialist nation", better than a state that has been bombed back to the stone age and then "subjugated, conquered, and dominated by an imperialist nation.

Those are really your only choices. Drop the fantasy. The North Korean state would not win this war regardless.







Let's say war broke out between the US and the DPRK; what entity will act as the repellent against US imperialist invasion/occupation/subjugation?

That's the point. A war between the states would result in North Koreans dying in defense of oppressive class relations that are not in their best interest. As a "revolutionary leftist" I find that unacceptable.


If the United States went to war with North Korea. It would be much better for the North Korean armed forces to disobey their orders and for the Korean state to collapse than it would be for them to engage in war they can't win, in defense of a state that must eventually lose.

[Devrim]

What do people even mean when they say they support "the Korean people" but not the DPRK in the event of a US-led invasion? If it happened tomorrow, the two would literally be indistinguishable, and imagining that some mass awakening would occur among the Korean workers--who would then rise up and topple the DPRK and successfully repel the US at the same time--is the worst kind of utopianism.

The Zimmerwald left was also called utopian, yet only two years later the working class seized power in Russia.

I don't imagine that at the moment there would be a mass workers uprising in Korea. Nor do I think the USA will invade Korea tomorrow for that matter.

To me your approach seems to be that recognising that the working class is week, so you decide to support capitalist states instead.


Think about what it means to say "I don't support the DPRK in the event of a war with the US." We make choices based on which options are preferable in relation to others. By voting no on this poll, you're saying that the US winning a war against the DPRK would be as bad, and possibly preferable, to an independent North Korea.

The only option for socialists in the US is to oppose their own state. That doesn't mean that they should 'support' North Korea though.

No states are 'independent' in the modern epoch, and a North Korea victorious in a war against the US would, by necessity, be subject to Chinese imperialist domination. In what way would that be 'preferable'.

Devrim

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Yes i would.

[Aurora]

Devrim what was the left-communist position on WW2 specifically in relation to the Soviet Union?

From what you posted here and the left-com 'state-capitalist' theory, would i be right in saying you consider the DPRK like the SU to be a capitalist state equivalent to the ROK and USA? and you would call for a defeat of the SU during WW2?

[Devrim]

Devrim what was the left-communist position on WW2 specifically in relation to the Soviet Union?

From what you posted here and the left-com 'state-capitalist' theory, would i be right in saying you consider the DPRK like the SU to be a capitalist state equivalent to the ROK and USA? and you would call for a defeat of the SU during WW2?

Yes, we consider the Soviet Union to have been a capitalist imperialist stae, and as such called for its defeat as we called for the defeat of all sides in the Second World War.

The reports of Mussolini's police spies sum up our position well (though make the mistake of thinking we were Trotskyists) when referring to the paper of the Partito Comunista Internazionalista:


The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism, undoubtedly Trotskyist, and thus anti-Stalinist. Declares itself without hesitation an adversary of Stalin's Russia, while proclaiming itself faithful to Lenin's Russia. Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist. Even struggles against 'the partisans', the Committee of National Liberation and the Italian Communist Party.

Devrim

[Edelweiss]

This is exactly the argument that was used in 1914 by the (minority amongst) French anarchists and syndicalists who backed the French state in the First World War.

This also the exact position of German Social Democracy did approve war credits before WW1 in the parliament. As a matter of "defense" and for "the German people". Of course this position didn't has anything to do with a communist stance in 1914 as it hasn't anything to do with it today.

"People" is a similar abstract and artificial division of mankind as nation states are BTW. I don't think it's a category that communists ever should consider. The most terrible crimes in history has been committed in the name of the "people" or "volk".

Don't fight for your country, fight for your class!

[Rafiq]

It depends on the reason for the war and who is the aggressor. But you do know that they are already at war right? No peace treaty was ever signed and occasionally they shoot each other. Also why would we support a regime which has totally betrayed socialism? I'd support the people of both countries as they both have oppressive regimes that they need to overthrow.

Pretend South Korea and the US actually invaded.

[Rafiq]

Also what do you guys mean by support? typical Revleft "I'd take their side in a debate" or Spain 1936 kind of support.

Verbally supporting it, but not fully supporting their regime.

[red cat]

DPRK as of now, because a multipolar world is more favourable for revolution that a unipolar one. However, the advancement of the South Asian revolutions and their increasing confrontation with the Chinese revisionist bloc always leaves room for changes in tactical alliance.

[Il Medico]

The former of course, unless there are arms dealers who post on this board that I'm unaware of.
Don't tell anyone.

[robbo203]

Weve gone through all this before in an earlier thread some week/months back. Socialists dont take sides in capitalist wars. You dont support the workers of North korea by siding with the nasty little state capitalist regime of north Korea any more than you would support the workers of America by siding the with somehat bigger but likewise nasty regime of the USA. The best way to support the workers anywhere is simply to say "fuck off" to anyone who urges us to support one or other side in capitalist war. Workers of the world unite!

[Il Medico]

Oh, yeah, and I voted no.

[Widerstand]

I vote no of course. This stupid 70's New Left artifact "nationstate fetishism" needs to die.


because a multipolar world is more favourable for revolution that a unipolar one.

Why is a multipolar world more favorable? And how is the DPRK crucial to a multipolar world?

[red cat]

Why is a multipolar world more favorable? And how is the DPRK crucial to a multipolar world?

Because in a multipolar world, socialist regimes can play one imperialist power against another, whereas in a unipolar world, an all out invasion by the reigning super-power is almost inevitable.

Any country which gets into conflict with the USA will help in creating a multipolar world.

[fa2991]

Yes. I support reunification under the DPRK, which would never happen without America stepping in and trying to stop it.

[black magick hustla]

Because in a multipolar world, socialist regimes can play one imperialist power against another, whereas in a unipolar world, an all out invasion by the reigning super-power is almost inevitable.

Any country which gets into conflict with the USA will help in creating a multipolar world.

actually its the other case, imperialist powers playin "socialist" regimes against each other. just because mao shook nixons hand doesnt mean he was the boss in town

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

If the DPRK would go to war with South Korea and the US, would you support it in a War?

Please note, that supporting it in a War doesn't mean you have to support their Regime, it simply means you would support the people of North Korea against Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists.
If we're talking about "the people of North Korea" then we should presumably be talking about "the people of South Korea" and "the people of the United States" as well. The working classes of US and ROK are not "Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists". I selected no, because I would not be supporting either side except in the sense that I would support the people of both sides. The only good result would be the overthrow of all three regimes.

[red cat]

actually its the other case, imperialist powers playin "socialist" regimes against each other. just because mao shook nixons hand doesnt mean he was the boss in town

Socialist countries cannot be played against each other. The relationships of the USSR and PRC with South Asian revolutionary movements throw some light on the nature of these two regimes, and which of them was socialist can be more or less understood. China successfully countered USSR with USA wherever required.

[People's War]

Yeah, I would.

[Aurora]

I voted Yes. We call for a defeat of the imperialist powers because they have nothing to offer workers, in the DPRK property is of a fundamentally different and progressive character than the ROK, the ROK requires a social revolution, the DPRK requires workers to smash the bureacracy and take its place at the head of their dictatorship.
I would also add that the destruction of the bureaucracy of the DPRK during war wouldn't hinder but would hasten victory as a democratic workers state would shine as a beacon to the workers of south Korea, the US and the world.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

I voted Yes, but it depends on the reasons and the provocation.

If the US and/or South Korea (its very unlikely the US or South Korea would invade on their lonesomes) invaded simply for a regime change or because some DPRK soldiers had been taking pot shots over the Border and South Korea simply got tired of sharing the peninsula, then I would side with the DPRK.
If they invaded because the DPRK was being overly aggressive, and there was substantial evidence to say that they had been overly aggressive, then I would side with no one. Same goes for if both of them were being overly aggressive, but I would probably support the DPRK if the US got involved. However, I would side with the DPRK if South Korea was being overly aggressive.
If the DPRK invaded South Korea for no reason other than to unify the peninsula, I would not support them. I may give them some support if I agree with their aims and they don't massacre people by intensely bombing urban centres.

I would always give my support the DPRK if its people suffer any injustices during war, no matter who started it. Governments declare war, there's no need to refuse it's people support.

[freepalestine]

I think that much of the anti-working class nature of much of the left is here in this statement.

It completely misunderstands the nature of imperialism in this epoch, which is not merely the policy of states, but a world system, which no state is outside. Smaller states such as North Korea become the tools of the larger powers, and opposing 'US Imperialism' by supporting other national states in no way damages imperialism, but rather merely changes the balance of power between the differing imperialists.

North Korea has absolutely no chance of winning a war against the US except if it is heavily backed by China. Anybody backing the North Korean state in this instance would be calling on workers to sacrifice themselves for Chinese imperialism.

The communist approach in this sort of situation is to call for revolutionary defeatism and turning the imperialist war into a civil war.
.......


I think that Lenin's most quoted formulation formulation is ambiguous:




Devrimyou took what i said out of context.nothing i said was anti-working class.if being anti-imperialist is anti-working class then maybe i.
as for supporting the dprk govt,or the baathist govt against imperialism i didn't say that.

[Devrim]

you took what i said out of context.

What was the context then? I just looked back at your post and I can't see it.


nothing i said was anti-working class.

What you said was :


as long has usa imperialism is attacked,then all the good.

Is it 'all the good' to support other imperialist powers and/or their proxies against the US? That is what you seem to be saying when you say "as long as usa imperialism is attacked".


if being anti-imperialist is anti-working class then maybe i.

I don't think these sort of politics are in anyway 'anti-impeiralist'. They are completely pro-imperialist. Just pro a different imperialist power than the US.


as for supporting the dprk govt,or the baathist govt against imperialism i didn't say that.

Do you support the idea of national defence in countries attacked by the US such as Iraq in the past and possibly North Korea in the future?

Devrim

[Axle]

My vote is a tenative yes, assuming that America is the aggressor.

[Zanthorus]

the left-com 'state-capitalist' theory

Did Bilan even hold the state-capitalist theory when they opposed World War Two? The ICC's book on the topic states that they originally had a two-sided analysis where the USSR was said to be 'centrist', but that it's position in the world-system of Imperialism meant that from an international viewpoint it should be seen as a capitalist state. It never talks about the transition from this view to a state-capitalist analysis (Or I don't remember that part, it does talk a lot about their analysis of why the Russian revolution failed).

[freepalestine]

What was the context then? I just looked back at your post and I can't see it.



What you said was :



Is it 'all the good' to support other imperialist powers and/or their proxies against the US? That is what you seem to be saying when you say "as long as usa imperialism is attacked".



so being against u.s. imperialism etc,is anti-working class?



I don't think these sort of politics are in anyway 'anti-impeiralist'. They are completely pro-imperialist. Just pro a different imperialist power than the US.



Do you support the idea of national defence in countries attacked by the US such as Iraq in the past and possibly North Korea in the future?[or wherever else for that matter]

Devrim
ofcourse.
the results of u.s. interference are plain to see,especially for those living in iraq.

[Queercommie Girl]

Second: the DPRK is a degenerate workers' state, and for Trotskyists that means that we support it critically in a military intervention, although we do not change our line that a proletarian political revolution is necessary to overthrow the bureaucracy and institute workers' democracy. The property forms of the DPRK are progressive and deserve defending, as their liquidation would mean intensified suffering by the North Korean people, but the bureaucratic regime is only defended critically against imperialism.


Basically agree.

Just to illustrate the difference between NK and Iran in this case:

Iran is not a worker's state, so obviously I will support the Iranian people against US imperialism, but I will not support the Iranian state machine at all, not even critically.

In NK's case, I will defend the NK state machine critically.

[Devrim]

so being against u.s. imperialism etc,is anti-working class?

If it involves supporting other imperialist powers and urging workers to die for them, then yes.

Devrim

[IndependentCitizen]

I don't support wars which have no benefits for the proletariat. What would be accomplished through a war with the U.S and ROK? A few dead capitalist pawns? Nothing, it wouldn't establish a strong sense of class consciousness around the world, it'd make people look at DPRK with hatred, once again. The propaganda machine of the western world would tear Communism another one, and that'd be a major set back for leftism.

[Garret]

If it's the US and the South Korean puppet that starts it, yes.

[I.O.T.M]

I can't say I know enough about the regime in DPRK to give you an answer. I have heard some horror stories regarding the regime, and I guess this thread would be a good place to get some clarity on the situation. Is North Korea run democratically? Also, I heard that disabled children are killed at birth, is that true?

[robbo203]

I voted Yes. We call for a defeat of the imperialist powers because they have nothing to offer workers, in the DPRK property is of a fundamentally different and progressive character than the ROK, the ROK requires a social revolution, the DPRK requires workers to smash the bureacracy and take its place at the head of their dictatorship.
I would also add that the destruction of the bureaucracy of the DPRK during war wouldn't hinder but would hasten victory as a democratic workers state would shine as a beacon to the workers of south Korea, the US and the world.

Rubbish. The DPRK is backed up to the hilt by an imperialist power in the form of Chinese state capitalism which is investing heavily in the country. It is not opposed to imperialism per se - only certain imperialist powers It has no scruples about courting favour with the chinese imperialists and pimping out its low-paid , oppressed and pliable workforce as an inducements to its imperialist overlords to squeeze as much surplus value as possible from this workforce. Dont be conned by the crap that issues from the mouths of this nasty little capitalist regime. Its just deodorent to disguise the revolting stench

[Queercommie Girl]

Rubbish. The DPRK is backed up to the hilt by an imperialist power in the form of Chinese state capitalism which is investing heavily in the country. It is not opposed to imperialism per se - only certain imperialist powers It has no scruples about courting favour with the chinese imperialists and pimping out its low-paid , oppressed and pliable workforce as an inducements to its imperialist overlords to squeeze as much surplus value as possible from this workforce. Dont be conned by the crap that issues from the mouths of this nasty little capitalist regime. Its just deodorent to disguise the revolting stench

China may be state-capitalist now, but just having links with China doesn't make the DPRK state-capitalist too. The DPRK is still a deformed worker's state.

Calling China imperialist is ignoring the fact that the Chinese working class today is still heavily exploited by Western and Japanese imperialism. In mainland China today, although conditions in both state-owned enterprises and private enterprises are quite bad, in state-owned enterprises the conditions are actually still better in general. It is not a coincedence therefore that the vast majority of the big strike waves that occurred in China recently happened in factories owned by Japanese capitalists, not in Chinese state-owned enterprises.

You could argue China today is somewhat of a "local imperialist power" but it is certainly not on the same level as US imperialism. China's GDP per capita is 10 times lower than the EU average, and China's military power and technology lags behind that of the US by several decades.

[Devrim]

as for supporting the dprk govt,or the baathist govt against imperialism i didn't say that.


Do you support the idea of national defence in countries attacked by the US such as Iraq in the past and possibly North Korea in the future?


ofcourse.

It seems that though you might not have said it then it is what you believe.

Devrim

[Aurora]

Did Bilan even hold the state-capitalist theory when they opposed World War Two? The ICC's book on the topic states that they originally had a two-sided analysis where the USSR was said to be 'centrist', but that it's position in the world-system of Imperialism meant that from an international viewpoint it should be seen as a capitalist state. It never talks about the transition from this view to a state-capitalist analysis (Or I don't remember that part, it does talk a lot about their analysis of why the Russian revolution failed).
Im afraid i don't know I'm not very familiar with the history of left-communism i was refering to the modern theory of state-capitalism espoused generally by the ICC members on this site. It seems to me that whether you hold that the USSR was capitalist, imperialist or whatever theory of 'state' capitalism' it seems to mean the same thing in practical terms, calling for the defeat of what i consider progressive gains made from the workers revolution.
Incidentally what did they mean when they said the USSR was 'centrist', what occupied the other poles and did this mean they thought the centre was more progressive than the right?( presumably the US, Britain etc?)


Rubbish. The DPRK is backed up to the hilt by an imperialist power in the form of Chinese state capitalism which is investing heavily in the country. It is not opposed to imperialism per se - only certain imperialist powers It has no scruples about courting favour with the chinese imperialists and pimping out its low-paid , oppressed and pliable workforce as an inducements to its imperialist overlords to squeeze as much surplus value as possible from this workforce. Dont be conned by the crap that issues from the mouths of this nasty little capitalist regime. Its just deodorent to disguise the revolting stench
Well we're not really gonna get anywhere here, as far as im aware there is no private property, capitalists or use of surplus value as capital in the DPRK. So to consider it capitalist is incorrect. If you can show me otherwise i'd gladly change my position after i investigate it.

[Devrim]

China may be state-capitalist now, but just having links with China doesn't make the DPRK state-capitalist too. The DPRK is still a deformed worker's state.

You are right. It is its economy that makes North Korea state capitalist.


Calling China imperialist is ignoring the fact that the Chinese working class today is still heavily exploited by Western and Japanese imperialism.

What exactly do you mean by 'the Chinese working class today is still heavily exploited by Western and Japanese imperialism'? Workers are exploited directly by their bosses who extract surplus value from them, not by abstract entities such as imperialism.


In mainland China today, although conditions in both state-owned enterprises and private enterprises are quite bad, in state-owned enterprises the conditions are actually still better in general.

