Kim Jong Il has died.

[La Comédie Noire]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16250499

Thoughts on how this will effect geo-politics in the region?

[Le Rouge]

Wooooooooooooot! :thumbup1:

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Wooooooooooooot! :thumbup1:
woot indeed. one tyrant replaced by another.

big fockin deal

[Misanthrope]

Bracing for American patriotic circle jerk.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Big words will be exchanged, maybe a few more skirmishes will be fought, and there will be lots of tension.Other than that though time will return things to the previous status quo.

And since it is bound to come up, no, I do not believe either side will attempt to invade the other.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Bracing for American patriotic circle jerk.

Perhaps I am just looking at the wrong sources but I haven't heard much in the way of the usual nationalism.for me the expected answer has been: "Who the hell died?"

[Ocean Seal]

Ehh. Great man theories and everything brah.

[Pirate Utopian]

I guess he was il.

[Red Commissar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16250499

Thoughts on how this will effect geo-politics in the region?

I guess that all will come down to how the military wishes to capitalize on this situation. Was there enough time to 'transition' from Kim Jong-il to his son? But considering the influence China has through NK's military, it'll probably be the same. That being said, the Asian markets seemed to dip on news of his death, since they really aren't sure what the new face of NK will be.

That being said, I am not sure if his son could create a theme song for himself on the level of his father?

Cfg3EgKaOgY


Bracing for American patriotic circle jerk.

Tell me about it. Already ran into it enough with some people. I didn't care much for Kim, but it is amusing to see people going on about how bad he's been for the world. Which world leaders have been responsible for the most devastating wars of this past decade, I wonder? We all know that, of course.


Perhaps I am just looking at the wrong sources but I haven't heard much in the way of the usual nationalism.for me the expected answer has been: "Who the hell died?"

Considering Kim's status in the pantheon of the Axis of Evil, he has more visibility among some Americans than other world leaders. Then again some people probably won't know who he was even then.

[ColonelCossack]

Meh


I don't particularly care.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Damn. I knew the stress of every world power on my doorstep would get tO him eventually. Just not this soon.....:crying:


Another USA win, I just hope they developed nukes

[Susurrus]

Good. Let's send the rest of the world's tyrants to keep him company.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Another USA win, I just hope they developed nukes

How does the USA win from his death?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

How does the USA win from his death?

Oh look, no leader lets invade

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Greatest casualty of his death will be this (http://kimjongillookingatthings.tumblr.com/) blog...

Other than that, I can't see much changing.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Oh look, no leader lets invade

I do not believe that the U.S-South Korea alliance would do such a drastic act all because he died.Why would they? How would they be able to sell such a move to the public?

[Commissar Rykov]

I am more disturbed by the saber rattling by the USA and South Kore over the power shift. Hopefully it just remains that and no one gets some kind of fur-brained idea to go off half-cocked.

[ColonelCossack]

He wasn't even their leader. Their leader was already a dead guy, so I don't see that it makes much difference, except to all the North korean newsreaders, of course, who are crying rivers of tears.

[Commissar Rykov]

He wasn't even their leader. Their leader was already a dead guy, so I don't see that it makes much difference, except to all the North korean newsreaders, of course, who are crying rivers of tears.
Don't insult the eternal president of best korea. I demand fisticuffs good sir!:mad:

[ColonelCossack]

Don't insult the eternal president of best korea. I demand fisticuffs good sir!:mad:

Quite right. My sincerest apologies. Don't shoot me. Oh noes.

[Magón]

Oh look, no leader lets invade

I think you've let your imagination, run a little too far with this idea. The US just barely got out of one country, so they're not about to go halfway around the world to the other side of the continent and think to start up the Korean War again.

[Susurrus]

Oh look, no leader lets invade

More like "Oh look, new leader(with a western education, no less)! Let's get cuddly."

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Sure.

You don't know the USA very well

[Rodrigo]

Is this RevLeft or ConRight? It seems from this topic it's the latter.

[Rafiq]

Seeing how irrelivent Kim Jong was in the first place in regards to North Korea's behavior we should see little difference

[Rodrigo]

ob6C7DU10Sc

[Susurrus]

ob6C7DU10Sc

Because Nazbols are the best sources.

[Magón]

Sure.

You don't know the USA very well

Once again, I think you're overactive imagination is getting the best of you. For what reason, would the US invade North Korea, just to invade over Kim Jong-Il's death?


Is this RevLeft or ConRight? It seems from this topic it's the latter.

You'll find most people on here, are opposed to family dynasties controlling a country, in whatever form they come in. Even if that country calls itself "communist".

[Astarte]

Its interesting - was listening to NPR and watching CNN today a bit - seems CNN is actually acting a bit more conciliatory towards North Korea than usual....

Kim Jong Un is only 28 years old or so. Historically speaking, for the most part, young rulers in situations of total power are either extremely powerful and vigorous leaders ... or they are dullards who know nothing about statecraft and let the state bureaucracies handle all matters. I think we will know which it is soon - I am not sure even myself yet.

That being said, I heard on NPR that there were short-range missile tests in North Korea today.

It is possible that if Un does turn out to be a dullard, he could be surrounded by a skilled old guard that will handle most matters - only time will tell.

[Susurrus]

Un may be an improvement, the ex-cook of the Kim's alleges that he once said this: "We are here, playing basketball, riding horses, riding Jet Skis, having fun together. But what of the lives of the average people?"

Highly unlikely, though.

[Sixiang]

ob6C7DU10Sc

There just... aren't even words.

[Raúl Duke]

The US just barely got out of one country, so they're not about to go halfway around the world to the other side of the continent and think to start up the Korean War again.


I am more disturbed by the saber rattling by the USA and South Kore over the power shift.

Concerning the US, the saber rattling seems to mostly come from the media. I was watching the TV news one day and Geraldo or whoever the fuck, was covering the Iraq withdraw with patriotic panache, asked soldiers on the ground something like "what do you think of the possibility of having to ship all this [war] materiel around the world to the pacific?" I think the soldier was a little dumbstruck by the question, he had a "WTF are you talking about; I sure hope not" look before he answered the question. Officially, I don't think the government changed much other than going on some more heightened sense of alarm across the DMZ (at least I heard the ROK army did). ATM; although the US and ROK will probably look closely at DRPK this time around and perhaps re-open those nuclear/etc talks.

The Guardian or some such UK publication has a more conciliatory approach to North Korea, I think they had an article about "opening up to them" or something.

[Sasha]

reports are they saw this coming a while ago and purged the shit out of hundreds in the bureaucracy and military to prevent a possible coup, proper purges with disappearances into concentrations camps and executions i mean.
time will tell if the (very young) Um will be able to consolidate his power or he will be onto the same rocky road as Assad ended up.
one thing i do dare to predict, it might take time but i am willing to take a bet he wont die in the saddle though

[Princess Luna]

I am curious to see who Kim Jung-Un will be closest to, Louis XVI (he is a idiot, who ends up dead or in exile), Juan Carlos I of spain (he undoes many of his prodecesser's oppressive policies) or if he will simply continue in the footsteps of Kim Jong-Il with no major changes, like what happened when Kim Jong-Il took power from his father

[Rodrigo]

Because Nazbols are the best sources.

Fuck off the source. Content is better.

[Susurrus]

Fuck off the source. Content is better.


The great Korean society is the last Marxist, socialist, stronghold...

North Korea is freedom.

Israel is a good government.
...yeah. Also, advocating FOR nuclear war is such a wonderful stance to be had.

[X5N]

I wonder if Kim Jong-un will live up to the batshit insane hilarity of his father.

Anyways, I've heard suggestions of Kim Kyong-hui becoming supreme leader somehow. My inner feminist squees at the thought of the modern world's first female dictator.

[Per Levy]

Oh look, no leader lets invade

and the rest of th nk leadership is gone as well? would be great but thats not the point.

oh well dont really care, it doesnt make much difference since the ruling elite is still in power, there will be face change but thats about it.

[OHumanista]

As others mentioned probably won't mean anything.
And again all that will probably happen is the continuation of the holy dynasty.

[scourge007]

Kim Jong Il sucked , but No Motherland Without You is a kick ass song.

[Veovis]

He wasn't even their leader. Their leader was already a dead guy, so I don't see that it makes much difference, except to all the North korean newsreaders, of course, who are crying rivers of tears.

I saw several videos and pictures of N. Koreans wailing and moaning after his death, but I didn't see a single tear.

[Commissar Rykov]

I saw several videos and pictures of N. Koreans wailing and moaning after his death, but I didn't see a single tear.
I had noticed that as well which is quite in contrast to the death of Kim Il Sung where you saw a lot of genuine emotion some of the displays I saw by party functionaries seemed a bit forced. The people on the streets seemed quite genuine though as shown by CCTV. Mostly because the Chinese Crew seemed eager to keep bothering passing Koreans who had zero interest in talking with them.

[piet11111]

Anyways, I've heard suggestions of Kim Kyong-hui becoming supreme leader somehow. My inner feminist squees at the thought of the modern world's first female dictator.

How very progressive :rolleyes:

Maybe they ought to try a democratically elected government first and see how she will hold up in actual elections.
But as a child of the dictator i would not hold my breath.

[Bronco]

It will most probably just be same shit, different Kim

[eyeheartlenin]

About dynasties and elections: For decades, whenever Cuba was discussed, defenders of the Cuban Revolution told the media that Fidel would easily win any democratic election in Cuba, and I believed that, since I thought being pro-Cuba meant being pro-Fidel. It was only within the last few years that I learned that, in fact, Cuban voters, who are regularly confronted with one-party "elections," only get to vote for a local assembly, which in turn elects a higher body, and so on, up to the summit of power, which is, reportedly, populated exclusively by people surnamed Castro, who now appear to be preparing the soil for an actual capitalist restoration, after decades of swearing they would never do precisely that.

So it seems that, just like the Kims, apparently, Fidel never had to face an actual, democratic election; in other words, in Cuba, as in the Korean People's Democratic Republic, there is, in fact, zero democratic corrective for decisions/errors made at the top, affecting the lives of rank and file members of those societies. Which, I think, is one reason life in such places is so difficult for the masses.

[eyeheartlenin]

It will most probably just be same shit, different Kim

I actually think that Bronco's characterization of life in "People's Democratic" Korea is an eloquent, truthful, indictment of that regime. Good for Bronco!

[SacRedMan]

Kim Un will be a worse leader and dumber. That's what's going to change, just as N.-Korea may get weaker and weaker.

[Kotze]

Kim Jong-un went to school in Switzerland for a couple of years (incognito) and now understands English and German and French. Cool, huh? I'm moderately optimistic about him.

[CommieTroll]

We've all seen genuine grief and shock at the loss of a loved one but the mourning of the North Korean people seems to be extremely coerced much like any adoration towards the Kim monarchy. I wish ''RevLeftByBirth'' was still trying to troll here :laugh:

[Kosakk]

I've read a news article saying Kim Jong-un's uncle will be leading an interim government until he has the experience to lead the country himself.

