North Korea naivety.....

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76HqPaA6kw&feature=related

Video of an organization called Friends of Kim, run by a clearly emotionally unstable individual named Alejandro Benos, a Spanish military man of "aristocratic" heritage.

It shows the level of bureaucratic and autocratic control the nation is under.

While I understand that the nation has been subject to brutal warfare in the 50s, economic blockade and political isolation, that all still does not explain away the paranoid War State that Kim Jong Il has let the country descend to.

The video shows the positives of North Korea that helped it escape the grinding poverty that affects most Asian nations, but it also shows the economic stagnation and crippling chronic problems since the fall of the USSR as well as the follies behind an autarkic economic system.

Of course the documentary is being used to defame the entire country as nothing short of a totalitarian hell hole, but in terms of the material and social conditions the nation has had to face, it kind of is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

Your thoughts....

[Robespierre Richard]

What do you propose they do, short of capitulation?

[RadioRaheem84]

What do you propose they do, short of capitulation?

I don't know. And do not chalk this thread up as an anti-NK one.

This is more about showing the harsh realities the DPRK has to deal with.

It's a fundamentally paranoid state, that is, yes, repressive.

Cuba is under worse conditions and yet to descend to this level of bureaucratic social control, even while it's only a few miles away from the biggest imperial nation.

I just think that the conditions that plagued NK for so long have left the nation to buckle under internal corruption.

[mosfeld]

Imagine if this documentary had "funky town" playing all the time instead of that depressing music and instead of using a cold and blue photo filter they'd use a warming an orange one -- imagine how much more fun this documentary would be.

The kid with the hula rings at the start is seriously awesome.

EDIT: I mean, for gods sake, the KFA leader starts talking about how great the DPRK -- no drugs, no prostitution, etc -- and suddenly Marilyn Manson starts starts playing in the background.

[Queercommie Girl]

What do you propose they do, short of capitulation?

Defend the DPRK but down with Kim and the bureaucrats!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What do you propose they do, short of capitulation?

This is a very zero-sum way of approaching it. Either North Korea must be the most militarized country on earth, or the US and their bourgeois allies would be in Pyonyang the next day!

Cuba manages to resist the US and the designs of the Cuban American community while maintaining a far higher standard of living and more social and bureaucratic flexibility, though their system still has flaws. Venezuela too has maintained its independence.

I think the military history of the past 50 years has shown the flaw in their mode of thinking. Saddam Hussein quickly lost power despite having thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of infantry. It was the guerrillas and insurgents that ultimately caused the most damage to the invaders.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is a very zero-sum way of approaching it. Either North Korea must be the most militarized country on earth, or the US and their bourgeois allies would be in Pyonyang the next day!

Cuba manages to resist the US and the designs of the Cuban American community while maintaining a far higher standard of living and more social and bureaucratic flexibility, though their system still has flaws. Venezuela too has maintained its independence.

I think the military history of the past 50 years has shown the flaw in their mode of thinking. Saddam Hussein quickly lost power despite having thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of infantry. It was the guerrillas and insurgents that ultimately caused the most damage to the invaders.

Yes, militarism has been excessively over-rated by many leftists today.

It doesn't matter how many tanks and warplanes you've got, if you haven't got a genuine socialist program, then you are basically fucked for good.

[Chimurenga.]

Of course the documentary is being used to defame the entire country as nothing short of a totalitarian hell hole, but in terms of the material and social conditions the nation has had to face, it kind of is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

But isn't that essentially what you're trying to defame the entire country as?

I know many outright reactionaries who would agree with you.

[RadioRaheem84]

The over zealous bureaucratic state is the result of the leadership.

They can use the United States as an excuse all they want but the reality of the matter is that if the US wanted to it could roll over the tiny nation.

The imperialist onslaught at any moment is real. A fundamental reality that the NK leaders exploit for personal gain.

I don't believe that the leaders are these totally corrupt individuals that only live for the aroma of power, but their social position in the country is one where they do not want to give up power.