This is true in many countries. It doesn't mean that the state treats its workers well and doesn't exploit them. It means that generally workers in the state sector are stronger than those in small private firms. Would you rather work for the UK post office or some private distribution firm such as Murdoch's TNT.


You could argue China today is somewhat of a "local imperialist power" but it is certainly not on the same level as US imperialism. China's GDP per capita is 10 times lower than the EU average, and China's military power and technology lags behind that of the US by several decades.

China obviously is an imperialist power, and not just a local one. Look at its involvement in Africa for example. It is one of the major international powers. Of course this doesn't mean that it is as strong as the US. Communists though, don't analyse which imperialism is weakest and then support it. They wish for "the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie in every country".

Devrim

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

You are right. It is its economy that makes North Korea state capitalist.


Ok. Well, I reject the whole theory of labelling deformed worker's states as "state-capitalist".



What exactly do you mean by 'the Chinese working class today is still heavily exploited by Western and Japanese imperialism'? Workers are exploited directly by their bosses who extract surplus value from them, not by abstract entities such as imperialism.
In China's case, foreign capitalists treat Chinese workers worse than both Chinese state-owned enterprises and Chinese capitalists.

Imperialism is not abstract from the point of view of the masses of third world neo-colonial countries who are being heavily exploited by foreign capital.



This is true in many countries. It doesn't mean that the state treats its workers well and doesn't exploit them. It means that generally workers in the state sector are stronger than those in small private firms. Would you rather work for the UK post office or some private distribution firm such as Murdoch's TNT.
No, it doesn't mean the state sector doesn't exploit workers. But "progressive" and "reactionary" are quantitatively relative. Just like I don't consider all religions to be equally reactionary, I don't consider all capitalist structures to be equally reactionary either. It's why one would sometimes apply entryism to parties like the Labour Party in Western nations, but never the Conservative Party.



China obviously is an imperialist power, and not just a local one. Look at its involvement in Africa for example. It is one of the major international powers. Of course this doesn't mean that it is as strong as the US. Communists though, don't analyse which imperialism is weakest and then support it. They wish for "the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie in every country".
If you can accept that African workers are being exploited by Chinese imperialism as concrete, why can't you accept that Chinese workers are being exploited by US and Japanese imperialism as concrete as well? This is a clear case of applying a double standard.

There are more than two layers of oppression in the world, but rather there are multiple layers. The fact that Chinese capitalists are directly exploiting African labour does not imply in any way that Chinese labour cannot be exploited by stronger imperialist nations such as the US as well. There are more than two rungs on the food chain here.

Just change "China-Africa" in your equation to "US-China", it's that simple.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well we're not really gonna get anywhere here, as far as im aware there is no private property, capitalists or use of surplus value as capital in the DPRK. So to consider it capitalist is incorrect. If you can show me otherwise i'd gladly change my position after i investigate it.

There's a VERY SMALL private sector in the DPRK, but it barely accounts for anything. Fact of the matter is that the DPRK is the most collectivized Socialist country so far.

[Queercommie Girl]

DPRK as of now, because a multipolar world is more favourable for revolution that a unipolar one. However, the advancement of the South Asian revolutions and their increasing confrontation with the Chinese revisionist bloc always leaves room for changes in tactical alliance.

Fair enough on your point about the Chinese revisionist bloc, but DPRK is not an integral part of the Chinese bloc actually. Their current links with the PRC are largely purely pragmatic and strategic, not ideological.

[robbo203]

Well we're not really gonna get anywhere here, as far as im aware there is no private property, capitalists or use of surplus value as capital in the DPRK. So to consider it capitalist is incorrect. If you can show me otherwise i'd gladly change my position after i investigate it.


You have a deficient understanding of capitalist relations of production, in that case.

Private property in the sense of de jure ownership by private individuals is only one form of property ownership under capitalism; there are many others. Already in the 19th century, Engels was remarking on the way in which this form of ownership was being superceded by others such as the joint stock company and Trusts. A further example was the increasing intervention of the state , with state property being a form of capitalist property. As Engels put it in Socialism Utopian and Scientific:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head.

The DPRK may well have little in the way of private property in the sense that you mean but in no way does this detract from its essentially capitalist nature. It has got absolutely nothing to do with socialism in any meaningful sense of term and, as I said, such talk is just deodorent to disguise the stench of a viciously exploitative capitalist regime that has no compunctions about cosying up to an imperialist power in the shape of China to ruthlessly extract surplus value from the hides of its own workforce

[zimmerwald1915]

Incidentally what did they mean when they said the USSR was 'centrist', what occupied the other poles and did this mean they thought the centre was more progressive than the right?( presumably the US, Britain etc?)
"Centrist" referred to the position of Stalin and his faction within the Communist International in the mid-twenties. On the Left were people like Bordiga and Pannekoek, and their factions, and later Trotsky and his faction. On the Right were people like Bukharin and his faction.

In the view of the Italian Left both the Center and the Right in the International had, for various and differing reasons, placed themselves outside of communist politics, and that the task of building a new international would fall to the "Left Fractions".

[Devrim]

Ok. Well, I reject the whole theory of labelling deformed worker's states as "state-capitalist".

I didn't label them as state capitalist. I said that they were capitalist. The whole idea of 'deformed workers' states' is even more absurd than degenerated ones.


In China's case, foreign capitalists treat Chinese workers worse than both Chinese state-owned enterprises and Chinese capitalists.

I would imagine that you have got no idea about whether this is the case or not. I would think that evidence for this is very hard to come by, and that the only things that you might have if anything at all are scraps of anecdotal evidence.


Imperialism is not abstract from the point of view of the masses of third world neo-colonial countries who are being heavily exploited by foreign capital.

Well yes it is abstract. Imperialism is an abstract idea full stop. This is just phrase-mongering.

Workers are being exploited by capital, some of it Chinese. Some of it foreign.

Or are you suggesting that Chinese capital doesn't exploit Chinnese workers?


No, it doesn't mean the state sector doesn't exploit workers. But "progressive" and "reactionary" are quantitatively relative. Just like I don't consider all religions to be equally reactionary, I don't consider all capitalist structures to be equally reactionary either. It's why one would sometimes apply entryism to parties like the Labour Party in Western nations, but never the Conservative Party.

I think that this is the source of the disagreement. In our opinion there are no capitalism is in no way progressive. Designating some factions as reactionary and some as progressive just leads you to end up taking sides with different factions of the bourgeois.


If you can accept that African workers are being exploited by Chinese imperialism as concrete, why can't you accept that Chinese workers are being exploited by US and Japanese imperialism as concrete as well? This is a clear case of applying a double standard.

There are more than two layers of oppression in the world, but rather there are multiple layers. The fact that Chinese capitalists are directly exploiting African labour does not imply in any way that Chinese labour cannot be exploited by stronger imperialist nations such as the US as well. There are more than two rungs on the food chain here.

Just change "China-Africa" in your equation to "US-China", it's that simple.

Workers are exploited by capital whether they be Chinese workers being exploited by US capital, or African workers being exploited by Chinese capital. I would expect that somewhere there are also Japanese and American workers being exploited by Chinese capital. So What?

Devrim

[robbo203]

China may be state-capitalist now, but just having links with China doesn't make the DPRK state-capitalist too. The DPRK is still a deformed worker's state..

It is not its links with China that makes the DPRK state capitalist, it is the nature of the set up within the DPRK itself that makes it state capitalist.

The daft idea of a so called "deformed workers state" is just incoherent bilge dreamed up to rationalise away the glaring reality of capitalist relations of production in so called socialist countries that had pretended they had somehow superceded capitalism and that the workers had actually assumed control as opposed to the vanguard that made the big decisions


Calling China imperialist is ignoring the fact that the Chinese working class today is still heavily exploited by Western and Japanese imperialism. In mainland China today, although conditions in both state-owned enterprises and private enterprises are quite bad, in state-owned enterprises the conditions are actually still better in general. It is not a coincedence therefore that the vast majority of the big strike waves that occurred in China recently happened in factories owned by Japanese capitalists, not in Chinese state-owned enterprises...

This is an absurd argument. Many companies operating in the US are foreign owned. Does that make the US no longer an imperialist power? Of course not




You could argue China today is somewhat of a "local imperialist power" but it is certainly not on the same level as US imperialism. China's GDP per capita is 10 times lower than the EU average, and China's military power and technology lags behind that of the US by several decades.


Of course. Some powers are more manifestly imperialist than others . This is not denied. Although I would say every state, including North Korea is latently imperialist - because all states are capitalist and imperialism has its roots in capitalism and the expansionist dynamic of capital. With the increasing globalisation of capital, however, I question the usefulness of imperialist discourse today. Although obviously there is still "imperialism" around focussing on it obsessively - not to say, ritualistically - seem to me diverts attention from the cause of the problems to its symptoms.

More and more, the capitalist class is becoming a single globalised class. For example the chinese capitalists have become the top creditor tothe United States having recently increased their holdings of US treasury bonds to 739.6 billion dollars That is an awful lot of money by any standard. Even in the case of tiny tinpot states, corrupt dictators have a tendency to channel their illgotten gains (sometimes a sizeable portion of the country's GDP) into swiss bank accounts and the like.

The volume and complexity of capital flows across the globe make nonsense of the utterly simplistic and misleading dichotomy sometimes presented by naive leftists of an imperialist world versus a non imperialist world. As I said, so called anti imperialist states like North Korea depends completely on manifestly imperialist states like China and have no compunctions about seeking aid and investment from its imperialist overlord

[Zanthorus]

Im afraid i don't know I'm not very familiar with the history of left-communism i was refering to the modern theory of state-capitalism espoused generally by the ICC members on this site.

Sorry, I quoted your post because it was what reminded me. It was meant to be a more general question directed at anyone who cared to answer.


It seems to me that whether you hold that the USSR was capitalist, imperialist or whatever theory of 'state' capitalism' it seems to mean the same thing in practical terms, calling for the defeat of what i consider progressive gains made from the workers revolution.

I'm not quite sure how the overthrow of the Stalinist ruling class and the (re)transfer of political power the Soviets is 'calling for the defeat of... progressive gains made from the workers revolution'.


Incidentally what did they mean when they said the USSR was 'centrist', what occupied the other poles and did this mean they thought the centre was more progressive than the right?( presumably the US, Britain etc?)

As you may already know, 'centrist' was a word used by Lenin to describe socialists like Karl Kautsky who 'vacillated' between a revolutionary internationalist and a national chauvinist position on the first World War. Since then it is generally used to describe anyone who vacillates between the positions of right and left within the socialist movement. Trotsky considered Stalin and the Communist International from the fifth congress onwards to be 'centrist', and this sort of ties in with the analysis of the USSR as a 'degenerated workers' state', a regime which is progressive in some senses and reactionary in others. After their expulsion from the PCd'I, the Italian Left in exile initially supported the International Left Opposition, and when they began to have fallings out with the ILO, they even thought that Trotsky had aligned himself with people who were unworthy of his comradeship, and that Trotsky himself was still a pure revolutionary. Because of their alignment with Trotsky and to a lesser extent Trotskyism, and their past in the leadership of the Italian CP, the Left held to the same position as the Trot's on the USSR, while having a different and opposing analysis of the international situation.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I would pack my bags, leave for North Korea - and join the North Korean military force in fighting off those Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists. I assume everyone else who voted yes in the poll would do the same, right?

[IndependentCitizen]

I would pack my bags, leave for North Korea - and join the North Korean military force in fighting off those Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists. I assume everyone else who voted yes in the poll would do the same, right?

My PC's specced well enough to take on any military from my armchair!

[Rafiq]

I would pack my bags, leave for North Korea - and join the North Korean military force in fighting off those Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists. I assume everyone else who voted yes in the poll would do the same, right?

No, that's not what I meant.

The Topic was whether you would verbally support them.

[Crux]

5 people chose the latter O_o
48 people choose supporting massmurdering rapists.
In all honesty though, it all depends on context. Even if we for a moment imagine DPRK to be a socialist country, them as an aggressor would be social-imperialism. If there were progressive but for some reason pro-DPRK worker's urpisings and protests in the ROK, I would support the worker's also becuase such an intervention could destabilize the bureacracy, in that they would be forced to interact with worker's in struggle. But this is pretty much fantasy land, because that will in all likelihood not happen.
If the DPRK were attacked by the ROK and or the U.S, I would call for the defeat of the invading army, and struggle for the victory of korean worker's regardless of which side of the border they are on, against either regime and in defence of the planned economy. And again, context, context, context.

[Queercommie Girl]

48 people choose supporting massmurdering rapists.


The crimes done by the DPRK deformed worker's state pales in comparison to the crimes done by US imperialism, seriously.



In all honesty though, it all depends on context. Even if we for a moment imagine DPRK to be a socialist country, them as an aggressor would be social-imperialism.


Not if the majority of the working class of the "invaded" country supports them. Marxists do not believe in absolutist national rights in the abstract sense separate from class analysis. It's a case of betrayal of the international working class when we allow workers in another country to suffer under oppression when the military means of liberating them is objectively available just because we hang on to some kind of abstract pedantic sense of the "absolute rights of the bourgeois nation-state". Trotsky was in favour of military intervention in Nazi Germany by the Soviet Union. Unfortunately the USSR was already somewhat deformed at the time.



If there were progressive but for some reason pro-DPRK worker's urpisings and protests in the ROK, I would support the worker's also becuase such an intervention could destabilize the bureacracy, in that they would be forced to interact with worker's in struggle.


Basically agreed.



But this is pretty much fantasy land, because that will in all likelihood not happen.


Unlikely but not impossible. I read on a mainland Chinese article that several South Koreans protested against their government's decision to block certain websites that describe the DPRK from a relatively positive point of view. Don't have the illusions that in South Korea there is real freedom of speech either.



If the DPRK were attacked by the ROK and or the U.S, I would call for the defeat of the invading army, and struggle for the victory of korean worker's regardless of which side of the border they are on, against either regime and in defence of the planned economy.


I would still critically and partially defend the DPRK state machine itself despite the fact that the DPRK is quite heavily deformed (more so than China was under Mao). To talk about "defending the planned economy" without some kind of critical defence of the state itself is somewhat too abstract and unrealistic.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The crimes done by the DPRK deformed worker's state pales in comparison to the crimes done by US imperialism, seriously.

Maybe that's because North Korea is a small third-world country, while the US is a military superpower... Kim Jung-Il wishes he had the capabilities to do a fifth of the shit the American Bourgeios are capable of.

[Queercommie Girl]

Maybe that's because North Korea is a small third-world country, while the US is a military superpower... Kim Jung-Il wishes he had the capabilities to do a fifth of the shit the American Bourgeios are capable of.

Well, there is also a class difference. In the DPRK most of the atrocities are directed at capitalists and landlords, whereas the West directs most of its violence at the poor and oppressed of the world while fattens up the purses of the big capitalists.

The DPRK planned economy objectively benefits the working class. No doubt bureaucratic deformation limits the power of the workers, but it still has a proletarian economic base.

Btw, you almost sound like you are a bit in awe of the power of US imperialism...

[Apoi_Viitor]

Btw, you almost sound like you are a bit in awe of the power of US imperialism...

Of course I am...

Look at what the US is capable of doing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Agent-Orange-dioxin-skin-damage-Vietnam.jpg

The acts of US imperialism are so grandiose and horrifying, it's incomprehensible.

[deLarge]

DPRK abandoned Marxism long ago. I have no reason to support them.

[Sam_b]

Allow me to sidestep five pages of OP and his loaded questions, as well as his black-and-white yes/no poll, and suggest that this is the stupidest thread in politics i've seen since Psy's revolutionary fetishism.

[Devrim]

In the DPRK most of the atrocities are directed at capitalists and landlords,

:laugh:


The DPRK planned economy objectively benefits the working class.

:laugh:

Devrim

[freepalestine]

It seems that though you might not have said it then it is what you believe.

Devrim
i believe what?


Maybe that's because North Korea is a small third-world country, while the US is a military superpower... Kim Jung-Il wishes he had the capabilities to do a fifth of the shit the American Bourgeios are capable of.yeh god bless america.lol

[RedSonRising]

The misleading use of the nation-state's identity as a title to refer to the people within a location ignores the fundamental differences between a ruling class and it's state, and the people subject to it.


"The DPRK" is a place. I don't really show support for hunks of land.

"The North Korean Government" I would not support period. I may hope it survives an attack of US aggression for the sake of the population, but I do not support it's existence as an oppressively hierarchical regime in the first place.

"The North Korean Proletariat" I would support under any circumstance.


If you were to split up the options, it would contextualize the topic of North Korea in a more appropriate way. Using black-and-white options to describe political support blocks out the proper analysis required to have meaningful discussion about by proper leftists.

[Devrim]

i believe what?

"you support the idea of national defence in countries attacked by the US". When asked the question you said of course. Whatever rhetoric you wrap this up in it amounts to "supporting the dprk govt,or the baathist govt against imperialism".

Devrim

[freepalestine]

"you support the idea of national defence in countries attacked by the US". When asked the question you said of course. Whatever rhetoric you wrap this up in it amounts to "supporting the dprk govt,or the baathist govt against imperialism".