So no hope, at the moment, for a better life in N. Korea

[Princess Luna]

I wonder if Kim Jong-un will live up to the batshit insane hilarity of his father.

Anyways, I've heard suggestions of Kim Kyong-hui becoming supreme leader somehow. My inner feminist squees at the thought of the modern world's first female dictator.

http://britishstudies.pbworks.com/f/1241467919/thatcher-with-reagan.jpg

Sorry that position has already been filled

[manic expression]

:rolleyes:


About dynasties and elections: For decades, whenever Cuba was discussed, defenders of the Cuban Revolution told the media that Fidel would easily win any democratic election in Cuba, and I believed that, since I thought being pro-Cuba meant being pro-Fidel. It was only within the last few years that I learned that, in fact, Cuban voters, who are regularly confronted with one-party "elections," only get to vote for a local assembly, which in turn elects a higher body, and so on, up to the summit of power, which is, reportedly, populated exclusively by people surnamed Castro, who now appear to be preparing the soil for an actual capitalist restoration, after decades of swearing they would never do precisely that.
a.) There are no one-party elections in Cuba, and in fact no party takes a direct role in Cuban elections, not even the PCC. Further, many members of the National Assembly are not members of the PCC.

b.) Candidates are nominated not by parties but in open, public meetings organized in each district, usually small enough so that every member of the district knows of everyone else. Candidates circulate a one-page biography on their background and stances. The district meeting then nominates a single candidate, who is then subjected to a "yes or no" vote. No candidate has been rejected by the general election because it's a confirmation of what the voters already decided.

c.) Having the highest level of government determined indirectly is nothing new, nor is it undemocratic.

d.) Local assembly elections are arguably the most important level, not only because they determine the next level, but because a great deal of governing is done on the local level, and it's the first place Cubans go to voice their concerns.


So it seems that, just like the Kims, apparently, Fidel never had to face an actual, democratic election;
Except he did, multiple times. Stop believing everything you read in the capitalist press and you'll see that.

[Chambered Word]

lol Castro is shedding tears over this all I can say is good riddance, first Christopher Hitchens now him, December 2011 isn't going too badly.

[manic expression]

The passing of Kim Jong Il is a sad day for progressives around the world. The people of the DPRK will honor his memory in continuing their struggle.

Anyone who compares the DPRK to a monarchy is obviously not a materialist thinker, which I guess is fine, but just be honest about it. The DPRK has put the Kims in positions of leadership because the people trust their judgment after decades of anti-imperialist struggle. In addition, stability is a good thing when you're in a state of war, which the DPRK has been since the 50's (perhaps some posters here have forgotten that detail). If you want to call it a dynasty in the poetic sense of the word, make yourself happy, but it's hardly persuasive when one looks at the general situation.

[Sasha]

The passing of Kim Jong Il is a sad day for progressives around the world. The people of the DPRK will honor his memory in continuing their struggle.

Anyone who compares the DPRK to a monarchy is obviously not a materialist thinker, which I guess is fine, but just be honest about it. The DPRK has put the Kims in positions of leadership because the people trust their judgment after decades of anti-imperialist struggle. In addition, stability is a good thing when you're in a state of war, which the DPRK has been since the 50's (perhaps some posters here have forgotten that detail). If you want to call it a dynasty in the poetic sense of the word, make yourself happy, but it's hardly persuasive when one looks at the general situation.

You have got be trolling right? collective Stockholm syndrome is not the same as trust.

[ColonelCossack]

http://britishstudies.pbworks.com/f/1241467919/thatcher-with-reagan.jpg

Sorry that position has already been filled

I was just going to say, "you forgot maggie thatcher"! :D

[ColonelCossack]

I saw several videos and pictures of N. Koreans wailing and moaning after his death, but I didn't see a single tear.

It was a metaphor.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

This just in: Hennessy profits reach rapid decline as biggest purchaser in the world dies. Thousands laid off.


I don't think this really makes a difference. New Cult of Personality reigns in, etc.

[X5N]

How very progressive :rolleyes:

Maybe they ought to try a democratically elected government first and see how she will hold up in actual elections.
But as a child of the dictator i would not hold my breath.

Of course, I don't support anyone taking Kim Jong-Il's position as Dear Leader. I just had a bit of silly squee at the thought of the first modern female dictator.


http://britishstudies.pbworks.com/f/1241467919/thatcher-with-reagan.jpg

Sorry that position has already been filled

That was funnier when I saw that and thought it was Nancy Reagan.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anyone who compares the DPRK to a monarchy is obviously not a materialist thinker, which I guess is fine, but just be honest about it. The DPRK has put the Kims in positions of leadership because the people trust their judgment after decades of anti-imperialist struggle.So let me see if I got it right, people who claim that family dynasties who are in no way accountable to an even indirect control by the broad layers of the population, are in fact abandoning materialism through their, simple yet based on facts, analysis of the state apparatus of DPRK, while you on the other hand are a representative of materialist thought because of the claim that the DPRK (what would that mean, "the whole population" or the state apparatus?) has put one family in positions (sic!) of leadership beacuse of...trust, yes that's right, trust, which is probably ascertained by all the staged wailing and "crying" (since there is no formal political mechanism of testing where does the population's trust lie) after the guy kicked the bucket.

Priceless.

[manic expression]

So let me see if I got it right, people who claim that family dynasties who are in no way accountable to an even indirect control by the broad layers of the population, are in fact abandoning materialism through their, simple yet based on facts, analysis of the state apparatus of DPRK, while you on the other hand are a representative of materialist thought because of the claim that the DPRK (what would that mean, "the whole population" or the state apparatus?) has put one family in positions (sic!) of leadership beacuse of...trust, yes that's right, trust, which is probably ascertained by all the staged wailing and "crying" (since there is no formal political mechanism of testing where does the population's trust lie) after the guy kicked the bucket.

Priceless.
Abandoning their materialism? What materialism? Comparing the DPRK to the Bourbon Dynasty is in no way materialist, it ignores the countless differences in social structure, economic base, historical development, governmental functioning and so on and so forth.

But what of the more poetic invocations of "dynasty" we keep hearing? You say it's a bad government because you believe that no one in the DPRK would willingly show genuine sadness over the passing of their country's leader. That belief is what informs your views on this, nothing more.

What's more, do you doubt the value of trust in political issues?

Lastly, we have missed the most important point, that being of stability in a state of war. Should the people of the DPRK change up their entire leadership in the middle of a war with the US, just to make some people who don't support their government anyway feel better? I think not, and apparently neither do the people of the DPRK.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Anyone who compares the DPRK to a monarchy is obviously not a materialist thinker, which I guess is fine, but just be honest about it. The DPRK has put the Kims in positions of leadership because the people trust their judgment after decades of anti-imperialist struggle. In addition, stability is a good thing when you're in a state of war, which the DPRK has been since the 50's (perhaps some posters here have forgotten that detail). If you want to call it a dynasty in the poetic sense of the word, make yourself happy, but it's hardly persuasive when one looks at the general situation. &


Abandoning their materialism? What materialism? Comparing the DPRK to the Bourbon Dynasty is in no way materialist, it ignores the countless differences in social structure, economic base, historical development, governmental functioning and so on and so forth.Except, materially speaking it is a kleptocratic monarchy. Ideally speaking, it is a great "Juche" republic, whatever that means, but materially it is a monarchy. Why else would an inexperienced 28 year old be the one given the leadership, and not one of the many other more experienced figures? Did the Korean People really chose Kim Jong Un, or was he chosen for them?

He was chosen by the oligarchs and by Kim Jong Il in particular. That is what makes it a monarchy. The core circle of people in power are in power thanks in a large part to their attachment to the personal leadership of one man. The one man sees it in the interests of his family to promote a continuity of leadership, while the circle of people with economic and political power are ok with it because it prevents competition amongst themselves for the leadership position. As such, the monarchy is maintained until a big enough subgroup of the elites decides that the incoming son of Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehoboam) is too much of a thug so they split off to find their own monarch.

If you're at war, the best way to preserve stability isn't to chose leadership based on family positions, it's to base leadership on military or political experience or some other predetermined constitutional rubric. When the US was attacked by Japan in WWII and FDR died, they didn't promote his son to take over, they promoted Truman. When "Uncle Ho' died, the NV Republic didn't find Ho Chih Minh's kid, they sought the new leadership by republican means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B4n_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_Th%E1%BA%AFng) (and unlike the DPRK, North Vietnam DID win their war against the USA not long after). That mode of changing leadership did not damage the war effort at all or cause instability. On the other hand, choosing a man in his late 20s with no experience to be the dictator is not a way to win a war.


But what of the more poetic invocations of "dynasty" we keep hearing? You say it's a bad government because you believe that no one in the DPRK would willingly show genuine sadness over the passing of their country's leader. That belief is what informs your views on this, nothing more.Their mourning can be genuine (it can also be forced, I imagine some of it was both), but the genuine nature of their saddness says little of the qualities of the regime. Plenty were openly sad when all sorts of horrid monarchs, dictators and whatnot have died.

They are a dynasty because one member of the family follows another upon the death of the elder, and the leadership selection is not done on a grassroots level but as a top-down imposition by social and political elites.



Lastly, we have missed the most important point, that being of stability in a state of war. Should the people of the DPRK change up their entire leadership in the middle of a war with the US, just to make some people who don't support their government anyway feel better? I think not, and apparently neither do the people of the DPRK. As I said earlier, adopting a monarchic system of executive leadership is hardly a good response to a war effort. There are better strategies than nepotism to winning a war. In fact, nepotism is usually a pretty good way to lose a war.

[Sasha]

Eternal war is one of the core tactics for leaders to remain in power and crush internal dissent, "anti-imperialism" can function in exactly the same way as the war on communism, terrorism or drugs

[El Louton]

He's already been replaced though. Be careful what you say, the internet isn't as safe as you think.

[VILemon]

Fuck off the source. Content is better.

Isn't Dugin openly a fascist?

[manic expression]

Eternal war is one of the core tactics for leaders to remain in power and crush internal dissent, "anti-imperialism" can function in exactly the same way as the war on communism, terrorism or drugs
That's an entirely invalid point because the DPRK has consistently (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451114.stm) gone to great lengths to achieve a fair peace agreement. Almost every time, the US says no because they want the nuclear program ended...coincidentally, the nuclear program is arguably the most important safeguard against imperialist invasion.

Say what you will about the DPRK leadership, they have shown themselves ready and willing to negotiate for peace. Their enemies (our enemies), of course, haven't.

[Susurrus]

Isn't Dugin openly a fascist?

Yup. To be precise, a "red fascist," or "National Bolshevik."

[manic expression]

Except, materially speaking it is a kleptocratic monarchy. Ideally speaking, it is a great "Juche" republic, whatever that means, but materially it is a monarchy. Why else would an inexperienced 28 year old be the one given the leadership, and not one of the many other more experienced figures? Did the Korean People really chose Kim Jong Un, or was he chosen for them?
Monarchy isn't having a son appointed to a father's former position. Materially speaking, monarchy has to do with a feudal legal system stemming from feudal property relations. The DPRK, of course, meets none of these conditions.