I really just think they have a messed up vanguard way of thinking.

The political isolation, the economic blockade and constant threat of war, leaves them in a position to not want to relinquish power because they believe that no one else is capable of defending the nation like they have for so long.

This isn't meant to rule out corruption (it's most assuredly there) but this also isn't meant to chalk up NKs problems to "absolute power" corrupts canard.

[RadioRaheem84]

But isn't that essentially what you're trying to defame the entire country as?

I know many outright reactionaries who would agree with you.

Of course, but they would have a totally different presupposition than I would about that comparison.

They would chalk it up to human nature, absolute power corrupts.....you know the whole spheel.

I would attribute it to social and material conditions that brought the NK state to mirror Orwell's 1984. Where as in the book the threat was non-existent. The threat to NK is very real.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^You may have a valid point. Clearly the DPRK is facing a great deal of corruption charges. But I hope that you stick to criticizing what's needing to be criticized and defend the DPRK (and yes, even the Kims) against Western propaganda.

As Marxist-Leninists, it's not in our position to say whether or not the leader of said country should go or stay. That's up to the country's people to decide. Our position, as non-NKoreans, is to oppose imperialism by any and all means, while recognizing the people's right to self-determination. If the Kim regime is as corrupted as it's being laid out to be, then the people of the DPRK will rise up against the Kims. These are inevitable actions we've seen erupt throughout history. Whether or not said rebellions will succeed is a different question in itself.

Either way, it's the independence of the DPRK that should of great importance to us. For the NKoreans, it's up to them to decide the DPRK's fate, whether it be with the Kim family or other leaders.

[RadioRaheem84]

The DPRK is not nearly as corrupt as even the state of Louisiana as far as I am concerned.

The issue isn't so much corruption as it is what the conditions of global capitalism have done to an aspiring socialist nation like NK.

I am just trying to show the bad side of autarky and bureaucratic control that plagued the ML states of the 20th century.

Without the USSR (and even during the time of the USSR), most of these nations have succumbed to internal corruption, decay, and paranoia.

It doesn't take a historian to figure this out considering that has been the fate of most of the ML states or even non-ML developmentalist States like Libya (with varying degrees).

If you go against the international global capitalist order you will have to deal with economic, political and social consequences. NK is just a victim of that.

That still doesn't excuse the leadership.

[Robespierre Richard]

The DPRK is not nearly as corrupt as even the state of Louisiana as far as I am concerned.

The issue isn't so much corruption as it is what the conditions of global capitalism have done to an aspiring socialist nation like NK.

I am just trying to show the bad side of autarky and bureaucratic control that plagued the ML states of the 20th century.

Without the USSR (and even during the time of the USSR), most of these nations have succumbed to internal corruption, decay, and paranoia.

It doesn't take a historian to figure this out considering that has been the fate of most of the ML states or even non-ML developmentalist States like Libya (with varying degrees).

If you go against the international global capitalist order you will have to deal with economic, political and social consequences. NK is just a victim of that.

That still doesn't excuse the leadership.

As far as I'm concerned, and as the DPRK clearly states in official documents, they are guided not by Marxism-Leninism but by the ideas of Juche and Songun which while having some common theoretical origins are not considered a part of ML theory by any considerable measure. As such I support their anti-imperialism but cannot make any comment on their state ideology's consistency with my own views as I am not a follower of it, and beyond that can only hope that the Korean people do what is best for them.

[☭The Revolution☭]

Oppressive leftism is the same as Oppressive rightism - it is all oppression. I feel sorry for the people who live under Kim Jong. Hopefully, once he dies, things will get better in that nation.

[Thirsty Crow]

But isn't that essentially what you're trying to defame the entire country as?

I know many outright reactionaries who would agree with you.

It's defamation or glorification, right? We wouldn't want anything to do with a class analysis and a sober assessment of living conditions of those in whose name we speak, within the broader historical analysis of the world capitalist system from which no nation can escape.