Devrimi support a population fighting against foreign occupation/invasion etc

[Aurora]

There's a VERY SMALL private sector in the DPRK, but it barely accounts for anything. Fact of the matter is that the DPRK is the most collectivized Socialist country so far.
I had heard something similar from an unreliable source(some crap news documentary) that there were small markets selling mainly chinese products, that the state generally turned a blind eye too.
I dont think small pockets of capitalism change the nature of the state anymore than the NEP made the SU capitalist.

The DPRK may well have little in the way of private property in the sense that you mean but in no way does this detract from its essentially capitalist nature.
That Engels quote only furthers your point of view if you already think that the DPRK is capitalist. Engels is talking about the capitalist state nationalising means of production like the railways, electricity, post office etc
The DPRK doesn't have a capitalist state, there is (almost)no capitalism left in the country, the bourgeoisie have been expropriated and the means of production have been centralised in the hands of the (deformed)workers state. The fact that this state is undemocratic and unaccountable is irrelevant to the economic relations of production.

Can i ask what your view is of the Paris Commune? do you think it was capitalist?
What about the USSR? why didnt it have economic crises? why the revolution if it remained capitalist? why did it return to capitalism in 91?


"Centrist" referred to the position of Stalin and his faction within the Communist International in the mid-twenties. On the Left were people like Bordiga and Pannekoek, and their factions, and later Trotsky and his faction. On the Right were people like Bukharin and his faction.

In the view of the Italian Left both the Center and the Right in the International had, for various and differing reasons, placed themselves outside of communist politics, and that the task of building a new international would fall to the "Left Fractions".
Ah thanks, i misunderstood.

I'm not quite sure how the overthrow of the Stalinist ruling class and the (re)transfer of political power the Soviets is 'calling for the defeat of... progressive gains made from the workers revolution'.
Thats pretty much the trotskyist view, that we just need to remove the bureaucracy and retransfer power to the soviets.
If the USSR was capitalist however surely you need to do more than transfer control back to the soviets, you need to abolish capitalist property relations too.

The DPRK planned economy objectively benefits the working class.
Absolutely and we can see what would happen if the planned economy was dismantled by looking at the USSR, the catastrophe there shows clearly that even though the USSR had degenerated hugely it still retained a progressive element just like the DPRK.

[Hit The North]

Second: the DPRK is a degenerate workers' state,

In what sense is it a workers state when control of the state is based on the hereditary principle and the actual, official head of state is a fucking ghost?

[Hit The North]

Anarion:


The fact that this state is undemocratic and unaccountable is irrelevant to the economic relations of production.

But if the state is undemocratic and unaccountable to the working class and yet it monopolises control over the means of production, in what sense can the country's economic relations of production be defined as socialist?

[Queercommie Girl]

:laugh:



:laugh:

Devrim

Well, trust an ultra-left Left Communist to ignore facts. Despite its overall relative poverty, the DPRK is a place with relatively good public healthcare, public housing, low income inequality and virtually no unemployment. These are the features of the planned economy that every genuine Marxist have a duty to defend against imperialism, obviously also putting into consideration the severe deformation in the superstructure of the state.

This is why although I'm not a Trotskyist formally, I consider orthodox Trotskyist analysis to be far more scientific and empirical than your abstract dogmatism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

In what sense is it a workers state when control of the state is based on the hereditary principle and the actual, official head of state is a fucking ghost?

Well, given that the bourgeoisie is completely expropriate, and the State, itself, is run by working class people, in which we can show operates under the interests of said working class, then whether we say working class or State hardly matters any longer, due to its comparative class stance.

[Hit The North]

Well, given that the bourgeoisie is completely expropriate, and the State, itself, is run by working class people, in which we can show operates under the interests of said working class, then whether we say working class or State hardly matters any longer, due to its comparative class stance.

You mean working class people like Kim Jong-il? A man who's titles run to Chairman of the National Defence Commission, General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and Supreme Leader. This man must be a genius to hold onto these positions uninterupted for so long in the face of what, in your estimation, is a thriving workers democracy.

Or may be you're referring to that other titan of the proletariat, Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il's son and heir apparent. His elevation must be a further example of how the state is "run by working class people".

Meanwhile, if the state is indeed subject to the will of the working people, why are the workers of South Korea not flocking over the border to join the workers paradise?

I guess they must be the duped idiots of imperialism, right?

[Aurora]

But if the state is undemocratic and unaccountable to the working class and yet it monopolises control over the means of production, in what sense can the country's economic relations of production be defined as socialist?
I've never claimed they are, i've only claimed that they aren't capitalist. I'm still trying to work through the idea in my head so bare with me, but i reckon im on to something :p
I believe that the Soviet Union (and DPRK) was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat the transition between capitalism and socialism and as such had a dual character:
"The state assumes directly and from the very beginning a dual character: socialistic, insofar as it defends social property in the means of production; bourgeois, insofar as the distribution of life’s goods is carried out with a capitalistic measure of value and all the consequences ensuing therefrom."
I know that answer isnt satisfactory so i'll try to give a better one once i understand it better and have more time.

I'd just like to add that i think theres alot of confusion on this site regarding socialism and the dotp with most considering them the same thing.

[Hit The North]

I'd just like to add that i think theres alot of confusion on this site regarding socialism and the dotp with most considering them the same thing.

That might very well be the case, but in the example of DPRK we have neither. The working class do not rule directly as a class and at best we have a "dictatorship for the working class" (benign despotism - a scenario I utterly reject) rather than a "dictatorship of the working class", so there can be no talk of a DOTP. And, largely for that reason, no talk of socialism either.

[Sam_b]

Well, trust an ultra-left Left Communist to ignore facts. Despite its overall relative poverty, the DPRK is a place with relatively good public healthcare, public housing, low income inequality and virtually no unemployment.

How are these 'facts' when you haven't been able to prove them?

[Tomhet]

@ O.P... Absolutely..

[The Vegan Marxist]

You mean working class people like Kim Jong-il? A man who's titles run to Chairman of the National Defence Commission, General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and Supreme Leader. This man must be a genius to hold onto these positions uninterupted for so long in the face of what, in your estimation, is a thriving workers democracy.

Well, out of your entire rambling, you failed to even point out the opposite - him being "bourgeoisie".


Or may be you're referring to that other titan of the proletariat, Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il's son and heir apparent. His elevation must be a further example of how the state is "run by working class people".

Again, you fail to even point out how he's "bourgeoisie".


Meanwhile, if the state is indeed subject to the will of the working people, why are the workers of South Korea not flocking over the border to join the workers paradise?

I guess they must be the duped idiots of imperialism, right?

Well, first of all, none of us have stated that the DPRK is a worker's paradise. So please don't put words in my, nor anyone else's mouths.

Second of all, reason why workers of South Korea haven't all flocked to North Korea is of the same reason why the vast majority workers of America haven't flocked to Cuba or Venezuela. These workers are led to believe in two things:

1) If they work hard enough under a capitalist system, you'll get rich;
2) Communism is the evil of all evils.

With the breaking of the will of the people, mixed in with a bit of successful propaganda, it doesn't surprise me South Korean workers haven't flocked to North Korea yet.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The argument of "I dont recognize nation states and therefor i wont support either sides" is just ignorrant. As a socialist im also a internationalist and therefor see the abolish of borders as an ultimate goal, but right now thats not the world we live in and there doesnt seem to be any realistic attempts going on, on that part, soo until then we have to relate to that.

So this statement wont take side against an invasion, since you dont like the regime.
Would that have been a good idea when the nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, The Soviet Union, Austria, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece? Or the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, Iraq?

[Devrim]

So this statement wont take side against an invasion, since you dont like the regime.
Would that have been a good idea when the nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, The Soviet Union, Austria, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece?

To argue for internationalism, to oppose 'our own' ruling class, and not line up with the allied imperialists?

Undoubtedly yes. The fact that very few revolutionaries did this, and that most so-called communist betrayed and took a position akin to the social patriots in the First World War demonstrates completely the defeats that the working class had suffered in the aftermath of the revolutionary wave.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

Allow me to sidestep five pages of OP and his loaded questions, as well as his black-and-white yes/no poll, and suggest that this is the stupidest thread in politics i've seen since Psy's revolutionary fetishism.

Eh, I was just wondering.

If you really want my opinion on the matter,

I would be against the US and ROK, but I wouldn't support the North Korean Regime.

[Apoi_Viitor]

With the breaking of the will of the people, mixed in with a bit of successful propaganda, it doesn't surprise me South Korean workers haven't flocked to North Korea yet.

Does the fact that North Korean workers flock to South Korea surprise you at all?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Does the fact that North Korean workers flock to South Korea surprise you at all?

Not at all. Just because the North Korean people are collective enough to know how to take care of each other, doesn't mean that the mass increase of sanctions doesn't put people in a position to either stick it out in North Korea or leave for South Korea where there's no sanctions being brought against them. The same argument can be said about Cuba, where known Cubans who are in support of Cuba & its people flee for the United States, but just can't keep living like they due to the continuing trade embargo brought against them by the US.

[Sam_b]

Second of all, reason why workers of South Korea haven't all flocked to North Korea is of the same reason why the vast majority workers of America haven't flocked to Cuba or Venezuela. These workers are led to believe in two things:

1) If they work hard enough under a capitalist system, you'll get rich;
2) Communism is the evil of all evils.

So why aren't you typing this from your accommodation in Havana/Caracas?

[Sam_b]

The same argument can be said about Cuba, where known Cubans who are in support of Cuba & its people, but just can't keep living like they due to the continuing trade embargo brought against them by the US.

Funny as I don't see Fidel, Raul or Kim struggling to keep afloat financially.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Funny as I don't see Fidel, Raul or Kim struggling to keep afloat financially.

Funny that you can't provide a single piece of evidence stating the contrary. Your argument is flawed in itself.


So why aren't you typing this from your accommodation in Havana/Caracas?

Maybe because I'm too poor to leave the country right now. I've also got family issues going on right now that deal with hospitals & insurance companies being capitalist pigs like they are. But that's none of your business, so I won't go into that.

[Sam_b]

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=217&issue=111

Perhaps you're in a better position to comment though, as being completely sidestepped from capitalist myths you have left Dobson for good, right? Surely if not that would be a flawed argument.

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=217&issue=111

Perhaps you're in a better position to comment though, as being completely sidestepped from capitalist myths you have left Dobson for good, right? Surely if not that would be a flawed argument.

I've read this article before. I've seen better analysis on Cuba than this by the PSL. A group of socialist activists who visit Cuba regularly. Plus, I don't think Chris Harman will have much to say about the current situation going on in Cuba since he died over a year ago.

[Tifosi]

Eh, I was just wondering.

Use the search button. Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/north-korea-poll-t139304/index.html?t=139304&highlight=Support+DPRK) is the old thread that was just the same as this one.

After this, another 400 threads along the very same lines as this one will pop up here:rolleyes:.

[Sam_b]

I've seen better analysis on Cuba than this by the PSL.

Better analysis by an organisation who are far from critical about anything to do with Cuba? Better analysis for who, exactly?


Plus, I don't think Chris Harman will have much to say about the current situation going on in Cuba since he died over a year ago.

Did the bureaucratisation of Cuba only start within the year?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

To argue for internationalism, to oppose 'our own' ruling class, and not line up with the allied imperialists?



You see that doesnt happen very often in major conflicts and dont get me wrong i really wished that it would happen and that it would be so easy.
If you lived in country A and was attacked by country B and B:s intetion was to enslave all people in A, after they exterminated 1/3 of the people and the working class in B are not going to go out in a general strike as a protest against the war, do you still think that people in A shouldnt deffend themselves?



Undoubtedly yes. The fact that very few revolutionaries did this, and that most so-called communist betrayed and took a position akin to the social patriots in the First World War demonstrates completely the defeats that the working class had suffered in the aftermath of the revolutionary wave.

Devrim

Yeah im aware of this and i know that the international labour movement havent recovered frome it since. Still i think that Vietnam did the right thing to defend themselves against the imperialists.

[Hit The North]

Well, out of your entire rambling, you failed to even point out the opposite - him being "bourgeoisie".



Again, you fail to even point out how he's "bourgeoisie".


Why do I need to? I never claimed he was bourgeois.


Second of all, reason why workers of South Korea haven't all flocked to North Korea is of the same reason why the vast majority workers of America haven't flocked to Cuba or Venezuela. These workers are led to believe in two things:

1) If they work hard enough under a capitalist system, you'll get rich;
2) Communism is the evil of all evils.


So you do believe they're the dupes of imperialism!

[The Vegan Marxist]

So you do believe they're the dupes of imperialism!

I believe they're not consciously aware of capitalism, nor the reality of Socialism.

[Hit The North]

I believe they're not consciously aware of capitalism, nor the reality of Socialism.

Well, if for you, the reality of socialism is the DPRK, it is just as well.

But I'm not surprised that someone who supports the dictatorship over the proletariat, would argue that workers are not consciously aware of capitalism. It's a good job the international working class has Kim Jong-il and the Vegan Marxist to lead it through its blind and insensible condition.

[Tomhet]

I absolutely support the DPRK in it's attempts at building socialism, I think the (some very large) problems with it could be solved, I.E, absurd military spending in comparison with the aledged overall wealth of the country, and the highly questionable leadership.. It's also important to support it against American, Japanese, South Korea, and Chinese imperialism, American Imperialism has tried to crush it since it was established as a country, and it has every right to self determination..

[robbo203]

I absolutely support the DPRK in it's attempts at building socialism, I think the (some very large) problems with it could be solved, I.E, absurd military spending in comparison with the aledged overall wealth of the country, and the highly questionable leadership.. It's also important to support it against American, Japanese, South Korea, and Chinese imperialism, American Imperialism has tried to crush it since it was established as a country, and it has every right to self determination..


1) You dont have a clue about what is meant by socialism if you think the DPRK is attmepting to build socialism

2) You urge us to support the DPRK against Chinese imperialism even though without the support of, and investment from, Chinese imperialism North Korea would be on its knees and even though this horrible little state capitalist regime has actively solicited such support from its imperialist overlords in China.

[Tomhet]

1) You dont have a clue about what is meant by socialism if you think the DPRK is attmepting to build socialism
Why specifically? from what source?
2) You urge us to support the DPRK against Chinese imperialism even though without the support of, and investment from, Chinese imperialism North Korea would be on its knees and even though this horrible little state capitalist regime has actively solicited such support from its imperialist overlords in China.
It is unfortunate that it must rely on China, but it needs the trade, it must make some concessions as it is a country under heavy fire..
It may be state capitalist, but, it isn't too late for the regime, so to speak..

...

[Devrim]

You see that doesnt happen very often in major conflicts and dont get me wrong i really wished that it would happen and that it would be so easy.

Yet in the two major wars of the last century, it did happen as well as in countless smaller ones. The First World War was effectively ended because the working class would no longer fight, and in the the Second World War 1943 saw massive strikes in Italy, which both the Nazis and the allies worked to put down. After the war the defeated powers were occupied because the victors were scared of revolution braking out. Of course those, like yourself, who argue for workers to forget their own class interests and in sacrifice themselves for 'their own states', had a role to play in this too.


If you lived in country A and was attacked by country B and B:s intetion was to enslave all people in A, after they exterminated 1/3 of the people and the working class in B are not going to go out in a general strike as a protest against the war, do you still think that people in A shouldnt deffend themselves?

I think they should struggle against their own bourgeoisie, fraternise, mutiny and strike. This is the communist position on imperialist wars.


Yeah im aware of this and i know that the international labour movement havent recovered frome it since. Still i think that Vietnam did the right thing to defend themselves against the imperialists.

What do you mean by 'Vietnam'? Vietnam too is a society divided into classes, one of which, the working class has no interest in dying in its bosses wars.

Devrim

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Yet in the two major wars of the last century, it did happen as well as in countless smaller ones. The First World War was effectively ended because the working class would no longer fight, and in the the Second World War 1943 saw massive strikes in Italy, which both the Nazis and the allies worked to put down. After the war the defeated powers were occupied because the victors were scared of revolution braking out.

Thats true, Italy where a very special case, a good example and one reason for the western allies to bomb Hamburg and Dresden, so hardly, was because of the big, red support in there. Still the major reason for the end of of WWII and the defeat of fascism was because of pure force where the red army and many partisans played the major role, you cant get around that.


Of course those, like yourself, who argue for workers to forget their own class interests and in sacrifice themselves for 'their own states', had a role to play in this too.


Please dont low yourself with the old sneaky rethorical trick by making up youre opposit debater have made a certain statement, when he hasnt.
I have Never rejected our class interests for the cause of some borgeous state, never. I just tried to explain for you that sometimes that opportunity doesnt exist and therefor fighting in the states army will actually be fighting for your own defence, just sometimes. I cant belive that i have to explaine this.



I think they should struggle against their own bourgeoisie, fraternise, mutiny and strike. This is the communist position on imperialist wars.


Yeah just that the invadors frome B will still exterminated and enslave the people. Amazing that youre ignorring that.