He was chosen by the oligarchs and by Kim Jong Il in particular. That is what makes it a monarchy.
Even taking that claim as true, how does that make it a monarchy?


If you're at war, the best way to preserve stability isn't to chose leadership based on family positions, it's to base leadership on military or political experience or some other predetermined constitutional rubric. When the US was attacked by Japan in WWII and FDR died, they didn't promote his son to take over, they promoted Truman. When "Uncle Ho' died, the NV Republic didn't find Ho Chih Minh's kid, they sought the new leadership by republican means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B4n_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_Th%E1%BA%AFng) (and unlike the DPRK, North Vietnam DID win their war against the USA not long after). That mode of changing leadership did not damage the war effort at all or cause instability. On the other hand, choosing a man in his late 20s with no experience to be the dictator is not a way to win a war.
I think the new leader of the DPRK does have military experience and has been involved in government matters for quite some years...more than the current leader of US imperialism, IIRC.

I agree that the DPRK's choice isn't the only choice they could have made, but I respect the logic behind the decision. Could they have selected another figure from the KWP? Sure, but at what point do we claim that the presence of alternatives damns the DPRK's decision?


Their mourning can be genuine (it can also be forced, I imagine some of it was both), but the genuine nature of their saddness says little of the qualities of the regime. Plenty were openly sad when all sorts of horrid monarchs, dictators and whatnot have died.
Agreed.


They are a dynasty because one member of the family follows another upon the death of the elder, and the leadership selection is not done on a grassroots level but as a top-down imposition by social and political elites.

As I said earlier, adopting a monarchic system of executive leadership is hardly a good response to a war effort. There are better strategies than nepotism to winning a war. In fact, nepotism is usually a pretty good way to lose a war.
Alexander the Great followed his father...he did alright militarily.

But anyway, I think the grassroots level is there, it's just that the DPRK is pretty strongly behind the decision that's already been made. Official in the country are subject to recall as outlined in the constitution. It's not the system I would design, but it's not nearly as top-down as the media would have us believe, and it's there to organize a country that's resisting imperialism. We cannot lose sight of that fact.

[Sasha]

The only reason north Korea "negotiates" is to extort just enough food and medicine aid to prevent mass starving, as soon that's given they are gone again. And the nuke story is pretty much bull too, northkorea didn't get invaded for 53 years without possessing nuclear weapons, their safeguard is Chinese opportunistic protection not those one or two barely functioning nukes

[eyeheartlenin]

:
..... The district meeting then nominates a single candidate, who is then subjected to a "yes or no" vote. No candidate has been rejected by the general election because it's a confirmation of what the voters already decided.


Single party, single candidate: potato, potahto. It's a distinction without a difference. One "choice" is no choice.

I'm sure the entire process is controlled, top-down, by the only legal party in Cuba, the PCC, for its own benefit.

We've seen essentially the same one choice/no choice approach in all the disappeared "people's democracies," where the population subsequently embraced a multi-choice system instead. Stalinism in power, single-party rule, achieved what decades of bourgeois propaganda could not, discrediting "socialism" in the eyes of millions of workers, and that's why one choice/no choice should be opposed.


... Having the highest level of government determined indirectly is nothing new, nor is it undemocratic.

Yeah, right, just like the very democratic Electoral College, which gave us eight years of George W. Bush.

[Omsk]

Stalinism in power, single-party rule, achieved what decades of bourgeois propaganda could not, discrediting "socialism" in the eyes of millions of workers, and that's why one choice/no choice should be opposed.


Yawn..try harder...

On thread:

Kim Jong Rip.

[piet11111]

North Korea has so much artillery aimed at Seoul that the effect would be similar to a nuclear detonation anyway (also known as not one stone will be left on the other once its over.)

But then again their artillery can not reach Japan.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The amount of Team America references has been unbearable.

[Renegade Saint]

The passing of Kim Jong Il is a sad day for progressives around the world. The people of the DPRK will honor his memory in continuing their struggle.

Anyone who compares the DPRK to a monarchy is obviously not a materialist thinker, which I guess is fine, but just be honest about it. The DPRK has put the Kims in positions of leadership because the people trust their judgment after decades of anti-imperialist struggle. In addition, stability is a good thing when you're in a state of war, which the DPRK has been since the 50's (perhaps some posters here have forgotten that detail). If you want to call it a dynasty in the poetic sense of the word, make yourself happy, but it's hardly persuasive when one looks at the general situation.
I guess if you define as 'progressive' only those who adore the Kims that's true. Otherwise it's just nonsense. Not sure I consider gulags "progressive".

How would you know whether the people of North Korea (I refuse to call it either 'democratic', 'peoples' or 'republic') trust the Kim family's judgement? Have you done extensive polling? Have you ever spoken to a single North Korean that wasn't being paid to propagandize you? Do you take everything that comes off the state TV at face value?

These Stalinists who defend the Kim dynasty are pretty lol-they're defending North Korea because they think it's 'communist', when North Korea doesn't even pretend to be anymore. Is the word 'communism' or anything of the sort even mentioned in the latest 'constitution'?

[Leonid Brozhnev]

The amount of Team America references has been unbearable.

The amount of people saying 'That's the end of his Korea' is doubly worse. The face to palm ratio of this planet is simply insufficient.

[danyboy27]

The passing of Kim Jong Il is a sad day for progressives around the world. The people of the DPRK will honor his memory in continuing their struggle.
.

I for one is verry sad that the creator of the inception style** outsourcing in north korea is dead, a truly sad day for the world.

***U.S outsourcing to the china and china outsourcing the job to north korea, outsourcing, in outsourcing in outsourcing.

[∞]

When Jong-un was 18, Fujimoto described an episode where Jong-un questioned his lavish lifestyle and asked, "We are here, playing basketball, riding horses, riding Jet Skis, having fun together. But what of the lives of the average people?"

There is hope yet.

[Magdalen]

http://redyouthuk.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/north-korea-in-mourning-but-its-people-stand-united-and-strong/

North Korea in mourning, but its people stand united and strong!

Posted on December 19, 2011

It is with great sadness that we learn of the death of Kim Jong Il, leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea and son of legendary freedom fighter Kim Il Sung, who was born nearly 100 years ago on 15 April 1912, and who led the struggle of the tiny but defiant Korean nation to defeat the goliath of US imperialism.

The Korean people have never been forgiven for dealing this psychologically and militarily crushing blow to the arrogant imperialists, who continue to harass, threaten, bully and bludgeon all who stand in the way of their strategy of global domination.

The DPRK, with its 23 million population, may have the full force of the western propaganda machine and US/Nato military might ranged against it, but its entire history is one of struggle, and it has proven itself no easy nut to crack.

The US is winding up its rhetoric and looking for signs of weakness in order to recommence its colonial campaign in the north of Korea, to match its conquests in the already subjugated south. But as our own delegation found during party-to-party talks in Pyongyang in September 2010, the Workers Party of Korea is strong, has tremendous courage and understanding, and the Korean people stand united and defiant with an uplifting spirit of ‘single-hearted unity’ that is their abiding strength.

The people of north Korea are not, of course, isolated. As well as enjoying support amongst the vast masses of the south Korean people, they have strong links with people from oppressed and socialist countries worldwide, including, but not limited to, their mighty Chinese neighbours, the Cubans, Venezuelans, Zimbabweans, Vietnamese, and more.

As a matter of fact, much of the hostility shown towards the DPRK is in fact directed at China on the one hand and Russia on the other. Without the alleged ‘threat’ from the DPRK, the real reasons for US bases in Japan and south Korea become apparent. Namely, the military, diplomatic, and strategic domination of the entire region, and the bullying and threatening of China and Russia. Indeed, Nato’s recent war against Libya can be seen in very much the same light.

In reality, it is the USA, not north Korea, that is the real and existential threat to world peace. We have seen it time and again and will not be fooled by the latest wave of propaganda. Our enemies lie rather closer to home, and we will deal with them in time.

It is not our job to tell the people of the DPRK how to manage their affairs. We are confident that the party and people of north Korea remain strong and that their chosen leader, Comrade Kim Jong Un, will continue to defend the interests of the Korean workers and the international proletariat against the megalomaniacal schemes of US imperialism, whether under the helmsmanship of an Obama, a Bush junior, a Bush senior, a scion of the Kennedy clan or some other figurehead of the US imperialist free-market fundamentalists.

We send our deepest condolences to our friends and comrades in the Workers Party of Korea and to the people of the DPRK on the tragic loss of this much loved and lamented leader of their party and their nation. As the upholder of the Korean revolution, he was not only a great Korean but also a great leader of the world proletariat and peasantry in our common struggle against imperialism and for socialism.

Long live the memory of Kim Jong Il!

Long live the memory and legacy of Kim Il Sung!

Long live the Workers Party of Korea!

Long live the DPRK!

Long live the friendship between British and Korean workers!

Fight warmongering imperialism!

Korea is One!

Looking past what might be termed as the 'old-style Stalinist over-exuberance' of the CPGB-ML (which can be addressed elsewhere), there's a rather excellent kernel of truth in there. We have to understand that US Imperialism's hostility towards the DPRK and its maintenance of tens of thousands of troops on Korean soil are not born out of the remnants of a vague anti-Communist feeling, or more outlandishly, some sort of genuine humanitarian concern.

[Sasha]

But so is entire continued existence of the regime exactly the same out of china's completely selfish geo political interests

[Susurrus]

There is hope yet.

No fair, I quoted that two pages ago!:sneaky:

[manic expression]

Single party, single candidate: potato, potahto. It's a distinction without a difference. One "choice" is no choice.
It's very much a difference. Many of those candidates are not members of the PCC, and at any rate the PCC has no direct role in the electoral process. Further, there are a great many choices available to every district, since it's done through those local, public meetings I talked about.


I'm sure the entire process is controlled, top-down, by the only legal party in Cuba, the PCC, for its own benefit.
Well you're wrong. It's not the only political party in Cuba, and like I said there are non-PCC members in the National Assembly. So yeah, you're wrong.


We've seen essentially the same one choice/no choice approach in all the disappeared "people's democracies,"Don't change the subject.


Yeah, right, just like the very democratic Electoral College, which gave us eight years of George W. Bush.Except Cuba sees essentially the opposite of the US electoral system.

[manic expression]

The only reason north Korea "negotiates" is to extort just enough food and medicine aid to prevent mass starving, as soon that's given they are gone again. And the nuke story is pretty much bull too, northkorea didn't get invaded for 53 years without possessing nuclear weapons, their safeguard is Chinese opportunistic protection not those one or two barely functioning nukes
For most of those 53 years, Cold War realities made a renewed invasion quite unlikely. After 1991, and especially after 2002 when Bush was putting them on his invasion wish list, the need for a safeguard against invasion was greatly heightened.