Oppressive leftism is the same as Oppressive rightism - it is all oppression. I feel sorry for the people who live under Kim Jong. Hopefully, once he dies, things will get better in that nation.
Yet the social basis, that is, the class basis which informs the possible social, economic and political changes is profoundly different when it comes to these two "oppressive camps". You should realize that.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Cuba manages to resist the US and the designs of the Cuban American community while maintaining a far higher standard of living and more social and bureaucratic flexibility, though their system still has flaws. Venezuela too has maintained its independence.

There is a significant difference in the context of the surrounding conditions compared to Cuba however. Cuba has a smaller population and a climate more suited to agriculture and is not nearly as isolated as DPRK. The standard of living is not much higher in Cuba. The health care is slightly better, but housing conditions in Cuba are actually on the same level if not worse than in DPRK, and infrastructure is about on the same level. Water treatment capacity in Cuba has been worsening. Much is decaying and in dire need of massive overhaul, and this is unlikely to proceed at a high enough speed - though yes indeed, outside conditions play an important role in both the cases. The fact is that the material conditions are actually quite similar, apart from the obvious worse food situation in the DPRK.

Plus we all know Cuba is heading for some capitalist restoration unless you're one of those that still insist China is socialist.

And DPRK might also be heading in that direction - Special Economic Zones, Chinese capitalists and South Korean capitalists let in to exploit the "cheapest labour in the region" as that official DPRK website put it -


Oppressive leftism is the same as Oppressive rightism - it is all oppression. I feel sorry for the people who live under Kim Jong. Hopefully, once he dies, things will get better in that nation.

Yeah it'll be another liberal-democratic shithole. That's what happens. Way to go. Progress in the eyes of liberals. No real change.

[☭The Revolution☭]

I'm a traditional, old Soviet Leninist. And while the social bases may be different, Communism still has to be a world by and for the people. Have we not seen the destruction of Oppressive Leftism from the black reign of Stalin? The Great Purge, the famines, the death and fear? That is not what Marx intended, that is not what Lenin intended, and that is not what Communism is. In order to have a Communist society, rule of one, such as in the ideas of Stalin and Kim Jong cannot exist, for that only leads to corruption, destabilization, and eventually, collapse. Don't misunderstand me, power must be enforced. But by the people as a whole, not one.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Yet the social basis, that is, the class basis which informs the possible social, economic and political changes is profoundly different when it comes to these two "oppressive camps". You should realize that.

What difference does this make in practical terms for the average person, though? How does does it benefit the average worker to live under a worker's state in this sense rather than a bourgeois one?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What difference does this make in practical terms for the average person, though? How does does it benefit the average worker to live under a worker's state in this sense rather than a bourgeois one?

One cares for the capitalists, the other for the workers.

[agnixie]

Oppressive leftism is the same as Oppressive rightism - it is all oppression. I feel sorry for the people who live under Kim Jong. Hopefully, once he dies, things will get better in that nation.


It's defamation or glorification, right? We wouldn't want anything to do with a class analysis and a sober assessment of living conditions of those in whose name we speak, within the broader historical analysis of the world capitalist system from which no nation can escape.


Yet the social basis, that is, the class basis which informs the possible social, economic and political changes is profoundly different when it comes to these two "oppressive camps". You should realize that.

By class you mean the House of Kim, I suppose.


One cares for the capitalists, the other for the workers.

And a third one cares mostly about military toys and generals.

[Sir Comradical]

What do you propose they do, short of capitulation?

It would be naive to claim that the regime isn't excessive. I don't see why it's a necessity for foreign visitors to have to be accompanied everywhere by a guide. Why is it impossible to travel freely around Pyongyang?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There is a significant difference in the context of the surrounding conditions compared to Cuba however. Cuba has a smaller population and a climate more suited to agriculture and is not nearly as isolated as DPRK. The standard of living is not much higher in Cuba. The health care is slightly better, but housing conditions in Cuba are actually on the same level if not worse than in DPRK, and infrastructure is about on the same level. Water treatment capacity in Cuba has been worsening. Much is decaying and in dire need of massive overhaul, and this is unlikely to proceed at a high enough speed - though yes indeed, outside conditions play an important role in both the cases. The fact is that the material conditions are actually quite similar, apart from the obvious worse food situation in the DPRK. .