What do you mean by 'Vietnam'? Vietnam too is a society divided into classes, one of which, the working class has no interest in dying in its bosses wars.

Devrim

The vietnamees people.

[Devrim]

Still the major reason for the end of of WWII and the defeat of fascism was because of pure force where the red army and many partisans played the major role, you cant get around that.

But what is your point here? It was a victory for Russian and US imperialism. I don't see what I am trying to get around.


Please dont low yourself with the old sneaky rethorical trick by making up youre opposit debater have made a certain statement, when he hasnt. I have Never rejected our class interests for the cause of some borgeous state, never. I just tried to explain for you that sometimes that opportunity doesnt exist and therefor fighting in the states army will actually be fighting for your own defence, just sometimes. I cant belive that i have to explaine this.

Yet you support Vietnam, and the Soviet Union in WWII, both capitalist bourgeois states. As for the idea that " sometimes that opportunity doesnt exist and therefor fighting in the states army will actually be fighting for your own defence", it sounds to me like a line to support bourgeois states.


Yeah just that the invadors frome B will still exterminated and enslave the people. Amazing that youre ignorring that.

And the Huns eat babies.


The vietnamees people.

But society is divided into classes, which have different interests.

Devrim

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Devrim youre clearly more of an idealist the a meterialist. Youre example with the italian strikes where presented if that was the singel factor for the end of the war and the defeat of fascism, without regarding the military aspects that eventually gave this opportunity, thats what youre not accepting.

When im talking about the people of Vietnam im talking about the working class and peasents. In my defence of Vietnam i was refering to the war there in the 60s-70s, since the majority of the people wanted to have theire socialist goverment and the reactionaries and imperialists didnt and a war breaked out of that i understand that the peopel had the right to defend themselves. I know that you wont recognize any form of state, but the thing that you still make this statement on this event shows that youre more of an idealist who keeps to his princips even when they dont fit with reality.

And now to the USSR, first i dont recognize it as borgeous, just to make things clear.
Second, my example with the made up countrys was refering to the nazis invasion of the USSR where many people where exterminated and enslaved and even more would have becommed if it wasnt for them defending themselves. If they had revolted against the party and its leader the nazis would still go on, you dont seems to get that. Lastly the defeat of the fascists was a hughe progress for the international labour movement and it was done by the red army and the soviet people, is that so hard to accept?

[zimmerwald1915]

Devrim youre clearly more of an idealist the a meterialist. Youre example with the italian strikes where presented if that was the singel factor for the end of the war and the defeat of fascism, without regarding the military aspects that eventually gave this opportunity, thats what youre not accepting.
What? There were three points made. First, that massive workers' struggles in Russia and Germany were the decisive factor in the end of the First World War. Second, that the strikes in northern Italy beginning in 1943 illustrated for the capitalist class that, as of 1943, it was possible for massive workers' struggles to develop in the period of and against the Second World War. Third, that, given this knowledge, the Allied, Soviet, and Fascist regimes took every measure possible to prevent workers' struggles against the war, and to retard the development of the workers' movement after the war. Nowhere was the point made that the struggles of Italian workers ended the war: their effect was rather to scare the bourgeoisie on all sides of all military fronts into humungous reaction and anti-worker violence.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

No war but class war. Fuck the system that sends the working-class to slaughter each other. If Obama has a problem with Kim or vice-versa, put them in a boxing ring and settle it themselves.

[Devrim]

Devrim youre clearly more of an idealist the a meterialist.

It is always good to start off with a cheap meaningless insult.


Youre example with the italian strikes where presented if that was the singel factor for the end of the war and the defeat of fascism, without regarding the military aspects that eventually gave this opportunity, thats what youre not accepting.

I didn't present the Italian strikes like that at all. Here is what I wrote:


Yet in the two major wars of the last century, it did happen as well as in countless smaller ones. The First World War was effectively ended because the working class would no longer fight, and in the the Second World War 1943 saw massive strikes in Italy, which both the Nazis and the allies worked to put down. After the war the defeated powers were occupied because the victors were scared of revolution braking out.

I think I said clearly that strikes, mutinies, and insurrection ended the first World War. I don't think that is in any doubt.

They didn't end the Second World War. It ended in a military victory for Allied and Soviet imperialism. That too is very clear. My example of the Italian strikes was to show that workers did act in their own interests and struggle for them during the Second World War. It didn't come anywhere near stopping the war, but it does show that there was potential for struggle. The bourgeois, both allied and Soviet, certainly realised this hence the occupation.


When im talking about the people of Vietnam im talking about the working class and peasents. In my defence of Vietnam i was refering to the war there in the 60s-70s, since the majority of the people wanted to have theire socialist goverment and the reactionaries and imperialists didnt and a war breaked out of that i understand that the peopel had the right to defend themselves.

That is one way to explain it. I don't think that it offers us anything in the way of understanding though. The Vietnamese conflict was a part of the cold war, which was of course an inter imperialist conflict. Vietnam unlike many of the proxy wars fought during the period included one of the antagonists directly. The fact though that it involved the US and its allies against a Soviet proxy doesn't change the nature of the war. The Vietnamese 'people' were fighting on behalf of Soviet imperialism, just as US G:I.s were fighting on behalf of US imperialism.

I don't think that there was anything socialist about Vietnam apart from a bit of rhetoric which barely camouflaged what was a nationalist regime in the orbit of Soviet imperialism.


I know that you wont recognize any form of state, but the thing that you still make this statement on this event shows that youre more of an idealist who keeps to his princips even when they dont fit with reality.

I don't think that there is anything 'idealist' about refusing to support capitalist states.


Lastly the defeat of the fascists was a hughe progress for the international labour movement and it was done by the red army and the soviet people, is that so hard to accept?

Yes, I believe it was huge victory for Soviet imperialism, and the fact that the European working class was dragged into a war only twenty years after putting a stop to the first one represents a massive defeat for it regardless of any appeals to anti-fascism or democratic principles that they were mobilised under. The official Russian name for the war, 'The Great Patriotic War', puts it much more clearly.

Devrim

[Tavarisch_Mike]

It is always good to start off with a cheap meaningless insult.


Maybe you need to check what you write.



I didn't present the Italian strikes like that at all. Here is what I wrote:



I think I said clearly that strikes, mutinies, and insurrection ended the first World War. I don't think that is in any doubt.

They didn't end the Second World War. It ended in a military victory for Allied and Soviet imperialism. That too is very clear. My example of the Italian strikes was to show that workers did act in their own interests and struggle for them during the Second World War. It didn't come anywhere near stopping the war, but it does show that there was potential for struggle. The bourgeois, both allied and Soviet, certainly realised this hence the occupation.



I have clearly missunderstanded that and i will apology for that.




That is one way to explain it. I don't think that it offers us anything in the way of understanding though. The Vietnamese conflict was a part of the cold war, which was of course an inter imperialist conflict. Vietnam unlike many of the proxy wars fought during the period included one of the antagonists directly. The fact though that it involved the US and its allies against a Soviet proxy doesn't change the nature of the war. The Vietnamese 'people' were fighting on behalf of Soviet imperialism, just as US G:I.s were fighting on behalf of US imperialism.

I don't think that there was anything socialist about Vietnam apart from a bit of rhetoric which barely camouflaged what was a nationalist regime in the orbit of Soviet imperialism.



Here is one major thing that separates us, i recognize the soviet-bloc , in the cold war, as the 'better' one, since they had the peoples interests in theire minds. I know! you dont belive that, but at least try to get that we are many who does not see them as borgeous and that North Vietnam plus FNL Did fight for the people and that the Soviet Union suported them because of that, thats not imperialism, thats what they where fighting against.




Yes, I believe it was huge victory for Soviet imperialism, and the fact that the European working class was dragged into a war only twenty years after putting a stop to the first one represents a massive defeat for it regardless of any appeals to anti-fascism or democratic principles that they were mobilised under. The official Russian name for the war, 'The Great Patriotic War', puts it much more clearly.

Devrim

The whole thing about not see the difference in which side won in WWII is Really showing youre lack of a materialistic analysis. Fascism is the very reaction against the labour movement, if they had seized victory, they would have crushed the working classes organisations to the ground, enslaved them evenmore and not to forget that they would have exterminated a couple of more milliones. Yet you dont think that the outcome mattered, but it did and thanks to that the labour movement got a great upswing some decades after, but i guess you wont recognize them either.

[Devrim]

Here is one major thing that separates us, i recognize the soviet-bloc , in the cold war, as the 'better' one, since they had the peoples interests in theire minds. I know! you dont belive that, but at least try to get that we are many who does not see them as borgeous and that North Vietnam plus FNL Did fight for the people and that the Soviet Union suported them because of that, thats not imperialism, thats what they where fighting against.

Obviously the nature of the Soviet Union is crucial to this issue. May I ask a question? Do you think that the USSR was socialist, or a 'better' sort of capitalism.


The whole thing about not see the difference in which side won in WWII is Really showing youre lack of a materialistic analysis.

Fascism is the very reaction against the labour movement, if they had seized victory, they would have crushed the working classes organisations to the ground, enslaved them evenmore and not to forget that they would have exterminated a couple of more milliones.

I think that it is actually your analysis which is tending towards 'idealism'. It seems that you have a sort of 'Bad man theory of history' in which fascism was some sort of evil and had to be stopped at all costs. It doesn't see the war in its true nature, which is that of imperialist competition between different powers.

Approximately 60 million died in the war. It was a disaster for humanity. Another couple of million roughly corresponds to the number of civilians on the opposing side murdered by allied and Soviet imperialism.


Yet you dont think that the outcome mattered, but it did and thanks to that the labour movement got a great upswing some decades after, but i guess you wont recognize them either.

I would have a completly different perspective on that. The upswing of the labour movement which didn't happen till a couple of decades later is not 'thanks to the war', but the point until which it took the working class to recover from its defeats in the counter revolution and from being dragged into the war.

Devrim

[∞]

The DPRK is something worse than Capitalism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Obviously the nature of the Soviet Union is crucial to this issue. May I ask a question? Do you think that the USSR was socialist, or a 'better' sort of capitalism.

I don't think it necessarily has to be though. As Zanthorus noted earlier in this thread, Bilan was able to take the internationalist line in WWII despite ambiguities regarding the nature of Russian society.

Bilan's analysis of the degeneration of the Russian revolution was at the time not essentially different from that put forward by Trotsky. Whilst for the Trotskyists, in the event of inter-imperialist war in which Russia would inevitably by entangled, the watchword was "Defend the gains of October", Bilan on the other hand weighed up the need to defend these gains and the needs of the class struggle internationally and the toll of dragooning the working class into fighting in defence of Allied imperialism.

Nic.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Obviously the nature of the Soviet Union is crucial to this issue. May I ask a question? Do you think that the USSR was socialist, or a 'better' sort of capitalism.




Socialist.



I think that it is actually your analysis which is tending towards 'idealism'. It seems that you have a sort of 'Bad man theory of history' in which fascism was some sort of evil and had to be stopped at all costs. It doesn't see the war in its true nature, which is that of imperialist competition between different powers.



Im well aware of the economical/imperialist causes for starting ww1 and ww2. I know that they didnt start because of one mans assasination, or one mans "great speeches" and never have i claimed that, instead i find it remarkable that someone cant accept the fact that the victory against fascism mattered. You know fascism is an even more destructive form of capitalism thats just a fact.




I would have a completly different perspective on that. The upswing of the labour movement which didn't happen till a couple of decades later is not 'thanks to the war', but the point until which it took the working class to recover from its defeats in the counter revolution and from being dragged into the war.

Devrim

I never wrote that the war itselve resulted into this, but that if fascism hadnt been destroyed, that would have meant that the labour movement had to focus on that instead of class struggle and the upswing wouldnt be possible.

[learningaboutheleft123]

hell yeah i'd support em, long live the spirit of kim il sung ! dont agree with war though.

[∞]

hell yeah i'd support em, long live the spirit of kim il sung ! dont agree with war though.

Yes long live the Stalinist dictator who put Buddhists in concentration camps and created a system of rampant famine, inadequate health care and a state commanded completely by how the Dear Leader is feeling. Take their suffering in vain, take all the brainwashing and indoctrination in vain, swallow the shit with a smile on your face.

[Outinleftfield]

I'm opposed to any US-lead war against N. Korea for the same reason I'm against all imperialist wars, but at the same time I hope if one happens it ends quickly and realistically that would be with a US victory. If it lasts long and the DPRK "holds out" that would mean the deaths of many more N. Koreans, and if the DPRK won at the end not only would many lives be destroyed but at the end they'd still be living under just as bad a regime as before.

As bad as it would be for N. Korea to succumb to US imperialism there's an upside that Kim Jung-Il's tyranny, which is far worse than anything N. Koreans would experience under American imperialism would be over. People over there are rounded up into camps, sometimes whole families over the words of one person. People over there are left to starve.

There is nothing "communist" or "socialist" about N. Korea. In fact you could say it reverted to feudalism. It's the same as if Kim-Jung Il was the "king" and all his subjects are "tied to the land". The ruling party elite are the nobility and everyone else are serfs.

The whole ideology used to legitimate the regime even reflects "feudalism". Kim Jung-Il tells his people stories about his father having a supernatural birth. He makes people worship him. That reflects the "divine right" justification that was used under feudalism.

EDIT: So I voted "no" but neither would I support ROK/USA against the DPRK. I'll oppose the war if it comes but if it does I'm just going to support an end to it a.s.a.p. whether that's as a result of the USA or ROK pulling out because of pressure from protesters or with the DPRK being defeated.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think that much of the anti-working class nature of much of the left is here in this statement.

It completely misunderstands the nature of imperialism in this epoch, which is not merely the policy of states, but a world system, which no state is outside. Smaller states such as North Korea become the tools of the larger powers, and opposing 'US Imperialism' by supporting other national states in no way damages imperialism, but rather merely changes the balance of power between the differing imperialists.

I'm not sure why you cite Lenin so much, as if you are upholding his position. This argument and many that you use are the same ones hurled at Lenin against the right of self-determination and supporting oppressed peoples against imperialism... Lenin never placed all countries on the same level under the abstract heading "capitalist."

[ken6346]

I voted no, but a moment to explain: I would support any attempt to change the current economic and political state of being in the USA and many other western nations (such as Australia, where I'm located). I do NOT in any way, shape or form, support the policies of the DPRK (except for some rather minor philosophies, I think they're mostly completely and utterly fucked in their situation and the beliefs of the government). I do not support the DPRK in a war against the USA and the ROK, because of two reasons in particular: mutually assured destruction is almost positively certain; and I would take a capitalistic version of representative democracy over authoritarian state capitalism ANY DAY. The USA is, on the whole, a better place to live than the DPRK, at least as far as I know. I would prefer some fundamental rights, regardless of how they would hold up in a court of law, than none at all.

Forgive me if I'm being unwillfully ignorant of the situation in the DPRK, but that's how the liberal media puts it across, and I've seen little to no evidence to the contrary. REGARDLESS of the validity of their ideology(/ies), they are not a democratic nation, and I would, as I stated, prefer some fleeting inalienable rights than a nation where, by having a contrary opinion, I can (as far as I know) be put into prison.

NK isn't trying to turn the world red: it's trying to assert its far removed teachings of Juche the world over, and create a stateless (which is great, but read on), authoritarian state. I do not support the existence of the DPRK at all; its demise, however, would lead to further arguments and opposition to the Left as a whole, which would only mean harder work for the rest of us.

[Volcanicity]

^No I disagree the DPRK are'nt trying to coax anyone into following any line.They are just trying to follow their own line not pushing anyone into anything.Juche whether you agree with it or not was originally based on Marxist-Leninist teachings.Over throwing them is'nt going to do anyone any good at all other than the west especially the US which is why they are there,so I absolutely agree with your last line about it's demise.I just hope people don't fall for the western Liberal media's interpretation of what's going on.

[Aurora]

The DPRK is something worse than Capitalism.
....
Yes long live the Stalinist dictator who put Buddhists in concentration camps and created a system of rampant famine, inadequate health care and a state commanded completely by how the Dear Leader is feeling. Take their suffering in vain, take all the brainwashing and indoctrination in vain, swallow the shit with a smile on your face.
At least be principled about it, if the DPRK is something worse than capitalism why dont you call for its defeat by the progressive force of imperialism? see how far that gets you

I especially like the way you dont provide any analysis whatsoever and just spout emotional and idealist bullshit. Maybe you should visit Christian Solidarity Worldwide to get some more arguments ya?

[∞]

At least be principled about it, if the DPRK is something worse than capitalism why dont you call for its defeat by the progressive force of imperialism? see how far that gets you

It isn't completely necessary that I have to support either. However, it is quite evident from bumbling and fumbling planning and strong central power, that capitalism would be revolutionary in this society. Along true technological advances and can Korea ever hope for revolutionary status. Even under capitalism, one can observe the rugged yet flawed individualism that exists. The markets must be open to express their flaws so they can eventually progress back to actual socialism.
Not a monarchical control over press and the media without any workers control in the means production. None whatsoever, not even a fragment of the Korean economy reminds me of socialism.