And no, the DPRK doesn't just negotiate for free food. They want to bring a reasonable end to the war, simple as.

[Renegade Saint]

It is with great sadness that we learn of the death of Kim Jong Il, leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea and son of legendary freedom fighter Kim Il Sung, who was born nearly 100 years ago on 15 April 1912, and who led the struggle of the tiny but defiant Korean nation to defeat the goliath of US imperialism.

The Korean people have never been forgiven for dealing this psychologically and militarily crushing blow to the arrogant imperialists, who continue to harass, threaten, bully and bludgeon all who stand in the way of their strategy of global domination.
I think they're confusing the Koreans with the Vietnamese.

IIRC, the only war the "DPR" of Korea has been in involved them invading the South with the goal of a united Communist Korea. Which they utterly failed to achieve. So, yeah, I guess that's a 'crushing defeat' for the US, in the same sense that the Iraq war was a "success".

[manic expression]

I think they're confusing the Koreans with the Vietnamese.

IIRC, the only war the "DPR" of Korea has been in involved them invading the South with the goal of a united Communist Korea. Which they utterly failed to achieve. So, yeah, I guess that's a 'crushing defeat' for the US, in the same sense that the Iraq war was a "success".
The US did suffer a defeat in that conflict: they failed to achieve their primary military objectives and were forced to accept status quo ante bellum.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Monarchy isn't having a son appointed to a father's former position. Materially speaking, monarchy has to do with a feudal legal system stemming from feudal property relations. The DPRK, of course, meets none of these conditions.


Yes, monarchy develops out of feudalism, but as a system it isn't just a set of feudal property relations. Monarchy survived the advent of capitalism in many countries. Certainly, the Japanese Empire which dominated North Korea right before its independence showed how a monarchy could create and survive within a bureaucratically-micromanaged capitalist economy.



Even taking that claim as true, how does that make it a monarchy?
The nature of the political and economic interests of the oligarchs who chose a 28-year old young man to lead them over any number of more qualified individuals. They saw the preservation of family rule as a way to maintain their accumulated social status as individuals within the upper echelons of the military, party and bureaucracy.



I think the new leader of the DPRK does have military experience and has been involved in government matters for quite some years...more than the current leader of US imperialism, IIRC.
He's 28! He's barely graduated college, he hasn't been of age long enough to have more experience than even your example of Obama (who was a Illinois legislator before he became a senator in the federal government, and he spent some time as an organizer)



I agree that the DPRK's choice isn't the only choice they could have made, but I respect the logic behind the decision. Could they have selected another figure from the KWP? Sure, but at what point do we claim that the presence of alternatives damns the DPRK's decision?
The nepotism inherent in the decision makes me take the opposite perspective on this. Why not chose another figure? There's no reason why it would be particularly destabilizing on a systemic level to chose a non-hereditary mode of succession during wartime, unless their objective was to try to keep the hierarchy as static as possible to preserve their status.



Alexander the Great followed his father...he did alright militarily.
Dumb luck. King Solomon was an awesome king, his son was an idiot. That's the problem with a monarchic system. It relies on the ability of a single family to produce solid leaders, and when that family fails to do so society is at a loss at how to replace them (usually leading to violent political unrest at the top)



But anyway, I think the grassroots level is there, it's just that the DPRK is pretty strongly behind the decision that's already been made. Official in the country are subject to recall as outlined in the constitution. It's not the system I would design, but it's not nearly as top-down as the media would have us believe, and it's there to organize a country that's resisting imperialism. We cannot lose sight of that fact.I think they say their system is grassroots. Every political system out there today says so. It doesn't mean that the "grassroots organizing" in their country is allowed to have real independence. The way Kim Jong Un shot out of nowhere and became the new leader of their country, at the behest of the established inner leadership of the party is indicative of that.

As for the whole "resisting Imperialism" thing, as psycho said the use of an external threat is typically exploited by powers to control their population and repress bottom-up politics. The whole US war on terror is like that, as was the earlier McCarthy era. It would be a lie to say that the US wouldn't love to topple the DPRK government but that doesn't make the DPRK's strategy a particularly effective or justified one. On the contrary, they exploit American Imperialism to stay in power, much as Oceania in Orwell's 1984.

There are better and smarter ways of resisting Imperialism than the ones which the DPRK has taken, and I don't think the USA has a huge motive to try and bring North Korea under its sphere of influence the way it does with a country like Iraq or even Iran because North Korea has few material resources, is heavily armed, and is right next to the world's second most powerful country which happens to be its primary ally. And even its conventional military could cause great economic harm to South Korea and Japan, which the US would not want to incur by bringing military hostilities.

[manic expression]

Yes, monarchy develops out of feudalism, but as a system it isn't just a set of feudal property relations. Monarchy survived the advent of capitalism in many countries. Certainly, the Japanese Empire which dominated North Korea right before its independence showed how a monarchy could create and survive within a bureaucratically-micromanaged capitalist economy.
IMO, the Japanese Empire was in the mold of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires...are you saying they're like the DPRK? Why?


The nature of the political and economic interests of the oligarchs who chose a 28-year old young man to lead them over any number of more qualified individuals. They saw the preservation of family rule as a way to maintain their accumulated social status as individuals within the upper echelons of the military, party and bureaucracy.
It's not preservation of family rule if it wasn't the family that made the choice.


He's 28!
And? 28-year-olds can be great leaders.


The nepotism inherent in the decision makes me take the opposite perspective on this.
I don't find it nepotism, it was a choice made by the people of the DPRK.


Dumb luck. King Solomon was an awesome king, his son was an idiot. That's the problem with a monarchic system.
Still shows that your assumption isn't necessarily true.


I think they say their system is grassroots. Every political system out there today says so. It doesn't mean that the "grassroots organizing" in their country is allowed to have real independence. The way Kim Jong Un shot out of nowhere and became the new leader of their country, at the behest of the established inner leadership of the party is indicative of that.

As for the whole "resisting Imperialism" thing, as psycho said the use of an external threat is typically exploited by powers to control their population and repress bottom-up politics. The whole US war on terror is like that, as was the earlier McCarthy era. It would be a lie to say that the US wouldn't love to topple the DPRK government but that doesn't make the DPRK's strategy a particularly effective or justified one. On the contrary, they exploit American Imperialism to stay in power, much as Oceania in Orwell's 1984.

There are better and smarter ways of resisting Imperialism than the ones which the DPRK has taken, and I don't think the USA has a huge motive to try and bring North Korea under its sphere of influence the way it does with a country like Iran because North Korea has few material resources, is heavily armed, and is right next to the world's second most powerful country which happens to be its primary ally.
Grassroots organizing rarely has "real independence"...the whole point of grassroots is that it roots something larger than itself.

The DPRK is not using the external threat of imperialism for purposes of manipulation, it's trying to make a peace agreement so they can get on with things. Do you really think that US imperialism is doing what it's doing unwillingly?

The DPRK has been a thorn in the side of the ambitions of imperialism for decades. Of course the imperialists want to "get rid" of such a "problem".

[Qayin]

Rip Kim, fuck the imperialists.

[Geiseric]

Why are Stalinists so cultish about their devotion to Kim Jong Il? He literally inherited his throne. Also just because he was voted in (While being the only candidate) that means that everybody must love him right? I guess since most voters (about half of the U.S. votes) in America at the time of the Obama election, the entire country must support Obama, right? The principle doesn't change if you're being forced to vote, for one person. Also, what's the theoretical defense when China starts exporting more capital into NK, fully with the Kims approval? Two workers states helping eachother? Pfft.

Anyways, I wish Kim would let film people in so we can really see how much people love him firsthand. I also wish that we could send Al Jazeera or maybe have a revleft site in NK so we could talk to some of the people there. But we can't... Except from the film evidence of people who did actually go there, find the barren streets, the Mass Games which cost a fuckton of money, and were forced to not leave their rooms.

Anyways, I guess that we'll never know ANY evidence about the REAL north korea except from what those western imperialist propagandists bring in while probably being threatened by the CIA not to release any of the good ones, with the crowds of frolicking happy people and the great living conditions and working conditions that we never see of the farmers and actual workers, right? I mean has anybody here ever seen pictures of a north korean farm or factory? Or of anybody aside from videos the NK state sends out with people saying how much they love the Kims? I mean doesn't that sound fishy, at the least?

Also isn't it wierd that an entire country goes into grief when Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il die? Would you have been depressed if you were around when Lenin died? I mean straight up depression, not just sadness. Thousands of people are at the moment weeping that somebody they've never known, and somebody that in all actuality lives off of and affords luxuries with the profits from their labor and the food shipments sent in to help with starvation.

This has nothing to do with Imperialism. It has to do with the role of the basic state in preserving the status quo and preserving power for the owners of North Korean production, whoever that may be. However it is without a doubt not the workers, and has never been. It wasn't in the U.S.S.R, wasn't in China, wasn't in Cuba, and it isn't in NK.

[manic expression]

Anyways, I guess that we'll never know ANY evidence about the REAL north korea except from what those western imperialist propagandists bring in while probably being threatened by the CIA not to release any of the good ones,
Watch "Crossing the Line" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyDuArZgdao), a documentary about a US defector living in the DPRK. It follows him on some of his more daily activities...the image of Pyongyang I got from it was neither rose-tinted nor the myths you hear in the media. They talk about the famine too.


Also isn't it wierd that an entire country goes into grief when Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il die? Would you have been depressed if you were around when Lenin died? I mean straight up depression, not just sadness. Thousands of people are at the moment weeping that somebody they've never known, and somebody that in all actuality lives off of and affords luxuries with the profits from their labor and the food shipments sent in to help with starvation.
When Lenin died, telegrams poured in from all corners of the country, pleading with the government to display Lenin's body so that future generations could see the man who led their liberation. IIRC, they were going to honor Lenin's will and bury him, but in the face of public outcry they started planning for the tomb we have today.

[Omsk]

Why are Stalinists so cultish about their devotion to Kim Jong Il? He literally inherited his throne. Also just because he was voted in (While being the only candidate) that means that everybody must love him right? I guess since most voters (about half of the U.S. votes) in America at the time of the Obama election, the entire country must support Obama, right? The principle doesn't change if you're being forced to vote, for one person. Also, what's the theoretical defense when China starts exporting more capital into NK, fully with the Kims approval? Two workers states helping eachother? Pfft.

Anyways, I wish Kim would let film people in so we can really see how much people love him firsthand. I also wish that we could send Al Jazeera or maybe have a revleft site in NK so we could talk to some of the people there. But we can't... Except from the film evidence of people who did actually go there, find the barren streets, the Mass Games which cost a fuckton of money, and were forced to not leave their rooms.

Anyways, I guess that we'll never know ANY evidence about the REAL north korea except from what those western imperialist propagandists bring in while probably being threatened by the CIA not to release any of the good ones, with the crowds of frolicking happy people and the great living conditions and working conditions that we never see of the farmers and actual workers, right? I mean has anybody here ever seen pictures of a north korean farm or factory? Or of anybody aside from videos the NK state sends out with people saying how much they love the Kims? I mean doesn't that sound fishy, at the least?