I don't buy the argument that Cuba is less isolated than North Korea by anything other than the choice of the North Koreans. North Korea has the PRC as a neighbor-a country which has shown a willingness to defend the DPRK with the lives of its citizens, and a country which, despite its foray into Market "Socialism", nevertheless has a strategic interest in keeping the ROK from absorbing South Korea.

On the other hand, Cuba has had to deal with real isolation, being cut off from trading partners and strategic allies until the recent Chavez-inspired wave of "revolution" in Latin America.

As for development, that might be true for Pyonyang, but my understanding of the DPRK is that the Capital is far more developed than the rest of the country. While this might also be the case in Cuba, I haven't seen anything indicating that it is to the same degree.

As for agriculture-it is true that Cuba has a climate more suited to agriculture, but I think the DPRK could have invested more of their resources in mechanizing their agriculture if they didn't pursue their "military first" policy so stringently. As a % of GDP, DPRK spending on their armed forces is far higher, and their armed forces make up a large portion of the working population compared to Cuba too.



Plus we all know Cuba is heading for some capitalist restoration unless you're one of those that still insist China is socialist.

And DPRK might also be heading in that direction - Special Economic Zones, Chinese capitalists and South Korean capitalists let in to exploit the "cheapest labour in the region" as that official DPRK website put it -


While it is true that Cuba is making some "reforms" to its economy, I haven't seen any indication that they are making a full series of Deng-style reforms.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The issue here is not corruption. The issue here is whether we take a Marxist line or not.

The Kim dynasty has sold out the working class and now looks, with its militarist Juche ideology, to defend the DPRK, not the working class from the imperialists. They do not defend the working class, so we should not defend them.

Not defending them is completely opposed to supporting the imperialists. You don't need to be a mental gymnast to realise that.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I don't buy the argument that Cuba is less isolated than North Korea by anything other than the choice of the North Koreans.

I agree that the worse isolation of DPRK is indeed their own fault/desire, and I don't agree with the policy, I did not mean that the isolation was a result of external things alone-


North Korea has the PRC as a neighbor-a country which has shown a willingness to defend the DPRK with the lives of its citizens, and a country which, despite its foray into Market "Socialism", nevertheless has a strategic interest in keeping the ROK from absorbing South Korea.First and foremost, the China that defended the DPRK was a different China than what we have today. Market socialism, in as far as it is a valid socialism at all is nothing like what China is - more like Yugoslavia was maybe - and modern China's desire to defend DPRK from South Korean encroachment is serious only insofar as strategic regional imperialist/capitalist interest are concerned, primarily control over resources (labour and natural).


On the other hand, Cuba has had to deal with real isolation, being cut off from trading partners and strategic allies until the recent Chavez-inspired wave of "revolution" in Latin America.Oh please. Both Cuba and DPRK were extremely dependent upon the SSSR and have faced enormously difficult challenges since the fall thereof and the economic trouble this had led to. Both countries are now slowly but surely being integrated into the capitalist economy by the unavoidable imperialist encroachment. Cuba was perhaps even more dependent on the SSSR than DPRK, being their little sugar plantation. Infact was it not over industrial independence that Che was removed from the post as industrial minster to please the Soviets? Nowadays many factories and production facilities are idle in both countries.


As for development, that might be true for Pyonyang, but my understanding of the DPRK is that the Capital is far more developed than the rest of the country. While this might also be the case in Cuba, I haven't seen anything indicating that it is to the same degree.Some other major cities have about the same level. Smaller villages and hamlets are worse off when it comes to living standards, but they are pretty dismal in both places.