I especially like the way you dont provide any analysis whatsoever and just spout emotional and idealist bullshit. Maybe you should visit Christian Solidarity Worldwide to get some more arguments ya?

Alright then, you can read up on it yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms4NIB6xroc

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5898

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article600929.ece

[Bright Banana Beard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22 The source reviews they are all from popular western newspaper, who never been in North Korea and they are known for sensationalism.


YOUTUBE VIDEOThe youtube video, those couples are now living in mansion and owning sportscar, so much for their validity. Look at their suits.


http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5898Amnesty International is a big joke, don't you realise that?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article600929.ece"He denied ever committing the act himself." If so, how the fuck does he knows? Why there isn't any other major newspaper/ communists reporting this? Why did North Korea assists anti-colonialism movement in Africa?

What a joke you are...

[Morgenstern]

I support the DPRK in a war only because it'd exhaust the USA. The government cannot handle three wars and its budget will explode. The sooner the heart of the beast (Capitalism) explodes the better.

[∞]

The source reviews they are all from popular western newspaper, who never been in North Korea and they are known for sensationalism.

Okay....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSrcLC6Zz54


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4


The youtube video, those couples are now living in mansion and owning sportscar, so much for their validity. Look at their suits.

Thats weird, I'll admit.


Amnesty International is a big joke, don't you realise that?

Anything that doesn't fit your description seems to be a joke. May I remind you of the work they did with Gaza and Chile.

Please don't BS credible sources...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4

[Bright Banana Beard]

Okay....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSrcLC6Zz54


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4
I prefer Vice Guide to North Korea and Russians's journal of North Korea where they were given to go anywhere of North Korea to report them, I am trying to find the link but I will post it next post.


Anything that doesn't fit your description seems to be a joke. I wish...



May I remind you of the work they did with Gaza and Chile. Yet, they label anti-colonialism movement in Africa, Middle East, Asia as guilty too. Revolution is not without errors and mistakes.


Please don't BS credible sources... Oh I will when they need to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4
Have you ever think why USA is in SK? Why is most of the world embargoing North Korea? You think they wanted North Korea to succeed to modernization? No, this will ensure that North Korea aren't a threat to them.

[∞]

Yet, they label anti-colonialism movement in Africa, Middle East, Asia as guilty too. Revolution is not without errors and mistakes.

1. Over-simplify what has been said about bloody juntas
2. Ramble about how "revolution has some mistakes"
3.????
4.PROFIT.



Have you ever think why USA is in SK? Why is most of the world embargoing North Korea? You think they wanted North Korea to succeed to modernization? No, this will ensure that North Korea aren't a threat to them.

I'm quite sure the US isn't willing to open trade-relations with a country they fought against in the 50s. You can't use this excuse to justify every crippling effect of the N. Korean economy. How can they afford to have the 4th largest army in the world, yet some of the worst health-care? Not everything in Korea is a by-product of the US.

[Bright Banana Beard]

1. Over-simplify what has been said about bloody juntas
2. Ramble about how "revolution has some mistakes"
3.????
4.PROFIT.
Oh lord, show us where the revolution is flawless and perfect!

SHOCKING NEWS: There won't be a revolution that doesn't include mistakes or tragedy.




I'm quite sure the US isn't willing to open trade-relations with a country they fought against in the 50s. You can't use this excuse to justify every crippling effect of the N. Korean economy. How can they afford to have the 4th largest army in the world, yet some of the worst health-care? Not everything in Korea is a by-product of the US. The DPRK have many embargos, even medicine supplies aren't to be sent. This make North Korea to depend on themselves, they have go through markets to get supplies, just like Cuba, except most of the market are forbidden thanks to the embargo. In reality, the isolation of the DPRK is the product of imperialism. When they have famine, what the world do? Demonize the government and not give them food.

[∞]

Oh lord, show us where the revolution is flawless and perfect!

SHOCKING NEWS: There won't be a revolution that doesn't include mistakes or tragedy.

The severity of the revolution is a very important issue. We must raise the question was it worth it? What did it accomplish?


The DPRK have many embargos, even medicine supplies aren't to be sent. This make North Korea to depend on themselves, they have go through markets to get supplies, just like Cuba, except most of the market are forbidden thanks to the embargo.

At least Cuba invested money in healthcare and education. Cuba is better off know than it was under the heel of imperialism. I may go as far to say it is a gem compared to Mexico.



In reality, the isolation of the DPRK is the product of imperialism. When they have famine, what the world do? Demonize the government and not give them food.

Then you'd think they wouldn't want to threaten the west and demonize the west. North Korea is not a hell-hole for one single reason.

[Rusty Shackleford]

ill support Australia in its intervention on behalf of the ROK. :lol:

(not srs)

[Crux]

I oppose war, it will not benefit anyone and will wreak havoc upon thousand upon thousands of civilians. I hold no illusions in the supposed "democratic" credentials of the ROK and the U.S nor in the so called "socialist" character of the DPRK. Military the DPRK can only fail in any attempt at expanding south and, not only for that reason but also because of the severely deformed character of the state, are incapable of creating a united socialist korea. Likewise even if a joint ROK/US and Australia(?) military intervention would succeed in toppling the regime in the DPRK, it would doubtfully even create any formal democracy creating a puppet regime and quickly split up and sell out what is left of the planned economy. That is why I oppose war and also why I voted no. Neither Pyongyang nor Seoul, but socialist revolution.

[Marq]

I must say, that I wholeheartedly agree with you..Good Post

[Aurora]

capitalism would be revolutionary in this society.
....
The markets must be open
Thank you, it's nice to see your true colours. The IWW are lucky to have you.


That is why I oppose war and also why I voted no. Neither Pyongyang nor Seoul, but socialist revolution.
Comrade i find your view rather contradictory, you believe the DPRK has a planned economy and that the (workers?)state is severely deformed yet would not defend these gains from imperialist intervention?
Would you have the same opinion of ww2, neither Berlin nor Moscow but socialist revolution? i dont mean to name drop but this certainly wouldnt be Trotsky's view and seems closer to the Left-Com's or IST.

[robbo203]

Comrade i find your view rather contradictory, you believe the DPRK has a planned economy and that the (workers?)state is severely deformed yet would not defend these gains from imperialist intervention?
Would you have the same opinion of ww2, neither Berlin nor Moscow but socialist revolution? i dont mean to name drop but this certainly wouldnt be Trotsky's view and seems closer to the Left-Com's or IST.


Here we go again. More unremitting dross about the DPRK. As if it were anything other than a form of capitalist society, the defining feature of which is generalised wage labour.

Terms get thoughtlessly thrown around like confetti.

Like the term "revolution"? What is a "revolution"? A revolution is a fundamental structural change in the socio-economic basis of society, in the mode of production. Violence, armed struggle or whatever doth not a revolution maketh. These are only certain means by which a revolution might be made and, I would argue, not very effective means either.

There are some people on this list who dont seem to have much of a grasp of what revolution is about. This goes hand in hand with not having much of a clue about what socialism is either and invariably such folk confuse state-adminstered capitalism based on generalised wage labour with what they call "socialism".

Now this expression "planned economy". Sheesh, I wince everytime I hear it! It just plain thoughtless kneejerkism. Every economy involves "planning". Even the most laissez Faire free -market capitalism you can conceive of involves tons of plans. Enterprises are constantly engaging in planning. The so called planned economy is nothing than the idea of coordinating all these millions of separate plans so that they are affectivelly absorbed into a single giant plan. Stop trying to make such a big mystique of it!

Its a daft idea of course and totally impractical and no society, including the Soviet Union, got anywhere near achieving it. At best we can talk of relative degrees of planning or coordinating the separate plans that exist in any economy. The important point is that this does not at all change the nature of the economy in question. Even the most totally state run economy is still a capitalist economy. As Engels pointed out - the more the state takes over the means of production the more does it become the national capitalist and the more workers does it exploit

Economies are not defined by whether or how much they are "planned" . They are defined by fundamental structural features such as the existence of generalised wage labour which denote a particular set of socio-economic relationships. The DPRK exhibits precisely the same range of fundamental structural attributes as does the USA or Ghana or Germany. It is a capitalist country in precisely the same way as every other country in the world is capitalist - the capitalist relations of production predominate

Finally, as for all this talk about how you need to chose between one capitalist state and another in any war between them - NO, YOU DONT!!! Its quite pathetic hearing this argument trotted out again and again: "North Korea is not perfect but we have a duty to support it against aggressive American imperialism". Bollocks! The only principled and the only socialist response to such garbage is to say to hell with both these capitalist states. The American and north Korean workers have no interest whastoever in fighting for one side or the other. If their respective ruling classes want a war let em do the bloody fighting - the bastards! Stuff it . Why should workers spill their blood for their capitalist overlords?

This so called "lesser-of-the-two-evils" argument can be heard again and again in all sorts of different contexts. Workers are urged to vote Labour to keep out the Tories or Democrats to keep out the Republicans. It is one of the reasons why the Left has been reduced to the utter shambles it is in today. Unprincipled, opportunist to the core and discredited, its only function - seemingly - is to hang onto the coat tails of one or other capitalist state intent upon deluding itself (and a sizeable chunk of the Left it would seem) into thinking that it is anything other than a capitalist state.

This is no better demonstrated than here in a poll showing that a good proportion of Leftists would actually go out of their way to lend support to a loathsome little capitalist regime like the DPRK in a war against the equally despicable US. It makes you want to weep sometimes

[Aurora]

That wasn't aimed at you robbo but since your here do you mind answering the questions i asked a few pages ago:

Can i ask what your view is of the Paris Commune? do you think it was capitalist?
What about the USSR? why didnt it have economic crises? why the revolution if it remained capitalist? why did it return to capitalism in 91?

[robbo203]

That wasn't aimed at you robbo but since your here do you mind answering the questions i asked a few pages ago:

1) The Paris Commune did not, and could not, eliminate the prevailing capitalist relations of production but was if you like an attempt, amongst other things, to apply a system of radical egalitarianism in terms of wage remuneration within an essentially capitalist framework. Much as one might applaud the motives behind it, realistically it was doomed to failure. Lenin interestingly enough, referred to the Paris Commune in an address delivered in April 1918 (published as "The Soviets at Work") in which he explained away the the Bolsheviks' abandonment of the policy of uravnilovka or income levelling: "We were forced now to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed a very high remuneration for the services of the bourgeois specialists. All those who are acquainted with the facts understand this, but not all give sufficient thought to the significance of such a measure on the part of the proletarian state. It is clear that such a measure is a compromise, that it is a departure from the principles of the Paris Commune and of any proletarian rule. The Paris Commune, had it survived, would have succumbed to precisely the same pressure

2) On the Soviet Union and economic crises it was a myth to suppose that Soviet state capitalism was somehow immune to crises even if only as a consequence of its steadily expanding ties with western capitalism. Thus in 1976 for example Breshnev conceded that "Because of the broad economic links between capitalist and socialist countries, the ill effects of the current crisis in the west have also hasd an impact on the socialist world" (Frank A G Crisis: In the World Economy 1980 p.180). That said there are admittedly certain importance differences in the form that capitalism took in the Soviet Union compared to capitalism in the west As Buick and Crump note:
Strictly speaking, then, the characteristic of capitalism whiuch we have formulated as "regulation of production by the market" is not found in the state capitalist countries, due to the control exercised by the state. Yet the great paradox of state capitalism is that the state blocks the spontaneous regulation of production by market only to be forced to introduce a similar process itself (State Capitalism: The Wages System under New Management 1986 p.90). Ultimately the state capitalist countries are as much subject to the laws of the market and the need to pursue profit but these pressures made themselves felt in a more indirect roundabout fashion

3) The Soviet Union did not "return" to capitalism in 1991. It was capitalist right from the very beginning being based on a system of generalised wage labour. Even Lenin acknowleged this in stating that state capitalism would be a step forward. Lenin however twisted the meaning of the word "socialism" conflating it with state capitalism from whence originates the myth that the Soviet Union was not capitalist but "socialist". Ironically, the collapse of the old state capitalist system in 1991 and the subsequent move to corporate capitalism was primarily the result of a "revolution from above" carried out by the successors to Lenin's so called vanguard party. Some of the nomenklatura in the pseudo "communist" party of the USSR went on to become fabulously wealthy in their own right, figuring prominently amongst the select band of Russia's modern-day oligarchs

[Rafiq]

I oppose war, it will not benefit anyone and will wreak havoc upon thousand upon thousands of civilians. I hold no illusions in the supposed "democratic" credentials of the ROK and the U.S nor in the so called "socialist" character of the DPRK. Military the DPRK can only fail in any attempt at expanding south and, not only for that reason but also because of the severely deformed character of the state, are incapable of creating a united socialist korea. Likewise even if a joint ROK/US and Australia(?) military intervention would succeed in toppling the regime in the DPRK, it would doubtfully even create any formal democracy creating a puppet regime and quickly split up and sell out what is left of the planned economy. That is why I oppose war and also why I voted no. Neither Pyongyang nor Seoul, but socialist revolution.



I agree with you, but if War happens, we need a Socialist movement to overthrow both Seoul and Pyongyang. However, that may not happen, so I think I would hope the DPRK succeed, only because it blocks Imperialist interests, imagine a whole puppet Korea peninsula? I'd rather have a fake Socialist Dictatorship than a Puppet Regime for the Interests of an Imperialist power.

We cannot support a whole Puppet Korea.

We need to support any force fighting against that, and afterwards, we will talk about ways to organize the workers of both Nations for Revolution. But we cannot let all of Korea become puppet state.

[Crux]

Defence of deformed worker's states is not a carte blanche. I am heavily in favour of defeatism in any countries that would intervene on the side of the ROK in such a conflict. However, I do not believe military aggression from the DPRK have any hope of being successful. The DPRK cannot expand their system south through military might.

[Rafiq]

I don't want the DPRK or Seol to completely take over the Korean peninsula. Because, if the DPRK does, that will mean no workers uprisings, maybe Liberal Democratic uprisings.

If South Korea takes over the Koreas, no chance of Communist uprisings.

[robbo203]

I agree with you, but if War happens, we need a Socialist movement to overthrow both Seoul and Pyongyang. However, that may not happen, so I think I would hope the DPRK succeed, only because it blocks Imperialist interests, imagine a whole puppet Korea peninsula? I'd rather have a fake Socialist Dictatorship than a Puppet Regime for the Interests of an Imperialist power.

We cannot support a whole Puppet Korea.

We need to support any force fighting against that, and afterwards, we will talk about ways to organize the workers of both Nations for Revolution. But we cannot let all of Korea become puppet state.


You see, this is precisely the kind of warped logic that leads to the Left having become the utter shambles that it is today, bereft of principles and direction. It has turned the Left into a mere weathercock vulnerable to the slightest gust of capitalist wind.

You concede that North Korea is a "fake socialist dictatorship" (can there be a genuine one, I ask myself, wincing at your words) but you still think that this is somehow better than a "Puppet Regime for the Interests of an Imperialist power". This is the lesser-of-two-evils argument I talked about in my earlier post. It is an absolutely disastrous line of argument for a socialist to adopt. Under the pretence of being pragmatically realist (as opposed to idealistically uncompromising), it is surest possible way of ensuring that the capitalist status quo remains intact. Why? Because capitalism is always going to throw up conflicts of this nature and while we continue to be seduced into supporting one side or another, we will never ever get round to getting rid of capitalism itself.

In point of fact the uncompromising position of simply saying NO to taking sides in capitalist war is the only realistic one. It far more realistic to tell workers of America and North Korea the way it really is - that neither have any interests whatsoeover in supporting their respective ruling classes' belligerence. You are far more likely to stop or curtail a war by adopting such a stance than by supporting one capitalist state (North Korea) against another (America or South Korea). The effect of supporting one capitalist state against another is to divide and weaken the international working class and thus to entrench capitalism.

As for preferring a fake socialist dictatorship (sic) over a "Puppet Regime for the Interests of an Imperialist power". well i ve got news for you. North Korea has long been a puppet regime of an imperialist power. Its called China. China is investing heavily in North Korea and its certainly not doing so out of the goodnes of its own heart. It is doing so because it has an interest in doing so.

[Rafiq]

You see, this is precisely the kind of warped logic that leads to the Left having become the utter shambles that it is today, bereft of principles and direction. It has turned the Left into a mere weathercock vulnerable to the slightest gust of capitalist wind.

You are misunderstanding my point.



You concede that North Korea is a "fake socialist dictatorship" (can there be a genuine one, I ask myself, wincing at your words) but you still think that this is somehow better than a "Puppet Regime for the Interests of an Imperialist power". This is the lesser-of-two-evils argument I talked about in my earlier post. It is an absolutely disastrous line of argument for a socialist to adopt. Under the pretence of being pragmatically realist (as opposed to idealistically uncompromising), it is surest possible way of ensuring that the capitalist status quo remains intact. Why? Because capitalism is always going to throw up conflicts of this nature and while we continue to be seduced into supporting one side or another, we will never ever get round to getting rid of capitalism itself.

North Korea is "Fake Socialist" meaning it is either pretending/thought to be Socialist, and it is a Dictatorship, that is clarifying my first point.