Also isn't it wierd that an entire country goes into grief when Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il die? Would you have been depressed if you were around when Lenin died? I mean straight up depression, not just sadness. Thousands of people are at the moment weeping that somebody they've never known, and somebody that in all actuality lives off of and affords luxuries with the profits from their labor and the food shipments sent in to help with starvation.

This has nothing to do with Imperialism. It has to do with the role of the basic state in preserving the status quo and preserving power for the owners of North Korean production, whoever that may be. However it is without a doubt not the workers, and has never been. It wasn't in the U.S.S.R, wasn't in China, wasn't in Cuba, and it isn't in NK.
__________________



This entire text is pathetic.And full of classical myths and liberal slander.


However it is without a doubt not the workers, and has never been. It wasn't in the U.S.S.R, wasn't in China, wasn't in Cuba, and it isn't in NK.

An amazing finish!Magnificent!

[Qayin]

So is all the criticism from trots? I guess we should let the imperialists overthrow the DPRK and let it become "modernized" and "clean" so the great Trotskyist revolution can restore workers power!

Newsflash, the DPRK has been successful in resisting American imperialism and capital from being forced upon there people, they have Amerikkkan troops on there border and economic blockades against them, whats to be against again? I thought as leftists we were anti-imperialist and defend those nations not cheer alongside the capitalists when the leadership dies

[Sasha]

I defend no nation, and certainly no leader.

[Omsk]

Anyways, I guess that we'll never know ANY evidence about the REAL north korea except from what those western imperialist propagandists bring in while probably being threatened by the CIA not to release any of the good ones, with the crowds of frolicking happy people and the great living conditions and working conditions that we never see of the farmers and actual workers, right? I mean has anybody here ever seen pictures of a north


Another heap of rubbish.What do you know about the living standards of the people in the DPRK?You dont know anything,you cant imagine all their problems and hardships,or the problems of the soviet worker back in the days of the union.You cant imagine their iron will and resolve,the strenght of those people,who worked more in just one day than all of us here for a month,who fought,who defended their homes,if you think i will blindly defend the DPRK,you are wrong,but individualist liberal westerners should not speak lightly about Soviet,Korean,or any other workers who trully knew the meaning of resolve and hardship.

[Qayin]

I defend no nation, and certainly no leader.


The lack of a stance is a stance, its siding with the imperialists in the struggle against capital.

[Sasha]

As opposed to standing with capital against the workers?

[Qayin]

As opposed to standing with capital against the workers?

If you don't stand with an anti-imperialist nation that is surrounded by imperialist forces wishing to bomb it back to the stone age and implement capitalism what do you stand for then?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

So is all the criticism from trots? I guess we should let the imperialists overthrow the DPRK and let it become "modernized" and "clean" so the great Trotskyist revolution can restore workers power!

Trotskyism has nothing to do with the current debate as far as I can see.


Newsflash, the DPRK has been successful in resisting American imperialism and capital from being forced upon there people, they have Amerikkkan troops on there border and economic blockades against them, whats to be against again? I thought as leftists we were anti-imperialist and defend those nations not cheer alongside the capitalists when the leadership dies

No one here is advocating for an imperialist invasion.

[Qayin]

Trotskyism has nothing to do with the current debate as far as I can see.

Those prompting things against the DPRK so far have been trots it seems like.


No one here is advocating for an imperialist invasion.
But cheer leading the death of Kim next to the imperialists from so called leftists is pretty sad.

[Sasha]

They have no intrest in bombing it back to the stone-age, no consumers in the stone age.
They just want to replace the existing form of capitalism with their own. And yes, I consider liberal-capitalist preferable to semi-feudal capitalism. (and functioning "socialist" capitalism like on Cuba is again better than liberal capitalism, but its all capitalism)
I rather be exploited and well fed than exploited and starved.
You go take a holiday in Cambodia, sorry, live in north Korea for a while.

[Qayin]

They have no intrest in bombing it back to the stone-age, no consumers in the stone age.
Tell that to Libyans after NATO stepped in.


I consider liberal-capitalist preferable to semi-feudal capitalism. (and functioning "socialist" capitalism like on Cuba is again better than liberal capitalism, but its all capitalism)
The DPRK is semi-feudal? and it would be better for them to just be capitalist? lolwut



You go take a holiday in Cambodia, sorry, live in north Korea for a while.
Did I just walk into fox new's forum

[Lucretia]

Abandoning their materialism? What materialism? Comparing the DPRK to the Bourbon Dynasty is in no way materialist, it ignores the countless differences in social structure, economic base, historical development, governmental functioning and so on and so forth.

They are different in many economic and social ways. But one way they are the same is that they are both class societies.

[Rusty Shackleford]

AFAIK, the DPRK never took part in the splitting of the socialist camp. Its political foundations are resisting imperialism and constructing socialism. Up until the 80s, the DPRK was far better off than ROK to the point where the south was becoming an embarrassment for the west.

You all know of the fact that after the soviet union was dissolved by traitors in the CPSU that the world socialist movement took a nose dive and existing socialist nations or nations attempting to build socialism suffered greatly. China was excluded from this because of its informal alliance with the US against the SU which neither the DPRK or Cuba took part in. Cuba had its special period and today is still suffering from it, and because of the reality of the situation, have reeled back socialist construction in admittedly non-revolutionary reforms.

The DPRK was under greater threat. Though unfortunate, it was necessary to go along the path of self defense. Juche. its basically a perpetual war communism in the DPRK today.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwibstDtjB1qap9gno1_500.jpg

[Lucretia]

AFAIK, the DPRK never took part in the slitting of the socialist camp. Its political foundations are resisting imperialism and constructing socialism. Up until the 80s, the DPRK was far better off than ROK to the point where the south was becoming an embarrassment for the west.

You all know of the fact that after the soviet union was dissolved by traitors in the CPSU that the world socialist movement took a nose dive and existing socialist nations or nations attempting to build socialism suffered greatly. China was excluded from this because of its informal alliance with the US against the SU which neither the DPRK or Cuba took part in. Cuba had its special period and today is still suffering from it, and because of the reality of the situation, have reeled back socialist construction in admittedly non-revolutionary reforms.

The DPRK was under greater threat. Though unfortunate, it was necessary to go along the path of self defense. Juche. its basically a perpetual war communism in the DPRK today.


You actually think that NK is a force for progress in the world today? Wowzers.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You actually think that NK is a force for progress in the world today? Wowzers. You're going to have to elaborate on how exactly you reached that conclusion.

[Krano]

I hope Kim Jong Un will be a much better leader then hes father, i never really supported the North Korean regime on anything else exept there Anti-Imperialist psychotic hatred of America. And seeing how happy Americans became after hearing of hes death only makes my position on this much stronger.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Sort of late, but my opinon on his death is that this wont change things on the Korean Pennisula, and as such isn't a big cause for celebration as North Korea is still brutally oppresed by the military and the "Workers Party". Kim Jong un, his son and succesor, will most likely continue down the same path as his father, even though he is quoted by saying "We ride jet skis, ride horses, and have fun together, but what about the common people?" (note this isnt exact, but it's close enough based on memory). Hopefully things will change though, I want North Korea to go down the true path of communism, not the anti-proletariat ideolgies of Juche and Sungun.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

AFAIK, the DPRK never took part in the splitting of the socialist camp. Its political foundations are resisting imperialism and constructing socialism. Up until the 80s, the DPRK was far better off than ROK to the point where the south was becoming an embarrassment for the west.

You all know of the fact that after the soviet union was dissolved by traitors in the CPSU that the world socialist movement took a nose dive and existing socialist nations or nations attempting to build socialism suffered greatly. China was excluded from this because of its informal alliance with the US against the SU which neither the DPRK or Cuba took part in. Cuba had its special period and today is still suffering from it, and because of the reality of the situation, have reeled back socialist construction in admittedly non-revolutionary reforms.

The DPRK was under greater threat. Though unfortunate, it was necessary to go along the path of self defense. Juche. its basically a perpetual war communism in the DPRK today.



I agree with you that the DPRK is having to deal with the threat of South Korea and America practically at its backyard, but that dosent justifiy the former leader Kim Jong IL's lavish lifestyle, and the harsh mistreatment and class elevation of the military. Simply put, War Communism in the Soviet Union was still communism in essence, Self Reliance or Juche is not very communistic at all.

[Lucretia]

You're going to have to elaborate on how exactly you reached that conclusion.

It's a question, not a conclusion.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It's a question, not a conclusion. There is a difference between "you actually think" and "do you think" as the former posits that Rusty Shackleford has posed such as his general stance, while the latter does not.

[Lucretia]

There is a difference between "you actually think" and "do you think" as the former posits that Rusty Shackleford has posed such as his general stance, while the latter does not.

There is a semantic difference, but when both are followed by a question mark, they have effectively the same meaning.

[Illuminati]

Due to the reclusive nature of their country and policy, which is indeed justified when one considers the grave threat to security they face from Amerikkka and their colony to the south; it becomes very easy to concoct all sorts of hideous disinformation about the North Koreans. As you feed from the propaganda trough that is carefully cooked and supplied with just the right ingredients for the class ignorant western working class, one gobble at a time, it begins to build on you. :tt1:

[Comrade Samuel]

Oh good we can finally re-deploy team America else where...

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

It's just one more so-called "communist" out of the way so that we can begin to repair our ruined image in the eyes of the world.

[Chambered Word]

They have no intrest in bombing it back to the stone-age, no consumers in the stone age.
They just want to replace the existing form of capitalism with their own. And yes, I consider liberal-capitalist preferable to semi-feudal capitalism. (and functioning "socialist" capitalism like on Cuba is again better than liberal capitalism, but its all capitalism)
I rather be exploited and well fed than exploited and starved.
You go take a holiday in Cambodia, sorry, live in north Korea for a while.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this psycho, I mean I would rather live in Australia or France than the DPRK for the living standards but I think any acts of imperialism should be opposed, and I'm not sure how the DPRK is really feudal. just seems like one of those Maoist buzzwords nowadays that reactionary 'socialists' use to justify their awful anti-worker conceptions of revolution.


If you don't stand with an anti-imperialist nation that is surrounded by imperialist forces wishing to bomb it back to the stone age and implement capitalism what do you stand for then?

you have a lot to learn about imperialism if you think there are a select few nations which are imperialist and ones which are anti-imperialist. communism isn't a game of geopolitics and imperialism is an inherent tendency in capitalism based on its historical development. imperialism should be opposed but that's not the same as saying that you support the North Korean state and frankly I find anyone who thinks they should align with one sect of capital against another to be an anti-communist.


The lack of a stance is a stance, its siding with the imperialists in the struggle against capital.

'anti-imperialism' as defined by the rhetoric and actions of states such as the DPRK and Libya is not a struggle against capital.