As for agriculture-it is true that Cuba has a climate more suited to agriculture, but I think the DPRK could have invested more of their resources in mechanizing their agriculture if they didn't pursue their "military first" policy so stringently. As a % of GDP, DPRK spending on their armed forces is far higher, and their armed forces make up a large portion of the working population compared to Cuba too.In the past, before the war, during Japanese occupation, the north was always dependent in imports from the southern agricultural regions. When the country was divided, the North had to try and become self-sufficient in food, but in an area with such climate and other problems, this is a very precarious situation no matter what, and famine easily arises. The military first policy was formulated after the great famine suffered after the collapse of the SSSR (I think there was some localised malnutrition and deaths in Cuba too relating to this), and however disagreeable, is not the cause of the food problems. The Chinese export to DPRK of more fertiliser has improved the agricultural situation a bit but I don't think that any effort to mechanise would much alleviate the problems.

[Aurorus Ruber]

One cares for the capitalists, the other for the workers.

What are the concrete benefits of this for the workers? What do they get from this system that they would not get in say, a liberal democracy?

[Tablo]

I find it funny how you guys think the US would invade if the DPRK weren't an overly militarized hellhole. The reason it isn't an American puppet state at this very moment is because of China.

[Queercommie Girl]

The issue here is not corruption. The issue here is whether we take a Marxist line or not.

The Kim dynasty has sold out the working class and now looks, with its militarist Juche ideology, to defend the DPRK, not the working class from the imperialists. They do not defend the working class, so we should not defend them.

Not defending them is completely opposed to supporting the imperialists. You don't need to be a mental gymnast to realise that.

I see your point but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "defend the DPRK" from a Marxist perspective since genuine Marxism supports national liberation and resistance movements against all kinds of imperialisms.

"Defending the DPRK" doesn't mean defending Kim's bureaucratic regime.

[Sickle-A]

"Defending the DPRK" doesn't mean defending Kim's bureaucratic regime.

If the DPRK actually is invaded by a foreign entity, it will be the Korean People's Army made up of the working class giving their lives while KJI drinks Hennessy. If they lose, they'll become a puppet of the American Empire. I can't foresee an outcome which would be beneficial for the working class other than a real proletarian revolution against the bureaucracy.

[Thirsty Crow]

By class you mean the House of Kim, I suppose.

Whoaaa, hld it right there. I've never been accused of being a crypto-supporter of the ruling regime of NK, and certainly I do not support it.
What I was getting at is that we should not produce abstractions such as "Oppresive Leftism" (notice the capitali letters) since they aren't helpful wehn it comes to conducting a concrete class analysis rooted in the knowledge of historical development.


I see your point but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "defend the DPRK" from a Marxist perspective since genuine Marxism supports national liberation and resistance movements against all kinds of imperialisms.

National liberation, as opposed to proletarians' self-emancipation, is not possible anymore. Be more careful when throwing around the term "genuine Marxism".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I see your point but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "defend the DPRK" from a Marxist perspective since genuine Marxism supports national liberation and resistance movements against all kinds of imperialisms.

"Defending the DPRK" doesn't mean defending Kim's bureaucratic regime.

That is all very well and I take your point, but in praxis how would such a viewpoint be applied?

If the US rained bombs down on the DPRK tomorrow, what would you, your comrades and your organisation advise? Because surely, it would come down to taking sides with either the Imperialists or the Kims.

I'm not aware if there is enough independent working class organisation in the DPRK for there to be a third way (i.e. supporting the working class but not the Kims).

[Apoi_Viitor]

I find it funny how you guys think the US would invade if the DPRK weren't an overly militarized hellhole. The reason it isn't an American puppet state at this very moment is because of China.

A while ago, Wikileaks released some documents which showed the Chinese state is fed up with North Korea (one ambassador referred to the North Korean state as a "spoiled child" :laugh:). Although, I highly doubt the US will be doing any major imperialist escapades in the near future - and considering the fact that the DPRK actually has weapons of mass destruction, I think an invasion is highly unlikely. As far as I see, the overly militarization of North Korea is for one purpose - to keep the population in line.