I never said that we should Ideologically support North Korea. Strategically, it is to our advantage, to hope that South Korea does not gain control of a Unified Korea.

We should hope for the defeat of both Nations, but we must conclude that a workers Revolution is less possible under a Unified Korea under North or South Regime.

If South Korea gets a hold of a "Unified Korea", the Idea of Socialism itself will completely whither away. It will become, like what many Eastern European Nations are today. Liberal Democracy's without a single trace of Socialism.

The Koreas do not have any Socialism, but we must hope for a workers Revolution overthrowing both Nations. Korea today is somewhat what Germany used to be, two nations of the same national orgin, one calling itself Socialist, the other supported by the Liberal Democracy advocates. Both were not Socialist, but honestly, would you prefer Germany today rather than East Germany yesterday?






In point of fact the uncompromising position of simply saying NO to taking sides in capitalist war is the only realistic one. It far more realistic to tell workers of America and North Korea the way it really is - that neither have any interests whatsoeover in supporting their respective ruling classes' belligerence. You are far more likely to stop or curtail a war by adopting such a stance than by supporting one capitalist state (North Korea) against another (America or South Korea). The effect of supporting one capitalist state against another is to divide and weaken the international working class and thus to entrench capitalism.

I have in fact, in formed many of my peers that North Korea isn't Communist at all, and doesn't even have a trace of Socialism. It would be to our advantage to have Korea still split, for this leaves a better chance of a workers revolution.

We are not "taking sides" we are simply embracing the reality that it is to our advantage that the ROK and US fail in pushing the De militarized zone all the way to the North Eastern Chinese border.

We must hope for the defeat of South Korea. That doesn't mean a Kim Jong IL dominated Korea.




As for preferring a fake socialist dictatorship (sic) over a "Puppet Regime for the Interests of an Imperialist power". well i ve got news for you. North Korea has long been a puppet regime of an imperialist power. Its called China. China is investing heavily in North Korea and its certainly not doing so out of the goodnes of its own heart. It is doing so because it has an interest in doing so.

China doesn't seem to be doing much.

Surly you aren't comparing to what China is to NKorea to what the US is to the south.

How many times did China threaten war against South Korea for conflicts with the North, post-1950's?

How many times did China "send in the tanks" when things like this occurred.

The US has an extremely large amount of troops on the border, China doesn't.

China will use North Korea if it needs to, not because of some rubbish like "Socialist Comradeship".

[empiredestoryer]

the north wont need outside help... the united terrorist states of america cant even beat people living in mud huts in afganistan

[Sosa]

the north wont need outside help... the united terrorist states of america cant even beat people living in mud huts in afganistan

Fighting a conventional war is different than fighting against guerrilla warfare. Thats why US has a hard time in Afghanistan. In conventional warfare they would completely annihilate N. Korea.

[robbo203]

I never said that we should Ideologically support North Korea. Strategically, it is to our advantage, to hope that South Korea does not gain control of a Unified Korea.

We should hope for the defeat of both Nations, but we must conclude that a workers Revolution is less possible under a Unified Korea under North or South Regime. .

Frankly I find it difficult to relate to anything you say here. You make it sound like socialist revolution is some kind of military strategem of nation building: "it is to our advantage to hope that South Korea does not gain control of a united Korea" Who is "us" here and what the hell happened to the Marxian tenet that "the workers have no country".

I couldnt care a stuff which ruling class ruled over me. I want to get them all off our backs completely and for good. A workers revolution is possible anywhere if and only if the workers want it and are not sucked into supporting one capitalist state against the other



If South Korea gets a hold of a "Unified Korea", the Idea of Socialism itself will completely whither away. It will become, like what many Eastern European Nations are today. Liberal Democracy's without a single trace of Socialism.


Absolute rubbish. Besides as you point out yourself "North Korea isn't Communist at all, and doesn't even have a trace of Socialism" . So what difference would it make anyway to socialism if north Korea disappeared. None whatsoever by your own reasoning.




The Koreas do not have any Socialism, but we must hope for a workers Revolution overthrowing both Nations. Korea today is somewhat what Germany used to be, two nations of the same national orgin, one calling itself Socialist, the other supported by the Liberal Democracy advocates. Both were not Socialist, but honestly, would you prefer Germany today rather than East Germany yesterday?

I prefer neither. I refuse even to make the choice because it is dumb and pointless. It only reinforces the fallacious idea that the only options on the table are one form of capitalism versus another. As long as you get drawn into this kind of mindset of comparing one with the other then all you will end up with is - capitalism. You are , whether by design or by default, closing off any other option. I suggest you raise your sights a little higher




I have in fact, in formed many of my peers that North Korea isn't Communist at all, and doesn't even have a trace of Socialism. It would be to our advantage to have Korea still split, for this leaves a better chance of a workers revolution.

We are not "taking sides" we are simply embracing the reality that it is to our advantage that the ROK and US fail in pushing the De militarized zone all the way to the North Eastern Chinese border.

We must hope for the defeat of South Korea. That doesn't mean a Kim Jong IL dominated Korea.

Again, complete rubbish. You are taking sides if you are hoping for the defeat of South Korea just as much as if you were to hope for the defeat of North Korea. There is no advantage or disdvantage to workers anywhere whether North Korea is defeated or South Korea is defeated. A workers revolution is not something that is limited or confined with the parameters of a nation state. The working class is a global class. When we are ready for a revolutiuon in one part of the world we will be more or less ready for a revolution elsewhere. The revolution is not to replace one bunch of rulers with another or one form of capitalism with another. It is nothing less than complete overthrow of capitalism and the rule of capital itself





China doesn't seem to be doing much.

Ho ho ho. I suggest you read up on the facts. China is investing the equivalent of 70% of North Korea'sa enture GDP in North Korea. "Not much", eh? According to Ethan Epstein "China provides as much as 90 percent of North Korea's energy, 80 percent of its consumer goods, and 45 percent of its food. Much of this is in the form of direct handouts" http://www.slate.com/id/2269090/



Surly you aren't comparing to what China is to NKorea to what the US is to the south.

How many times did China threaten war against South Korea for conflicts with the North, post-1950's?

How many times did China "send in the tanks" when things like this occurred.

The US has an extremely large amount of troops on the border, China doesn't.


Since when does imperialism equate with military intervention. It might involve military intervention but it does not have to. To be frank, China has bigger fish to fry than to send its tanks rolling into North Korea. North Korea is simply a bargaining chip in its dealings with the US. If a war happened, North Korea would be swiftly brought to its knees by South Korea even without American assistance. China does not want this because ,amongst other things, it would bring US troop up to China's border. It has every reason to de-escalate military tensions in the region and to hope that the American presence in South Korea will disppear which it wont do if China sends in the tanks to the North. This is to say nothing of the flood of refugees entering China should the North be invaded. Indeed that is another reason for China to prop up the ailing North Korean economy . An imploding economy would turn North Korea into a nation of aspring economic refugees which is something that China would certainly not welcome

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If the DPRK would go to war with South Korea and the US, would you support it in a War?

Please note, that supporting it in a War doesn't mean you have to support their Regime, it simply means you would support the people of North Korea against Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists.

Yes or No,

If you have another opinion, state it.

Thanks.

I never got this whole 'support' thing. Say what you want but if you live in the us good luck with supporting DPRK. Is there a recruiting station somewhere?

Let's face it, if the DPRK is going to get involved in a war it's probably going to be their fault. Even China is caving, letting the Washington roll up into the China Sea with no protest. All the DPRK did by shelling South korean marines and civilians (aside from killing some innocents) without warning was help US imperilism reach somewhere it hadn't been able to prior. Go figure.

[Dr Mindbender]

I never got this whole 'support' thing. Say what you want but if you live in the us good luck with supporting DPRK. Is there a recruiting station somewhere?

Let's face it, if the DPRK is going to get involved in a war it's probably going to be their fault. Even China is caving, letting the Washington roll up into the China Sea with no protest. All the DPRK did by shelling South korean marines and civilians (aside from killing some innocents) without warning was help US imperilism reach somewhere it hadn't been able to prior. Go figure.

Maybe the DPRK had a legitimate greivance about the ROK military activities near its borders? I genuinely dont think North Korea wants a war as its got few allies that are willing to assist. Even China washed their hands as you say. Im not saying the DPRK did the right thing but maybe the ROK shouldnt be so arrogant and later cry foul when they get bitten.

[red1848]

I think this is a "lose" "lose" situation if N.Korea and the S.Korea go to all out war (which is highly unlikley without U.N. intervention) clearly the U.S.A and China will intervene and it will become another "proxy" war. If S.K. managens to get the upper hand it will try to install a capitailist system modeled after the U.S. which we could all agree upon would be dreadful. If North Korea manges to get the upper hand the "cult of personality" around the Kim Jung-Il will be elevated to new levels never seen before and will further hinder the advancement of socialism

[red1848]

Sorry my last post had pretty bad spelling i ment **managed** my computer is acting funny

[∞]

Thank you, it's nice to see your true colours. The IWW are lucky to have you.


Oh quit your condescending bullshit. Unlike you have I have made logical arguments based on empirical evidence.

[KC]

Since when does imperialism equate with military intervention.

As you said, it doesn't necessarily. Some people might need to go back to Lenin before they spout crap that they think he wrote when in fact he did not.

[Sosa]

Anarion is 100%, although I'd add that I respect the poorly named "Blackened Marxist" for more or less acknowledging that s/he supports imperialism over the DPRK as progressive, thus consistently explaining his/her "No" vote. Other posters in this thread use every method of rhetorical sophistry and stupid utopian idealism to justify why not supporting the DPRK in a military conflict vis-a-vis the US is the correct position for leftists to take.

A question for those who vote No: Looking back to 2002 Ba'athist Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein--with the complete ability of hindsight--would you support Iraq against a US/UK/NATO/etc. invasion?

My single observation is that voting No is an affirmation of the status quo. Congratulations, "leftists": you advanced imperialism! It wouldn't be the first time that faux-leftists granted preference to the imperialists over oppressed nations, be they socialist or communist.

Thank you for presenting a false dichotomy. I guess some of us aren't "leftist" enough for you because we don't support one regime over another. As if voting "no" means you automatically support the other side.

[∞]

Yeah, I didn't say I voted for the ROK.

[robbo203]

My single observation is that voting No is an affirmation of the status quo. Congratulations, "leftists": you advanced imperialism! It wouldn't be the first time that faux-leftists granted preference to the imperialists over oppressed nations, be they socialist or communist.

Absolute rubbish. And for one simple reason. You can still vote NO and oppose both sides - that is, refuse to support either side in what is a capitalist war. NO in other words does not necessarily entail supporting the US and South Korea at all. It might but it does not have to. Your logic leaves a lot to be desired.

Voting YES on the other hand unequivocally means supporting one capitalist state against another. It means succumbing to the nationalistic claptrap by means of which our rulers have long been able to divide, and rule over, the workers. It is the clearest possible affirmation of the status quo. It entrenches capitalism and asserts in no uncertain terms that the needs of capitalist states like North Korea should take priority over the need for global working class unity

[Devrim]

I'm not sure why you cite Lenin so much, as if you are upholding his position. This argument and many that you use are the same ones hurled at Lenin against the right of self-determination and supporting oppressed peoples against imperialism... Lenin never placed all countries on the same level under the abstract heading "capitalist."

I don't think I cite Lenin so often. I cite him here to point out that those who idealise him are acting against what he argued for.

They are Lenin's arguments of 1914. The arguments of the Zimmerwald left. I think at this point Lenin was right, though his later arguments on the national question were deeply wrong.

Howerver, even Lenin in his error didn't go as far as his followers today. For Lenin supporting national liberation movements was never a principle, but a tactic, albeit a mistaken one, to be used in certain circumstances.

Devrim

[Devrim]

A question for those who vote No: Looking back to 2002 Ba'athist Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein--with the complete ability of hindsight--would you support Iraq against a US/UK/NATO/etc. invasion?

No, nor do I see the relevance of your question.

Devrim

[Tzonteyotl]

I never got this whole 'support' thing.

My thoughts exactly. I think robbo203 put it nicely in his posts. The workers will revolt where the workers want and decide to, regardless of whether its a unified Korea under the South's control or the North's. I'm also glad that robbo203 pointed out the use of language like "our advantage" or "we will," etc. What we? Aside from these debates about supporting one side or another (or none), what exactly is this supposed to mean? It's up to the North's and South's workers to decide what they will do and what's to their advantage in regards to a possible workers' movement.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I voted no, but i would not support either side.

A beaureucratic collectivist, communist-by-name only, miltarist dictatorship vs first world capitalist powers.

Sorry, but anyone who would support either side is a bit dilusional.

[HEAD ICE]

I voted yes because as a communist I want to see workers butchered in an imperialist war. The thread title mentions the ROK's friend the imperialist USA but neglects the DPRK's ally the glorious Workers State of China which would no doubt come to the aid to their comrades.

It is the duty of the proletariat to ignore their class interests and fight to defend the imperialist state. It is also the duty of the international proletariat to give CRITICAL SUPPORT to the imperialist armies that pacify their own and other nation's proletariat if they are diplomatically opposed to the United States, also known as the Big Bad, the Great Satan etc. Rejection of a basic class position to support one side of an imperialist rivalry is Marxism in it's essence.

[Lyev]

There is no reason to support either, surely. We should take Lenin's line of revolutionary defeatism if such a war occurred. The soldiers will be proletarians in uniforms with rifles on both sides. It seems that the DPRK is a country that often puts such a massive emphasis on defence spending, whilst suffering from periodic famine, at the expense of the vast majority of Korean people. It creates this kind of siege mentality - all the evil capitalists are waiting for us to show weakness, or looking for an excuse, then they'll strike and shut us down as soon as they can, that kinda thing. I think, generally and simply, soldiers on both sides would be cannon-fodder for their oppressors.

And by the way, a lot of speculation around the conditions and such in North Korea are completely groundless because it is such a closed country - most of the info we get is from anti-DPRK sources, defectors and the like, which is not always a balanced or unbiased view. Now, I am not of course saying we should avoid all talk on the nature of worker's democracy, the DOTP etc. in Korea, but we should at least be careful.

[Rafiq]

No, nor do I see the relevance of your question.

Devrim

Well look at Iraq today.

Iraq was far better off under the Totalitarian Regime of Saddam Hussein then it is now.

At least under saddam, the people themselves would overthrow him eventually.

If Iraq would have succeeded, there would be no "US war in Iraq".

[Rafiq]

We must face the reality of what would be the outcome of the war, too.

We shouldn't support either side, however, it is important to understand the consequence of a Korean war, and it's outcome.

For example, look what happened in Iraq, a totalitarian regime was replaced with an Imperialist playground.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well look at Iraq today.

Iraq was far better off under the Totalitarian Regime of Saddam Hussein then it is now.

At least under saddam, the people themselves would overthrow him eventually.

If Iraq would have succeeded, there would be no "US war in Iraq".

The pre-emptive war in Iraq isn't really comparable to the current situation, in my opinion. The DPRK shelled ROK. I don't recall Iraq shelling anyone in years prior to the invasion, though I could be wrong.


Can we agree that out of a list of assorted outcomes, a rational person will choose the best of those outcomes? Based on how the poll question is phrased, voting "No" means that in the event of a US/RoK invasion of the DPRK, you believe that a US/RoK victory could not be worse than--and could possibly be preferable to--an independent North Korea as exists in the status quo.

Put it another way: In your view, the DPRK fending off a US/RoK invasion is not "good" in any way; in fact, it's at least equally repugnant to the US/RoK conquering the country, and possibly better.

Looking back to 2002, if you voted that you would "not support Iraq in the case of a US/UK invasion," it doesn't mean that you consciously think to yourself, "I support an invasion!" However, it does mean that you believe that Iraq repelling a US invasion is not in any way preferable to the US/UK successfully toppling/subjugating/exploiting Iraq.


Or that you didn't believe that Iraq succesfully repelling the invasion was at all possible. There were hundreds of thousands of american troops, thousands of helicopters, tanks, humvees, boats, artillery, all of it waiting to invade. The outcome of the Iraq war was known before it began.

The question as to whether the occupation would be succesful for the us and uk was the tricky one, but we must agree that in the long run it might have been, despite the death and destruction.

That being said, I don't think a war with North Korea would be anything like Iraq. I'm not sure about exact number but there is only the 8th army there and they may be in real danger against the north. The navy will have an immediate response though, but who knows maybe a sub can get lucky. Really it would take at most 3 torpedoes to sink a carrier, if they could pull it off.

Anyways on wikileaks theres a message from a chinese diplomat saying the recent provocation is so the son can step in and make things OK. But that maybe what China hopes, not having to deal with all the refugees.

[Sosa]

That being said, I don't think a war with North Korea would be anything like Iraq. I'm not sure about exact number but there is only the 8th army there and they may be in real danger against the north. The navy will have an immediate response though, but who knows maybe a sub can get lucky. Really it would take at most 3 torpedoes to sink a carrier, if they could pull it off.

Yea, DPRK actually has the 5th largest army.

[StalinFanboy]

I'm gonna be so pissed if the DPRK nukes anyone. I am not trying to get drafted or like... experience a nuclear war.