The passing of Kim Jong Il is a sad day for progressives around the world. The people of the DPRK will honor his memory in continuing their struggle.

Anyone who compares the DPRK to a monarchy is obviously not a materialist thinker, which I guess is fine, but just be honest about it. The DPRK has put the Kims in positions of leadership because the people trust their judgment after decades of anti-imperialist struggle. In addition, stability is a good thing when you're in a state of war, which the DPRK has been since the 50's (perhaps some posters here have forgotten that detail). If you want to call it a dynasty in the poetic sense of the word, make yourself happy, but it's hardly persuasive when one looks at the general situation.

I wish I was drunk right now so that this would be funny and not just sad. I mean it's obviously not a monarchy just because the party hands the leadership down the family line. I think your post speaks for itself in that you actually believe North Koreans by and large support their own ruling class. I'm glad Jong-Il is dead but it really means very little for class struggle and I'm certainly not mourning him.



Did I just walk into fox new's forum

lol yes because the Dead Kennedys were totally Fox News conservatives. I think what psycho means here is that you first world 'anti-imperialist' wieners are absolutely condescending in the way you treat workers in poorer countries, imagining them as masses of starry eyed sheep who would love nothing more than to defend their own tyrannical ruling class from the big bad US.

[o well this is ok I guess]

There is a semantic difference, but when both are followed by a question mark, they have effectively the same meaning. Not at all. The former asks for confirmation of a position, while the latter asks for position itself.
Really, you said the former because you thought Rusty Shackleford had actually said such a thing.

[Renegade Saint]

The US did suffer a defeat in that conflict: they failed to achieve their primary military objectives and were forced to accept status quo ante bellum.
North Korea did suffer a defeat in that conflict: they failed to achieve their primary military objectives and were forced to accept status quo ante bellum.

That's what we call a stalemate, not a crushing victory.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Oh good we can finally re-deploy team America else where...

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

It's just one more so-called "communist" out of the way so that we can begin to repair our ruined image in the eyes of the world.

America has gained nothing from Kim's death and certainty would not be able to redeploy as the situation-Korea divided-has yet to resolve itself. This also would not repair any damage to America's perception to the world... why would it? A world leader simply died,what was America's role in this that would be of value to other nations?

[Chambered Word]

Oh good we can finally re-deploy team America else where...

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

It's just one more so-called "communist" out of the way so that we can begin to repair our ruined image in the eyes of the world.

that movie was actually pretty funny when I figured they had to be taking the piss out of pro-American racist chickenhawk mentalities, but then I saw some quote from one of the makers that asserted that it was actually serious. the appeal to the dumber end of the 12 year old boy demographic that movie had made sense all of a sudden. anyone who quotes it after jong-il's death should be punched in the face.

[Lucretia]

Not at all. The former asks for confirmation of a position, while the latter asks for position itself.
Really, you said the former because you thought Rusty Shackleford had actually said such a thing.

I thought he might have said such a thing, but wasn't sure. Hence the question. Again, this is indistinguishable from the standard form of question phrasing, which presupposes a level of suspicion about an idea being true that it requires confirmation in the affirmative or the negative.

Why would I suspect that Rusty might think such a thing? With his statements about the significance of Jong Il for "progressives" -- meaning that Jong Il presumably represented some sort of progressive political force that people who identify as progressive should get behind.

[Susurrus]

i never really supported the North Korean regime on anything else exept there Anti-Imperialist psychotic hatred of America. And seeing how happy Americans became after hearing of hes death only makes my position on this much stronger.

So we support psychosis now? I always thought we based our political attitudes on reality and material conditions...

Oh, and *insert Psycho pun here.*

[tanklv]

Good riddance to bad rubbish!!!

I can't believe people here are acutally SUPPORTING this cretin and this sorry excuse for a country!

What a fucking country - hope the people have a chance to change it for the BETTER!

With the "Dear Son" or whatever rubbish they term the loser son in this nepotism run rampant society, they have no chance in hell...

[o well this is ok I guess]

I thought he might have said such a thing, but wasn't sure. Hence the question. Again, this is indistinguishable from the standard form of question phrasing, which presupposes a level of suspicion about an idea being true that it requires confirmation in the affirmative or the negative.

Why would I suspect that Rusty might think such a thing? With his statements about the significance of Jong Il for "progressives" -- meaning that Jong Il presumably represented some sort of progressive political force that people who identify as progressive should get behind. Then we'll conclude this to be an error in communication or interpretation, and drop the topic.
Though I do not think Rusty is saying that the DPRK is presently progressive.

[Susurrus]

BTW, since Kim Il Sung is the Eternal President, it is not a monarchy, but a necrocracy.

[o well this is ok I guess]

BTW, since Kim Il Sung is the Eternal President, it is not a monarchy, but a necrocracy. >implying eternal president can die

he merely hibernates, awaiting the death of imperialism in which he can usher in the glorious golden age of global juche.

[Prometeo liberado]

Thank you for that post comrade. I was just about ready to write something similar but you beat me to the punch, although in a much more precise and informed manner. We, as members of the PSL must always call out the misrepresentations we encounter.

[Rooster]

I'm still not getting where this anti-imperialist thing is coming from. What about the economic zones, the allowing of foreign investment in it's infrastructure and it's for hire labour armies? Isn't this just allowing imperialist exploitation? :confused:

[manic expression]

North Korea did suffer a defeat in that conflict: they failed to achieve their primary military objectives and were forced to accept status quo ante bellum.

That's what we call a stalemate, not a crushing victory.
Once the illegal UN imperialist invasion began, the DPRK's primarily military objective switched to not being wiped off the face of the planet...and that was achieved.


I wish I was drunk right now so that this would be funny and not just sad. I mean it's obviously not a monarchy just because the party hands the leadership down the family line. I think your post speaks for itself in that you actually believe North Koreans by and large support their own ruling class. I'm glad Jong-Il is dead but it really means very little for class struggle and I'm certainly not mourning him.
And you actually believe that the people of the DPRK have absolutely no involvement with their government whatsoever. Of course we're going to disagree, but I can point to decades of struggle on the part of the people of the country for the cause that their state represents. I think that speaks for itself.

[Krano]

So we support psychosis now? I always thought we based our political attitudes on reality and material conditions...

Oh, and *insert Psycho pun here.*
Wasn't putting anyone else in the same boat as me, was simply explaining how i feel about this.

[Chambered Word]

And you actually believe that the people of the DPRK have absolutely no involvement with their government whatsoever. Of course we're going to disagree, but I can point to decades of struggle on the part of the people of the country for the cause that their state represents. I think that speaks for itself.

you're welcome to actually demonstrate where this is happening, and in any case it doesn't invalidate anything else I've pointed out about the DPRK.

[OHumanista]

I am sick with the number of people (who I can hardly call people) defending our "Supreme Leader" with tooth and nail. But then again I am only sick, not surprised that most of you don't give a damn about communism or even basic human decency.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

IMO, the Japanese Empire was in the mold of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires...are you saying they're like the DPRK? Why?


Stagnated bureaucracies tend to produce patronage networks as the main mode of economic control. Patronage networks in the DPRK particularly stem from the military and bureaucratic elite, and it is the military which dominates the economic and political priorities and decisions. It is these patronage networks that are the basic economic underpinning of feudal societies but also in bureaucratic militarism. The reason they chose a family succession is because it creates more stability, as social and political instability threatens their political and economic networks. A lack of bottom-up accountability or decision-making reinforces that, as these politically connected people are able to protect their benefits under those circumstances.

The highly metaphysical and not material nature of their government is further evidence of this. Monarchies love to base themselves in an idealistic metaphysics ... the Japanese had a myth of how the emperor descends from Kami, while North Korea has the myth of Kim Il Sung as the eternal president and that Kim Jong Il's birth was heralded by swallows and rainbows on the mountaintop. A monarchy needs absurd narratives like this to explain why a family member is essentially more qualified than everyone else in the country.



It's not preservation of family rule if it wasn't the family that made the choice.
It's never only the family that makes the choice to maintain a monarchy. When it's only the family making that choice, you usually get a change of dynasty. The approval of other elites and oligarchs is necessary to maintain a stable monarchic dynasty. Kim Jong Un was chosen by the elite, not "the masses". I've seen no evidence at all that there was ever a real popular debate on who took over after Kim died.

The fact that the leaders were never held for the more irresponsible and insane decisions they took, like kidnapping Japanese people, is great evidence of the class nature of the government. The powerful elites are willing to accept the price of a little eccentricity on the part of the leader for the sake of stability.



And? 28-year-olds can be great leaders.
Most aren't, however, or in the least they are usually less effective than those with experience. What qualities did Kim Jong Un have that made him more desirable than other candidates? Were there other candidates? Were the North Korean people really introduced to their future leader before he was chosen?



I don't find it nepotism, it was a choice made by the people of the DPRK.
I agree that people in the DPRK made that decision, but it wasn't "the people" as in the general everyday population. It is the elites in the military and the Pyongyang bureaucracy which OKed the decision. The increased access of the Kim family is why it happened the way it did. In that respect yes it was nepotism.



Still shows that your assumption isn't necessarily true.If my assumption was that monarchs always produce a bad successor, you'd have a point. I'm actually claiming that the arbitrary nature of the succession system in a dynasty is a game of Russian Roulette. One guy is a genius and his son will be a corrupt lunatic ... or there isn't any son with the political credibility to rule in the long-term (which happened after Alexander the Great died)



Grassroots organizing rarely has "real independence"...the whole point of grassroots is that it roots something larger than itself.
No, but there are varying levels of central control. The DPRK has an exceptionally heavy level.



The DPRK is not using the external threat of imperialism for purposes of manipulation, it's trying to make a peace agreement so they can get on with things. Do you really think that US imperialism is doing what it's doing unwillingly?

The DPRK has been a thorn in the side of the ambitions of imperialism for decades. Of course the imperialists want to "get rid" of such a "problem".A country can have a real threat, and then use that real threat to repress its people. The US "war on terrorism" is a good example. It's not that al Qaeda doesn't exist or isn't a threat to the safety of many US citizens but that the US government members exaggerate the threat to preserve their class rule and class status.

Plenty of countries have been a "thorn in the side of Imperialism". None have responded with the level of repression that you see in the DPRK. I think the way that the DPRK is a "thorn" in Imperialism is not particularly helpful either. It sells arms to a lot of other equally odious governments like the one in Iran, but I've never heard of it trying to organize the international working class. It is also increasingly becoming a tool of Chinese Imperialism, which within a matter of years could become as much of a threat to the international working class as American Imperialism (OK I'm sure you disagree with me on that but w/e)

As for whether the US would actually attack the DPRK in an aggressive action ... well they haven't done so since the fall of the USSR. It would actually be in the interests of US Imperialism to have peace with North Korea because the DPRK has few resources and because it is a close ally of China and therefore the regime will not fall so easily, while on the other hand the North Korean military could cause severe damage to the economy of East Asia. Peace with the DPRK means economic stability, which is great for liberal investors (though bad for war profiteers), and military security, which is great for America's regional allies. On the other hand it would be strategically insane for the US to attack North Korea unprovoked. So in other words an unprovoked invasion would increase America's deficit to the People's Republic of China by trillions of dollars, while simultaneously pissing said PRC off incredibly, while South Korea and Japan receives heavy destruction from artillery (let alone the nukes), while millions of Koreans on both sides would need to be given tons of aid, all for no real gain in resources.


Watch "Crossing the Line" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyDuArZgdao), a documentary about a US defector living in the DPRK. It follows him on some of his more daily activities...the image of Pyongyang I got from it was neither rose-tinted nor the myths you hear in the media. They talk about the famine too.


I agree, it's a good movie. It's one of the few good movies about life in North Korea out there and it isn't propagandistic on behalf of either side. However it only gives a view life in Pyongyang, which is a nicer place to live than anywhere else in the DPRK. It also doesn't go much into how the political decisions are made, which is incredibly opaque.



When Lenin died, telegrams poured in from all corners of the country, pleading with the government to display Lenin's body so that future generations could see the man who led their liberation. IIRC, they were going to honor Lenin's will and bury him, but in the face of public outcry they started planning for the tomb we have today.However in the process a new fetish is created, a fetish which can't possibly lead to the liberation of the working class.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm still not getting where this anti-imperialist thing is coming from. What about the economic zones, the allowing of foreign investment in it's infrastructure and it's for hire labour armies? Isn't this just allowing imperialist exploitation? :confused:
The soviet union allowed foreign investment in its early days.
The soviet union had what was called the NEP (not that it was great or anything)
the soviet union didnt really have SEZs though, at least that i know of.


also, i believe the only country its doing the SEZs with is china.

[Rodrigo]

...yeah. Also, advocating FOR nuclear war is such a wonderful stance to be had.

Those are the only things you heard on the video? Will you criticize me using his words, using three fucking phrases from the whole video? :glare:

Be smart in the next post, please.

[Rodrigo]

With such "leftist" jerks, who need a right-wing?

[Renegade Saint]

Once the illegal UN imperialist invasion began, the DPRK's primarily military objective switched to not being wiped off the face of the planet...and that was achieved.
:lol::lol::lol:
Just like after the US invaded Iraq the definition of 'success' was changed from finding WMDs to keeping the country in one piece. Hence, Great Success! You can't change the goalposts like that and expect to be taken seriously.

I sincerely wish that the people riding the Kims' collective dick in this thread could spend one year as a North Korean Prole. Or on a North Korean labor camp in Russia: http://www.vice.com/vice-news/north-korean-labor-camps-part-1

[Nox]

>defend north korea
>claim to be a communist

Can't do both :(

[Rodrigo]

"Advocating FOR nuclear war is such a wonderful stance to be had"

Can you show when in that video Dugin advocated for nuclear war?

[VILemon]

The DPRK is semi-feudal? and it would be better for them to just be capitalist? lolwut


That's called Marxism. And, I'm not really sure how the shitty situation of the Korean working class, or pointing out that they don't hold meaningful power over the MOP, has anything to do with Trotskyism.

[Rodrigo]

Anti-DPRK propaganda in BBC documentaries (like Crossing The Line) are very clear. Not just from phrases at the very beginning like "a country ruled by one man/party" (no country is ruled by one man and actually there are 3 political parties - only one is the communist party); but also from the soundtrack and phrasal constructions with good-old sensationalism.

[Rooster]

The soviet union allowed foreign investment in its early days.

So? Is that facilitating exploitation again?


The soviet union had what was called the NEP (not that it was great or anything)

Which has what do to with anything?


the soviet union didnt really have SEZs though, at least that i know of.

I don't think the soviet union really needed any and besides, we're talking about north korea.



also, i believe the only country its doing the SEZs with is china.

False. There are economic zones shared with south korea, particularly with hyundai, ie, international capital. Secondly, China is also integrated with international capital using it's own disciplined work force so why bring this up? Thirdly, what about the labour force that north korea hires out to gain itself capital?

[VILemon]

Anti-DPRK propaganda in BBC documentaries (like Crossing The Line) are very clear. Not just from phrases at the very beginning like "a country ruled by one man/party" (no country is ruled by one man and actually there are 3 political parties - only one is the communist party); but also from the soundtrack and phrasal constructions with good-old sensationalism.

These are not political parties in the sense of representing different interests or segments of the population. The three parties are all obligated, I believe constitutionally, to follow the political directives of the Korean Worker's Party. They all are, effectively, part of a single party called "Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland." If you know enough to know that these three parties exist, then you should know enough to see through this bullshit.

[Thirsty Crow]

Abandoning their materialism? What materialism? Comparing the DPRK to the Bourbon Dynasty is in no way materialist, it ignores the countless differences in social structure, economic base, historical development, governmental functioning and so on and so forth.You know what, I think that you do have a point here.
All in all, it indeed is problematic, from a purely analytical perspective, to make such comparisons because they do rest on a reduction of sorts of historical, social and economic factors.

Though, I do think that your flawed political positions (to put it mildly) prevent you from realizing the analogical value of such overstatements (since they do in fact isolate one aspect of the social life in DPRK accurately).


But what of the more poetic invocations of "dynasty" we keep hearing? You say it's a bad government because you believe that no one in the DPRK would willingly show genuine sadness over the passing of their country's leader. That belief is what informs your views on this, nothing more.I think I expressed myself poorly.
I do not think that what was aired by official media is nothing more than staged hysteria. And I do not shy away from calling it what it is - a belief. Which is only obvious since I do not have access to facts which would confirm this, we might call it also a suspicion.


What's more, do you doubt the value of trust in political issues?When the political structure of a society functions in the way that DPRK's does, when there is not even a formal mechanism of expression of this "trust", then not only does the notion have no value whatsoever, but it is also a nice piece for the demagogues to play with.


Lastly, we have missed the most important point, that being of stability in a state of war. Should the people of the DPRK change up their entire leadership in the middle of a war with the US, just to make some people who don't support their government anyway feel better? I think not, and apparently neither do the people of the DPRK.Comrade, you can justify anything by reference to eternal war, absolutely anything. How about even a hint of political democracy instead of what effectively works as a military dictatorship enmeshed with party-state rule monopolized by a family as showpieces (or as real figures of power - I don't pretend to know everything on the issue)? Why would succession of family members guarantee this stability? In what way is father-to-son rule preferable to intra-party elections, for instance?

[Rodrigo]

These are not political parties in the sense of representing different interests or segments of the population. The three parties are all obligated, I believe constitutionally, to follow the political directives of the Korean Worker's Party. They all are, effectively, part of a single party called "Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland." If you know enough to know that these three parties exist, then you should know enough to see through this bullshit.

They do represent different interests of the population (like other organizations which are not political parties and are also inside this Front), but one will always be on the lead (and I'm not speaking only about DPRK, but the entire politics). And of course, in a socialist Marxist-Leninist country, it's the Communist Party which is in the lead. Any problem? Well, not for the North Korean working class and they have good reasons for that. Like Dugin said, and everyone here should agree (as this is RevLeft and not ConRight, LibRight or FuckOffTheLeft): "We need to find why they like it instead of laughing at them or yelling".

A communist shouldn't be bothered by socialization/collectivisation of the means of production, organizations of workers controlling workplaces and developing the country without extraction of surplus value or the fact a communist party is the most popular political party in some place of the world. Because that's what happen at DPRK.

[Krano]

They do represent different interests of the population (like other organizations which are not political parties and are also inside this Front), but one will always be on the lead (and I'm not speaking only about DPRK, but the entire politics). And of course, in a socialist Marxist-Leninist country, it's the Communist Party which is in the lead. Any problem? Well, not for the North Korean working class and they have good reasons for that. Like Dugin said, and everyone here should agree (as this is RevLeft and not ConRight, LibRight or FuckOffTheLeft): "We need to find why they like it instead of laughing at them or yelling".

A communist shouldn't be bothered by socialization/collectivisation of the means of production, organizations of workers controlling workplaces and developing the country without extraction of surplus value or the fact a communist party is the most popular political party in some place of the world. Because that's what happen at DPRK.
Is that why Kim sold some of hes people as workforce for Russia? Doesn't exactly sound like taking control of the means of production, more like Feudalism.

[Omsk]

And of course, in a socialist Marxist-Leninist country


Are you trying to say that the DPRK is Marxist-Leninist?

[cheguvera]

I dont think north korea have a socialism.But definitely they have a royal family.
Is it true that 10% north korean population died of starvation due to famine they had in 90s.?

[Sasha]

We need to find why they like it instead of laughing at them or yelling".I already told you; Stockholm syndrome, it works on populations too.
To understand the sociological and psychological behavior of both north korean civilians as their regime economic theory, Marxist or not, is completely useless. One need to look at cult(leader)s, brainwashing and hostage behavior.
The North-korean regime controls its population like its a cult, other fields of science may explain WHY they do it but HOW they do it is pure psychology.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So? Is that facilitating exploitation again?

it was done out of necessity. you cant just drop off the face of the earth. And socialism doesnt magically appear ready made and in effect when you have a revolution or a new government emerge from WWII.


Which has what do to with anything?previous point.


I don't think the soviet union really needed any and besides, we're talking about north korea.
no, the soviet union didnt, this is a different context and you are right. im just showing the points of 'bending' to avoid 'breaking'

with that in mind, China and the DPRK are very 'bent'



False. There are economic zones shared with south korea, particularly with hyundai, ie, international capital. Secondly, China is also integrated with international capital using it's own disciplined work force so why bring this up? Thirdly, what about the labour force that north korea hires out to gain itself capital?ah you got me on that one. im not very well versed on the situation in Asia, i'll admit. and yeah, it slipped my mind that ROK sends workers into the DPRK and has factories there.


My guess is the DPRK is moving towards the China model that currently exists. Im not advocating it, but thats what seems to be happening since they both share borders and in the region, are the only two states with communist parties in control that are not somewhat hostile to each other. (vietnam-china for example and i havent heard a thing about Laos)

that being said, China and the DPRK have total control on foreign trade. Its not a 'free' open border system for international capital to just waltz on through like most of the rest of the world. China requires that a company, if it wants to produce or build something in China, must give up its 'trade secrets,' basically technology information, schematics blueprints models and what not. Recently on NPR some business guy was complaining about how 'tough' it is to open up shop in china but regardless they are willing to go along with it because of the cheap labor and the relative freedom of the SEZs. Thats that whole rightist line in the CPC. just make themselves technologically up to date by 2050 or whatever.

There are a few joint venture SEZs between PRC and DRPK though.


If someone could elaborate on these points, that would be great.

[Renegade Saint]

"We need to find why they like it instead of laughing at them or yelling".

How about we find out if they like it?

And even if they do, in a society as insulated and propagandized as North Korea that doesn't mean much. The people in Brave New World "like[d] it" too.