This whole situation is idiotic.

[Devrim]

Well look at Iraq today.

Iraq was far better off under the Totalitarian Regime of Saddam Hussein then it is now.

Well yes, it is very clear that life in Iraq since the beginning of the invasion has been appalling.

Yet you still come to the conclusion that:


We shouldn't support either side,


Looking back to 2002, if you voted that you would "not support Iraq in the case of a US/UK invasion," it doesn't mean that you consciously think to yourself, "I support an invasion!" However, it does mean that you believe that Iraq repelling a US invasion is not in any way preferable to the US/UK successfully toppling/subjugating/exploiting Iraq.

No it doesn't.

Devrim

[Jalapeno Enema]

I'd just hope everybody had a nice time and got home safely.

No, I wouldn't support either side. It would be idiotic for either side to get into a war, and full-scale wars tend to kill many people. While some are undoubtedly dicks, probably there are a few who are the okay sort.

[Bilan]

Hmm. Which anti-working class state to support?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I know! I am sure there will supercommunististic workers in those countries that will overthrow it master! Wait... Never mind, this outcome is totally possible! You all dogma!

Preferable outcome!? YOU ANTI-WORKING CLASS PIGS!

[Homo Songun]

I voted yes because as a communist I want to see workers butchered in an imperialist war. The thread title mentions the ROK's friend the imperialist USA but neglects the DPRK's ally the glorious Workers State of China which would no doubt come to the aid to their comrades.

It is the duty of the proletariat to ignore their class interests and fight to defend the imperialist state. It is also the duty of the international proletariat to give CRITICAL SUPPORT to the imperialist armies that pacify their own and other nation's proletariat if they are diplomatically opposed to the United States, also known as the Big Bad, the Great Satan etc. Rejection of a basic class position to support one side of an imperialist rivalry is Marxism in it's essence.

This is funny because you think you are spoofing the spoof of the Left "Communist" view but actually you are just restating the position in clearer terms. Its like a delicious Double Down of irony.

[StalinFanboy]

I know! I am sure there will supercommunististic workers in those countries that will overthrow it master! Wait... Never mind, this outcome is totally possible! You all dogma!

Preferable outcome!? YOU ANTI-WORKING CLASS PIGS!
uh, what?

[Rafiq]

Well yes, it is very clear that life in Iraq since the beginning of the invasion has been appalling.

Yet you still come to the conclusion that:





No it doesn't.

Devrim

I said we shouldn't support either side, but hope that the DPRK is not defeated.

[Rafiq]

The pre-emptive war in Iraq isn't really comparable to the current situation, in my opinion. The DPRK shelled ROK. I don't recall Iraq shelling anyone in years prior to the invasion, though I could be wrong.


.

Kuwait was one of the excuses

[Noinu]

I said we shouldn't support either side, but hope that the DPRK is not defeated.

Uh, isn't that in a sense supporting them?

[Noinu]

LOL! Devrim's only response is "No, it doesn't." If you're a rational person, you preference a preferable option over one that's less preferable. Thus, if you're unwilling to support the DPRK in the event of a US/RoK invasion, you admit that the DPRK replling such an invasion could not be preferable to--and might very well be worse than--the US/RoK successfully conquering and subjugating the country. That's horrifying, but I'm optimistic that rather than foolishly embracing the logical outcome of your misguided opinions, you resorted to intellectual dishonesty.

Noinu is 100%.

If that is a good thing, then thank you very much, and you just made my night :)

[Rafiq]

Uh, isn't that in a sense supporting them?

No. We should hope they do not get defeated.

That doesn't mean we support the North.

[Noinu]

No. We should hope they do not get defeated.

That doesn't mean we support the North.

Well, actually it would mean you support their existence. Which would logically say, you support them.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Well, actually it would mean you support their existence. Which would logically say, you support them.

Ooh snap!

[Sosa]

Well, actually it would mean you support their existence. Which would logically say, you support them.

This is not an "either/or" scenario. In the case of an invasion one can be agnostic about both sides. I don't support the DPRK state nor do I wish it to be invaded by ROK/USA.

[Rafiq]

Well, actually it would mean you support their existence. Which would logically say, you support them.

I am analyzing the situation.

We have to face reality.

Their are two options in this situation, one being a Korea unified under the south, the other being the DPRK.

So I am favoring their existence rather than what the US has planned for them, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a workers society.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Kuwait was one of the excuses

Well yes, in the first conflict between the us and iraq. Though they dug it up to justify the 2003 invasion, along with gassing the kurds and whatnot, I mainly remember it being about saddam acquiring wmd and distributing to all the bad guys.

[KC]

We have to face reality.

Their are two options in this situation, one being a Korea unified under the south, the other being the DPRK.Yes, those are the only two options. Forget about socialism and socialist revolution, we must support either the DPRK or the "imperialists". The reality is that socialism is unrealistic and so we should instead support one of these two anti-worker states. In the name of socialism.

Fucking idiot.

[Noinu]

This is not an "either/or" scenario. In the case of an invasion one can be agnostic about both sides. I don't support the DPRK state nor do I wish it to be invaded by ROK/USA.

I never even went in to that. I agree with you, I have no reason not to agree. I only said that saying you want the DPRK to stay there, and yet say you don't support them in any way (_any way_), it's a bit of a contradiction in my opinion.

[Noinu]

I am analyzing the situation.

We have to face reality.

Their are two options in this situation, one being a Korea unified under the south, the other being the DPRK.

So I am favoring their existence rather than what the US has planned for them, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a workers society.

Actually, as many have stated, those aren't the only two options.
And really, I have no interest in getting into a debate on this, I think others here are doing a lovely job of that already.

I only said that when you say the DPRK should stay there, the way it is and not be occupied by ROK, you are basically supporting them.

[∞]

I am against imperialist wars, therefore I support no one.

Don't try to pull of that Bush "You're either with us, or against us." BS.

[Rafiq]

Yes, those are the only two options. Forget about socialism and socialist revolution, we must support either the DPRK or the "imperialists". The reality is that socialism is unrealistic and so we should instead support one of these two anti-worker states. In the name of socialism.

Fucking idiot.

Please KC, keep in mind that I don't mean to offend you, and don't want you to have any hostility toward me.

The reality of Socialism is not Unrealistic.

And, I don't think we should support any anti worker states.

However, we should hope that the United States fails.

That doesn't mean we should hope the DPRK succeeds, because they are an Anti-Worker state, however, they are a much less powerful one, and a United Korea under the strings of the United states would be far worse than Korea itself is today.

And, plus, we don't want another 'Iraq war'.

If the United States succeeds, that's first off:

1. Puting many US soldiers around the North, fighting off Gorillas, which will be against the interests of the US working class and the North Korean working class.

2. Lead the US into another war, that will include many deaths.

We shouldn't hope for war, but if the event of war happens, we should hope that both the United states, and the DPRK do not meet their goals..

[Rafiq]

Actually, as many have stated, those aren't the only two options.
And really, I have no interest in getting into a debate on this, I think others here are doing a lovely job of that already.

I only said that when you say the DPRK should stay there, the way it is and not be occupied by ROK, you are basically supporting them.

So, you're saying that just because I don't want the ROK to occupy them, that means I support the Regime of North Korea?

Did you support Saddam's regime because you were against an Occupation lead by the US?

The outcome of this, will be a disaster, if the United States accomplishes it's goal.

[Rafiq]

I am against imperialist wars, therefore I support no one.

Don't try to pull of that Bush "You're either with us, or against us." BS.

I'm not trying to push that upon us.

I am against the US and am not with the DPRK.

However, no matter what Regime is in the North, I am first and foremost against an occupation by the ROK/USA.

In the event of war, there is always an outcome.

No matter how many times you want to avoid it.

You must look at this from the perspective of the interests of the working class.

Not some Idealogical 'Holy War'.

[Sosa]

I never even went in to that. I agree with you, I have no reason not to agree. I only said that saying you want the DPRK to stay there, and yet say you don't support them in any way (_any way_), it's a bit of a contradiction in my opinion.

I never said I want the DPRK to "stay there" as you said, I've only said I don't want it invaded by another Imperialist state. I want it to be dismantled by the people of N. Korea not ROK.

[robbo203]

I'm not trying to push that upon us.

I am against the US and am not with the DPRK.

However, no matter what Regime is in the North, I am first and foremost against an occupation by the ROK/USA.

In the event of war, there is always an outcome.

No matter how many times you want to avoid it.

You must look at this from the perspective of the interests of the working class.
.


Ok, so try looking at it, for once, from the "perspective of the interests of the working class". From this perspective, there are no working class interests involved in supporting either the disgusting little capitalist dictatorship that is the DPRK or in supporting the obscene objectives of US imperialism.

I couldnt care a stuff who might win in a hypothetical war between these capitalist states. The working class as usual will be the main losers having spilt their blood in a cause that is not, in any sense, their own.

[Noinu]

I never said I want the DPRK to "stay there" as you said, I've only said I don't want it invaded by another Imperialist state. I want it to be dismantled by the people of N. Korea not ROK.

I know :O seriously, I didn't say that against you, I only explained my post against Chapayev. Seriously, I agree with YOU.
Alright now? : D

[Noinu]

So, you're saying that just because I don't want the ROK to occupy them, that means I support the Regime of North Korea?

Did you support Saddam's regime because you were against an Occupation lead by the US?

The outcome of this, will be a disaster, if the United States accomplishes it's goal.

Again; it is not a two-option issue. Not with North Korea and not with Saddam. Seriously, can you not see this?
The post by Sosa that I just answered to, basically explains my views as well. Read it.

[∞]

I'm not trying to push that upon us.

I am against the US and am not with the DPRK.

However, no matter what Regime is in the North, I am first and foremost against an occupation by the ROK/USA.

In the event of war, there is always an outcome.

No matter how many times you want to avoid it.

You must look at this from the perspective of the interests of the working class.

Not some Idealogical 'Holy War'.


I am against both.

[Sosa]

I know :O seriously, I didn't say that against you, I only explained my post against Chapayev. Seriously, I agree with YOU.
Alright now? : D

Ok. I'm just making sure I'm making my position clear. Somehow I felt like I wasnt articulating it properly

[Struggle]

Whether one supports the DPRK or not on the matter of this subject, is irrelevant. The DPRK surely has many issues, but it is helping to advance the cause of Socialism by resisting US imperialism.

[Noinu]

Ok. I'm just making sure I'm making my position clear. Somehow I felt like I wasnt articulating it properly

Well, I think it was a well articulated post. :) but that's quite alright, it's good to make sure.

[Rafiq]

I am against both.

Of course if it happens we are against Both.

But remember what Lenin said, the people on all sides must hope for a defeat of their own government.

That includes Americans, which I am.

[refuse_resist]

The more appropriate question is whether or not you support the cause of the working class against global imperialism. The Korean Workers' Party and DPRK are fully committed to the worldwide socialist and anti-imperialist movements. I strongly advise all of you who are hostile towards Juche, the DPRK and Songun to start doing some serious research on it instead of just saying what the capitalits want you to believe.

The DPRK was recently mentioned in a report that it was the least friendly place for foeign investments and private enterprise. Why is that? Because they mainstain a strong, centralized economy that is based on meeting the needs of the people and not corporate greed. This is why they are seen as such a major threat in the capitalists world. There aren't too many countries that have held out as long as they have and have still showed global solidarity with revolutionary movements all over the world.

The DPRK has a right to self-defense. Isn't it funny how in the corporate media we always hear about how bad the DPRK is, yet we never hear about what goes on in the ROK? I wonder why that is! The fascist puppet regime of the ROK's days are numbered. I call the ROK fascist because that's exactly what they are--fascists. Try starting or joining a union there and see what happens. The history of the ROK is a history of collaboration with imperialist forces and subservience to finance capital. To make a long story short, it's a spearhead for the Pentagon into East Asia. One of the main goals of U.S. imperialism for the 21st century is for the encirclement of China.


Anyone who is serious about fighting for and defending the working class should support the DPRK. This is one issue where there is no "well, I don't agree with them, so I won't support them. I don't want a war to happen though." Well guess what?! There already is a war and that war is class war!

Long live Socialist Korea!

[robbo203]

The more appropriate question is whether or not you support the cause of the working class against global imperialism. The Korean Workers' Party and DPRK are fully committed to the worldwide socialist and anti-imperialist movements. I strongly advise all of you who are hostile towards Juche, the DPRK and Songun to start doing some serious research on it instead of just saying what the capitalits want you to believe.

The DPRK was recently mentioned in a report that it was the least friendly place for foeign investments and private enterprise. Why is that? Because they mainstain a strong, centralized economy that is based on meeting the needs of the people and not corporate greed. This is why they are seen as such a major threat in the capitalists world. There aren't too many countries that have held out as long as they have and have still showed global solidarity with revolutionary movements all over the world.

The DPRK has a right to self-defense. Isn't it funny how in the corporate media we always hear about how bad the DPRK is, yet we never hear about what goes on in the ROK? I wonder why that is! The fascist puppet regime of the ROK's days are numbered. I call the ROK fascist because that's exactly what they are--fascists. Try starting or joining a union there and see what happens. The history of the ROK is a history of collaboration with imperialist forces and subservience to finance capital. To make a long story short, it's a spearhead for the Pentagon into East Asia. One of the main goals of U.S. imperialism for the 21st century is for the encirclement of China.


Anyone who is serious about fighting for and defending the working class should support the DPRK. This is one issue where there is no "well, I don't agree with them, so I won't support them. I don't want a war to happen though." Well guess what?! There already is a war and that war is class war!

Long live Socialist Korea!


Groan. I suggest you get back to baiscs. A "centralised economy" as you call it has sod all to do with socialism. Anyone with a smattering of Marxist economics will know that capitalism is a system of generalised wage labour and that this characteristic is evident in North Korea as much as it is in the US or Belgium or Chile. North Korea is a capitalist state and what investment it attracts come primarily from its imperialist overlord, China. The fact that North Korea does not attract much investment from elsewhere does not make it any the less a capitalist state. Capital investment tends to folllow patterns of high returns within a reasonably stable investment climate. The North Korean ruling class, though it might desparately hold down the wages of its workforce to an utter pittance, cannot at the present time ensure a particularly stable investment climate. Wich is why capitalists elsewhere are not particularly interested. The Chinese capitalists are different becuase they have a vested interest in ensuring the North Korean economy does not collapse, causing a flood of refugees to come across the border into China. Same reason why they dont war which North Korea will almost certainly lose, probably with a matter of weeks, even if South Korea had no aid from the Americans at all. But since there is aid a unified Korea will mean US bases near the border with China and China doesnt like that.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

While I completely agree with refuse_resist's point and analysis of Democratic Korea, I think it's hilarious that "No" voters can only repeat some variation of the phrase "You can choose to not support either side," and when confronted with the logical poverty of their claim, they repeat the same phrase. Most of these people have done this for six or seven pages now.

Yeah, its because some people wont accept the materialistic reallity when it over runs theire princips. They will just continue with keeping to theire princips even if theyre out of proof.

[Leo]

Yes, those are the only two options. Forget about socialism and socialist revolution, we must support either the DPRK or the "imperialists". The reality is that socialism is unrealistic and so we should instead support one of these two anti-worker states. In the name of socialism.

Fucking idiot.

KC, I personally completely agree with your political point, but please don't flame - it really wasn't necessary.

[robbo203]

While I completely agree with refuse_resist's point and analysis of Democratic Korea, I think it's hilarious that "No" voters can only repeat some variation of the phrase "You can choose to not support either side," and when confronted with the logical poverty of their claim, they repeat the same phrase. Most of these people have done this for six or seven pages now.

On the contrary the logical poverty is all too evident in the assertion that if you say "no" to supporting the state capitalist regime of North Korea that means you are necessarily supporting American imperialism. As far as I can determine virtually everyone who has voted "no" has done so on the basis that they do not support American imperialism. They do not want the US to start a war with North korea (or vice versa) but will not support North Korea (or the US) if it came to a war. Intiendo?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think it's hilarious that "No" voters can only repeat some variation of the phrase "You can choose to not support either side," and when confronted with the logical poverty of their claim, they repeat the same phrase. Most of these people have done this for six or seven pages now.

What logical poverty? We do choose a side.

Neither Pyongyang nor Seoul - Social revolution!

Nic.

[redz]

If the DPRK would go to war with South Korea and the US, would you support it in a War?

Please note, that supporting it in a War doesn't mean you have to support their Regime, it simply means you would support the people of North Korea against Mass Murdering Rapists and Imperialists. .


Yes, the DPRK is a workingclass state, albeit severely bureaucratically deformed, and it must be defended militarily against imperialism and its Seoul lackeys. This means supporting DPRK's development of nuclear weapons and a nuclear defensive shield. It also means opposing any concessions by the regime to appease imperialism by voluntarily stopping its nuclear program.

Redz

[redz]

So, you're saying that just because I don't want the ROK to occupy them, that means I support the Regime of North Korea?

Did you support Saddam's regime because you were against an Occupation lead by the US?

The outcome of this, will be a disaster, if the United States accomplishes it's goal.


Good points. Defeat of the DPRK by US imperialism (or ANY imperialism for that matter) would indeed by a disaster for the world working class.

It's completely consistent to support the DPRK militarily AND promote a political revolution by the DPRK working class to overthrow this fairly rotten bureaucracy and take direct workingclass control.

Redz

[Crux]

While I completely agree with refuse_resist's point and analysis of Democratic Korea, I think it's hilarious that "No" voters can only repeat some variation of the phrase "You can choose to not support either side," and when confronted with the logical poverty of their claim, they repeat the same phrase. Most of these people have done this for six or seven pages now.
Then I suppose anyone here who opposed the Iraq war would be great fans of Saddam Hussein's regime and Baathism, anyone on here that oppose U.S military intervention against Iran must also support the mullah's and anyone holding any sympathy for the Palestinian cause surely also must be strong supporters of Hamas.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I see so many different comments by those who picked "no", because, in their claims, they support the country against the US, but not the govt. Well, what the fuck do they think the country is called? The DPRK!!! The govt. is run by the WPK!!! Does the poll ask whether or not you'll support the WPK against imperialism? NO! So stop hiding your anti-DPRK views when we all know that's the truth.

[Crux]

I see so many different comments by those who picked "no", because, in their claims, they support the country against the US, but not the govt. Well, what the fuck do they think the country is called? The DPRK!!! The govt. is run by the WPK!!! Does the poll ask whether or not you'll support the WPK against imperialism? NO! So stop hiding your anti-DPRK views when we all know that's the truth.
You're ridiculous. Stop hiding your tin-foil hat views when we all know that's the truth! Yeah, see what I did there? I guess you're short on arguments.
I voted "no" and I think I stated quite clearly what my view on any military intervention from ROK, aided with the US or any other allies, and that in that event this should be forcefully opposed, and why. I believe the regime in the DPRK should fall, but not through the hands of ROK. What's so difficult to grasp? It's called anti-imperialism, it means you oppose imperialist military wars, among other things.

[redz]

I see so many different comments by those who picked "no", because, in their claims, they support the country against the US, but not the govt. Well, what the fuck do they think the country is called? The DPRK!!! The govt. is run by the WPK!!! Does the poll ask whether or not you'll support the WPK against imperialism? NO! So stop hiding your anti-DPRK views when we all know that's the truth.


So much of the self-styled "progressive" left and "socialist" left needs to grow a spine and also receive an intravenous feed of caffeine.

Redz

[The Vegan Marxist]

You're ridiculous. Stop hiding your tin-foil hat views when we all know that's the truth! Yeah, see what I did there? I guess you're short on arguments.
I voted "no" and I think I stated quite clearly what my view on any military intervention from ROK, aided with the US or any other allies, and that in that event this should be forcefully opposed, and why. I believe the regime in the DPRK should fall, but not through the hands of ROK. What's so difficult to grasp? It's called anti-imperialism, it means you oppose imperialist military wars, among other things.

You clearly aren't an anti-imperialist if you clicked "no".

[Rafiq]

Both are anti-worker states.

It is to the working class's advantage if the United States fails.

1. Less deaths

2. Less working class giving their lifes for the cause of the bourgoeisie, on both sides.

North Korea is much less powerful than the US, if the United States succeeds, this will be disastrous.

If they fail, it will be less disastrous.

Social Revolution isn't going to appear if you start to support the victory of the United States.

The US, at this point, is more likely to succeed, and it is our duty to just hope it doesn't.

People would say "Well, I oppose a North Korean victory too! Both are anti-working class". This is ridiculous. What chance does North Korea have against the most powerful army in the world?

This isn't a, "United States vs. Russia" situation.

Although we oppose any anti-worker regime, it is in the interests of the working class that the United States does not accomplish it's goal in Korea.

Here comes the "YOU STALINIST NORTH KOREAN REGIME KIM JONG IL SUPPORTER! I BET YOU THINK THAT NORTH KOREA IS SOCIALIST AND A WORKERS STATE!!!"

[Rafiq]

Many people don't realize what "Support" means

[Crux]

You clearly aren't an anti-imperialist if you clicked "no".
The desktop revolutionary has spoken.

Let me remind you that I, and the organization I am in, has quite a stable history of anti-war activism. Yet if you would try and convince me of the virtues of the former Iraqi regime, my answers would be the same. And if it indeed comes to a renewed war in the Korean peninsula, my answer will be the same.

[∞]

Yes, the DPRK is a workingclass state, albeit severely bureaucratically deformed, and it must be defended militarily against imperialism and its Seoul lackeys. This means supporting DPRK's development of nuclear weapons and a nuclear defensive shield. It also means opposing any concessions by the regime to appease imperialism by voluntarily stopping its nuclear program.

Redz

Enough with these have-arsed, poorly construed titles. The Juche state is a tyranny, and because of its bureaucratic government, it will not become a socialist workers state. Hell, most capitalist countries have better working conditions, at least in even the most poverty-stricken slum in India I could still whore around and get enough for a bag of chips. But not in North Korea, if the government fucked up, I fucked up.

Do you not notice the immense capita that goes into their military, and the lavish Ultra-Bourgeois palaces the Kims live(ed) in? You know Il is Barcadi's best costumer....

At least South Korea may have the potential for a socialist transitional phase.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Both are anti-worker states.

It is to the working class's advantage if the United States fails.

1. Less deaths

2. Less working class giving their lifes for the cause of the bourgoeisie, on both sides.

North Korea is much less powerful than the US, if the United States succeeds, this will be disastrous.

If they fail, it will be less disastrous.

This really isn't anything new. It's called the politics of the possible.

Can I ask, what do you think was the difference between the social chauvanists and the Zimmerwald Left during WWI?

Nic.

[robbo203]

Good points. Defeat of the DPRK by US imperialism (or ANY imperialism for that matter) would indeed by a disaster for the world working class.

It's completely consistent to support the DPRK militarily AND promote a political revolution by the DPRK working class to overthrow this fairly rotten bureaucracy and take direct workingclass control.

Redz


No its not. Supporting the DPRK militarily means means submitting to the "fairly rotten bureaucracy" that would be waging the military struggle against US imperialism. If you are going to wage an effective military struggle you have to be united and at one with your "fairly rotten bureaucracy" - otherwise the struggle will be weakened fatally and US imperialism will do evrything in its power to separate the north korean workers from the regime they take orders from.

The overthrow of the DPRK regime - which will be inevitable should a war happen - will not be a disaster for the world working class. It will be a disaster for the North Korean ruling class but not the workers. For the workers the disaster would have already have happened - namely the fact that American and North Korean workers had been so gullible as to support their respective capitalist masters in what is yet another capitalist war which the workers everywhere have no interest whatsoever in fighting

[Rafiq]

This really isn't anything new. It's called the politics of the possible.

Can I ask, what do you think was the difference between the social chauvanists and the Zimmerwald Left during WWI?

Nic.

Like I said before, this isn't a situation like, "Britian vs Germany" or "France against Austria Hungary" or even, something more modern, it's not like "America vs. Russia"

This isn't a battle between superpowers. This is a battle between two anti worker regimes, one, in military desperation, with little chance of winning, the other, the most powerful military in the world.

North Korea, is a third world nation. Not a rival in the weapons and arms industry.

So, like I said, it is in the favor of the working class if the United States fails.

[NKVD]

kXv2NTgQfpA

[Rafiq]

NKVD, that's a pretty good song, but I think that video is just playing off of emotion.

Like I said, we have to face reality, and can't base our standing on this issue on patriotic videos targeting emotional thoughts.

[NKVD]

NKVD, that's a pretty good song, but I think that video is just playing off of emotion.

Like I said, we have to face reality, and can't base our standing on this issue on patriotic videos targeting emotional thoughts.

My view of the reality was developed before I saw the video. Then I saw the video and noticed that it doesn't contradict my view of reality, and is also a fun video to watch and listen to. :lol:

[Rafiq]

I wasn't doubting that the video did not affect your view on the situation, I just think it wasn't all that productive

[9]

Originally Posted by Chapayev http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1944834#post1944834)
Both are anti-worker states.

It is to the working class's advantage if the United States fails.

1. Less deaths

2. Less working class giving their lifes for the cause of the bourgoeisie, on both sides.

North Korea is much less powerful than the US, if the United States succeeds, this will be disastrous.

If they fail, it will be less disastrous.This really isn't anything new. It's called the politics of the possible.

Can I ask, what do you think was the difference between the social chauvanists and the Zimmerwald Left during WWI?


The social chauvinists supported their own ruling class in an imperialist war. 'Chapayev', from what I can gather, is an American. He is stating that it would be disastrous for the working class if the United States were to succeed in a hypothetical military effort against North Korea. If you don't mind my asking, what part of that do you disagree with?
I mean, it's all fine and good to call him a "fucking idiot", but perhaps people could actually deal with the points he's raising rather than just dismissing it as "the politics of the possible" or by calling him a "fucking idiot" or by shouting slogans and drawing comparisons to a century-old situation that bears little resemblance to the hypothetical being discussed in this thread.

[gorillafuck]

I'm gonna be so pissed if the DPRK nukes anyone. I am not trying to get drafted or like... experience a nuclear war.
The DPRK's military isn't run by idiots.

[KC]

Most of the people who refuse to support the DPRK in the event of a US/RoK invasion realize the breakdown in their logic when confronted with the indisputable fact that, consciously or not, they articulate a belief that North Korea repelling a Western imperialist attack would be just as bad, if not worse, than the US/RoK succeeding in subjugating the country. These people do not consciously think, "I'd really like to see the DPRK lose to the US!" but by voting NO on this poll, they are accepting that the DPRK repelling imperialist aggression could never be positive. I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with these folks, because their own logical dissonance prevents them from realizing that their position is consistent with and tacitly furthers the aims of imperialism.

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. It's the same argument that has championed the tailing of numerous working class movements behind their killers and eventually led to their massacre. It is absolutely ludicrous that one who calls themselves a Marxist and is apparently read in Marx's writings could be so blatantly ignorant of not only the national but the internal dynamics playing out.

[robbo203]

Most of the people who refuse to support the DPRK in the event of a US/RoK invasion realize the breakdown in their logic when confronted with the indisputable fact that, consciously or not, they articulate a belief that North Korea repelling a Western imperialist attack would be just as bad, if not worse, than the US/RoK succeeding in subjugating the country. These people do not consciously think, "I'd really like to see the DPRK lose to the US!" but by voting NO on this poll, they are accepting that the DPRK repelling imperialist aggression could never be positive. I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with these folks, because their own logical dissonance prevents them from realizing that their position is consistent with and tacitly furthers the aims of imperialism..


Here we go again. You've got quite thing about the "logical dissonance" of peoiple who vote "no" on this poll - havent't you? - even when it is pointed out to you time and time again that your position is utterly illogical. How can voting "no" be consistent with and tactly further the aims US imperialism when one is explicitly saying one is opposing the aims of US impeiralism in inviding North Korea, huh? Your problem is you cant see yet that in opposing these aims one does not have to side with the disgusting state capitalist regime of North Korea. Once you've figured that one out then youve cracked it!

[IronEastBloc]

this is a leftist site why is the no choice so damn high

[Martin Blank]

kXv2NTgQfpA

That's some pretty extreme Kimmie Porn you posted there.

ON EDIT: And you're OK with nuclear weapons being used against Washington? Fuck no! For every bourgeois politician you think you might annihilate, you'll take 1,000 workers with them. Besides, that's our Party's National Center.

[Martin Blank]

Most of the people who refuse to support the DPRK in the event of a US/RoK invasion realize the breakdown in their logic when confronted with the indisputable fact that, consciously or not, they articulate a belief that North Korea repelling a Western imperialist attack would be just as bad, if not worse, than the US/RoK succeeding in subjugating the country. These people do not consciously think, "I'd really like to see the DPRK lose to the US!" but by voting NO on this poll, they are accepting that the DPRK repelling imperialist aggression could never be positive. I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with these folks, because their own logical dissonance prevents them from realizing that their position is consistent with and tacitly furthers the aims of imperialism.

While the information you provided about N. Korea is interesting (and worth knowing), it has no bearing on this question at all. It's moralism wrapped in a red flag -- a poor substitute for serious analysis. It may have more empirical substance than something like NKVD's Kimmie Porn, but it's still based on a moralistic, subjective "good/bad" dichotomy.

Now then, I don't think any serious communist here is saying they want the U.S./UN/SK forces to be victorious in a war against NK. On the contrary, those of us who are internationalists want the Great Power alliance against the North to be defeated. But we also see no victory for the working class in the military success of Pyongyang, and we do not see such a success as actually defeating imperialism. It might set it back on its heels for a short time -- and proletarian organizations would certainly use such an opportunity to advance its organizing work -- but it would not defeat it.

Defeating imperialism is done through transforming capitalist war into class war -- through organizing in the working class for a class-struggle resistance to war and the ruling classes' ability to make war. Ultimately, it means the overthrow of capitalist rule; but even the partial success of class-struggle resistance can hand imperialism its defeat (e.g., workers refusing to make or ship war materials). Relying on the military success or failure of N. Korea is effectively erasing the class line and becoming a nationalist. Historically, non-proletarian states (i.e., states where the working class is not in political and economic control), be they capitalist, state-capitalist or a non-proletarian form of "socialism", will react more harshly against the working class that sees victory as an opening to demand more freedoms, more control or even just better living standards. Military victory for Pyongyang might give a little temporary breathing space to workers in the U.S. (or not, depending on who Washington blames for their loss), but Korean workers (especially in the South) will be Pyongyang's first post-war target -- especially if they raise class-based demands.

If war breaks out, I will fight for the defeat of "my own" ruling classes, but I will do so as an internationalist and communist based on a class-struggle platform, not a "socialist" nationalist erasing the class line.

[KC]

ON EDIT: And you're OK with nuclear weapons being used against Washington? Fuck no! For every bourgeois politician you think you might annihilate, you'll take 1,000 workers with them. Besides, that's our Party's National Center.

It's pretty clear from that video that this nutjob thinks the enemy is "the US" which includes American civilians and workers. He should probably be banned but he won't be.



Here we go again. You've got quite thing about the "logical dissonance" of peoiple who vote "no" on this poll - havent't you? - even when it is pointed out to you time and time again that your position is utterly illogical. How can voting "no" be consistent with and tactly further the aims US imperialism when one is explicitly saying one is opposing the aims of US impeiralism in inviding North Korea, huh? Your problem is you cant see yet that in opposing these aims one does not have to side with the disgusting state capitalist regime of North Korea. Once you've figured that one out then youve cracked it!

Silly. Capitalism cannot exist in a state where the entire means of production are held by the state. Wage labour and exploitation are not exclusive to capitalism.

"Formally, prices and wages still exist, but their function is no longer the same; they no longer determine the process of production which is now controlled by a central power that fixes prices and wages. Prices and wages become means of distribution which determine the share that the individual receives out of the sum total of products that the central power places at the disposal of society. They now constitute a technical form of distribution which is simpler than direct individual allotment of products which no longer can be classed as merchandise. Prices have become symbols of distribution and no longer comprise a regulating factor in the economy. While maintaining the form, a complete transformation of function has occurred."
-Hilferding (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1940/statecapitalism.htm)

[robbo203]

Silly. Capitalism cannot exist in a state where the entire means of production are held by the state.

Of course it can. Its called state capitalism or capitalism run by the state. As Engels says:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. (Socialism Utopian and Scientific)




Wage labour and exploitation are not exclusive to capitalism..

That is quite true but the point is - and this is what is peculiar to capitalism - that wage labour is generalised under capitalism. Whereever you have generalised wage labour you have capitalism - whether it be under the western privatised or mixed capitalist form or under the state capitalist form of the ex Soviet Union

Wage labour presupposes capital and capital presupposes as wage labour as Marx pointed out in his pamphlet Wage Labour and Capital



"Formally, prices and wages still exist, but their function is no longer the same; they no longer determine the process of production which is now controlled by a central power that fixes prices and wages. Prices and wages become means of distribution which determine the share that the individual receives out of the sum total of products that the central power places at the disposal of society. They now constitute a technical form of distribution which is simpler than direct individual allotment of products which no longer can be classed as merchandise. Prices have become symbols of distribution and no longer comprise a regulating factor in the economy. While maintaining the form, a complete transformation of function has occurred."
-Hilferding (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1940/statecapitalism.htm)


Actually quite the opposite is the case with a so called centrally planned economy. The function of the central power is/was supposedly to "determine the process of production " as Hilferding naively claimed, but actually this was only the form in which it appeared to do so. In reality what happened in the Soviet Union, for example, was not that the planning process guided the economy but, on the contrary, the developments in the real world forced the planners to constantly modify their plans to make it appear that their targets had been met. In fact no plan in the Soviet Union was ever strictly fulfilled and many plans were never even made available to state enterprises until well into the implementation period. Of course prices and wages can be fixed centrally by the state. This is not unque to the Soviet Union - western capitalist states have done this as well. But like water finding it own level, fixing prices has knock on consequences for the wider economy so that at the end of the day the imperatives of the market will assert themselves . As the Soviet Union found out at some cost, a regulated market economy, even a highly regulated market economy, is still a market economy.