[Rodrigo]

How about we find out if they like it?

Did you see how they mourned for the death of Kim Jong-il -- like they did when Kim Il-sung died -- instead of celebrating? That's one example. Learn something... You have the right of not liking DPRK, but you not liking it doesn't mean the North Korean doesn't like it too, understand?


And even if they do, in a society as insulated and propagandized as North Korea that doesn't mean much. The people in Brave New World "like[d] it" too.

You're creating excuses so you won't have to admit they like DPRK. I know many people who gone there and visited places US visitors (for example) wouldn't see, like Sariwon or Nampon and some factories. If you really think that country is "hell on earth" then you are the one completely mistaken by propaganda, just a sheep of capitalist media playing leftism to seem cool (like the other ones mocking DPRK instead of defending it).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Did you see how they mourned for the death of Kim Jong-il -- like they did when Kim Il-sung died -- instead of celebrating? That's one example. Learn something... You have the right of not liking DPRK, but you not liking it doesn't mean the North Korean doesn't like it too, understand?

News that comes out of the DPRK is filtered through it's state media.

[praxis1966]

You're creating excuses so you won't have to admit they like DPRK. I know many people who gone there and visited places US visitors (for example) wouldn't see, like Sariwon or Nampon and some factories. If you really think that country is "hell on earth" then you are the one completely mistaken by propaganda, just a sheep of capitalist media playing leftism to seem cool (like the other ones mocking DPRK instead of defending it).

By the above logic, I should completely give up every last one of my political positions since the majority of Americans "like" capitalism. :rolleyes:

[Chambered Word]

By the above logic, I should completely give up every last one of my political positions since the majority of Americans "like" capitalism. :rolleyes:

exactly. when it suits the pro-DPRK crowd, they're happy to spew workerist crap, but when workers do something they don't approve of they're 'counterrevolutionaries' or US stooges.

[Prometeo liberado]

I just read from rueters that there was a shift in the north korean leadership. Apparently there will be a joint council made up of the brother-in-law of the elder kim and kims sister along with little fatty kim.

[Prometeo liberado]

This is the article:
BEIJING (Reuters) - North Korea will shift to collective rule from a strongman dictatorship after last week's death of Kim Jong-il, although his untested young son will be at the head of the ruling coterie, a source with close ties to Pyongyang and Beijing said.
The source added that the military, which is trying to develop a nuclear arsenal, has pledged allegiance to the untested Kim Jong-un, who takes over the family dynasty that has ruled North Korea since it was founded after World War Two.
The source declined to be identified but has correctly predicted events in the past, telling Reuters about the North's first nuclear test in 2006 before it took place.
The comments are the first signal that North Korea is following a course that many analysts have anticipated -- it will be governed by a group of people for the first time since it was founded in 1948.
Both Kim Jong-il and his father Kim Il-sung were all-powerful, authoritarian rulers of the isolated state.
The situation in North Korea appeared stable after the military gave its backing to Kim Jong-un, the source said.
"It's very unlikely," the source said when asked about the possibility of a military coup. "The military has pledged allegiance to Kim Jong-un."
North Korea's collective leadership will include Kim Jong-un, his uncle and the military, the source said.
Jang Song-thaek, 65, brother-in-law of Kim Jong-il and the younger Kim's uncle, is seen as the power behind the throne along with his wife Kim Kyong-hui, Kim Jong-il's sister. So too is Ri Yong-ho, the rising star of the North's military and currently its most senior general.
The younger Kim, who is in his late 20s, has his own supporters but is not strong enough to consolidate power, analysts said.
"I know that he's been able to build a group of supporters around himself who are of his generation," said Koh Yu-hwan, president of the Korean Association of North Korean Studies in Seoul.
"So it is not entirely elders in their 70s, plus some like Jang in their 60s, who are backing him. These young backers will be emerging fairly soon."
Koh said the coterie was put in place by Kim Jong-il before he died. "The relative calm seen these few days shows it's been effective. If things were not running smoothly, then we'd have seen a longer period of 'rule by mummy', with Kim Jong-il being faked as still being alive."
He said the younger Kim would accept the set-up, for now. "Considering the tradition of strongarm rule by his father and grandfather, things can't be easy for him," he said.
"REGIME SURVIVAL"
Ralph Cossa, an authority on North Korea and president of the U.S. think tank Pacific Forum CSIS, said it made sense that the ruling group would stick together.
"All have a vested interest in regime survival," he said. "Their own personal safety and survival is inextricably tied to regime survival and Kim Jong-un is the manifestation of this. I think the regime will remain stable, at least in the near-term."
He added in a commentary that the new group may be inclined to reform, but stressed this was far from confirmed.
"Over the long term, there appears to be some hope, primarily emanating from Beijing, that Kim Jong-un will take North Korea down the path of Chinese-style reform, apparently based on the belief that Jang is or will be a 'reformer'."
"Who knows, this may be true. While this could relieve the suffering of the North Korean people over time, it will do little to promote the cause of denuclearization, however."
The high-level source also said North Korea test-fired a missile on Monday to warn the United States not to make any moves against it. Pyongyang however had no immediate plans for further tests, barring an escalation of tensions.
"With the missile test, (North) Korea wanted to deliver the message that they have the ability to protect themselves," the source said.
"But (North) Korea is unlikely to conduct a nuclear test in the near future unless provoked" by the United States and South Korea, the source said.
The unpredictable North's nuclear program has been a nagging source of tension for the international community.
Pyongyang carried out nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, and has quit six-party talks with South Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia on abandoning its nuclear program and returning to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The high-level source also said Beijing was only notified of Kim's death earlier on Monday, the same day North Korean state television broadcast the news. Kim died on Saturday.
A leading South Korean newspaper reported on Wednesday China learned of Kim's death soon after it occurred.
China has given no official comment or even hints suggesting it was told of Kim's death before the public announcement.
Beijing, the North's closest ally and biggest provider of aid, has pulled out the stops to support the younger Kim.
The government has invited him to visit and, in an unusual gesture, President Hu Jintao and Vice-President Xi Jinping also visited the hermit state's embassy in Beijing to express their condolences. Roads leading to the embassy were blocked.
Mainly, the prospect of instability on its northeastern border worries China and it sees the younger Kim and his coterie as the best prospect for keeping North Korea on an even keel.
North Korea has been pressed by China to denuclearize and is willing to do so on condition that North and South Korea, the United States and China sign an armistice replacing a 1953 ceasefire agreement, the source said.
The two Koreas have been divided for decades and remain technically at war since their 1950-53 conflict ended with an armistice but no peace agreement. The United States backed the South, while China supported the North in that conflict.
Pyongyang is also convinced there are U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea and demands Washington pull them out, the source said.
(Additional reporting by Jack Kim in Seoul; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Jonathan Thatcher)

[Renegade Saint]

I think ridicule is the only appropriate response to people so divorced from reality as to laud the Kim dynasty. Clearly reason and facts won't work, since the only trustworthy facts are those that come from other Stalinists (or should I say Jucheists?)

How much do you want to bet that these people would lose their shit over a capitalist Hungary doing something like this (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/) but think North Korea is a great people's democracy (and even a 'multi-party' one at that!).

[Agathor]

Most Russians in the 19th century supported the Romanov dynasty and adored the Tsar. The anarchists who arrived in their villages to educate them in revolution were chased out when they attacked the monarchy.

Anyway, I doubt many North Koreans are genuinely fond of elder Kim or the flabby lad who is replacing him. There is probably a good reason why every documentary crew allowed into North Korea are kept as far away from the masses as possible. And note that camera crews have only been allowed into certain areas: Pyongyang and a few highways. Only hidden cameras have captured the rural slums where tree bark is part of the diet and around a million people starved to death in the 90s.

Anyway, I'm not interested in a protracted argument with the kiddies defending North Korea. Frankly, I think they should all be banned. If they defended the Janjaweed (whose crimes seem to be much smaller than those of the Worker's Party of Korea) they would be gone. But because the North Korean barons occasionally call themselves communists it's alright to support their crimes.

[Chambered Word]

Most Russians in the 19th century supported the Romanov dynasty and adored the Tsar. The anarchists who arrived in their villages to educate them in revolution were chased out when they attacked the monarchy.

really? the impression I got was the opposite. I don't see why peasants would be receptive towards middle class Narodniks telling them they should be conducting a revolution anyway.

[Agathor]

really? the impression I got was the opposite. I don't see why peasants would be receptive towards middle class Narodniks telling them they should be conducting a revolution anyway.

They were completely rejected by the peasants, and that's why they turned to terrorism shortly afterwards. It's pretty well known that the Russian peasants saw the Tsar as a benevolent god-father, and blamed all of the shortcomings of feudalism on landlords, ministers etc. It's like how in Feudal Britain nobody ever criticized the king, only his advisers.

Actually a huge majority of Russians were probably pro-Tsar right to the end.

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm not reading "defending" the North Korean regime but understanding the implications that it finds itself looking if they engage in any type of change. A truly unique situation in which no side can benefit from.

[DaringMehring]

His legacy safe at last, Tiger Woods breathes a sigh of relief.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They were completely rejected by the peasants, and that's why they turned to terrorism shortly afterwards. It's pretty well known that the Russian peasants saw the Tsar as a benevolent god-father, and blamed all of the shortcomings of feudalism on landlords, ministers etc. It's like how in Feudal Britain nobody ever criticized the king, only his advisers.

Actually a huge majority of Russians were probably pro-Tsar right to the end.

No they weren't. The czar was toppled in March 1917 for a reason.

[Agathor]

No they weren't. The czar was toppled in March 1917 for a reason.

The Tsar was toppled by urban uprisings in Petrograd and Moscow. 80% of Russians were peasants in 1917 and had no part in either of them.

[Omsk]

Actually a huge majority of Russians were probably pro-Tsar right to the end.

This is not true,the Tzar was very unpopular,and the reactionary troops hated him,as he failed to succesefully fight the Germans.Even the Preobrazhensky Regiment of Guard, the oldest and staunchest regiment founded by Peter the Great mutinied against his rule.
He was an incompetent ruler.

Lets not derail the thread further.(Although the thread isnt too serious)

[manic expression]

By the above logic, I should completely give up every last one of my political positions since the majority of Americans "like" capitalism. :rolleyes:
Let's not march into vague claims. When a people supports a leadership after decades of struggle against imperialism, that's one thing. When a people passively says that an economic system is OK because they've never seriously considered anything else, that's another. Equating the two with no view to distinction is rather unhelpful.

[Solar Storm]

finally that fucker was only giving communist an bad name

[Sasha]

Let's not march into vague claims. When a people supports a leadership after decades of struggle against imperialism, that's one thing. When a people passively says that an economic system is OK because they've never seriously considered anything else, that's another. Equating the two with no view to distinction is rather unhelpful.

I think more people in the US considerd something else than north koreans, seriously, are you gonna keep dancing around the terror and brainwashing and complete isolation? It's so telling that the first people to get their panties in a bunch over the pledge of alliance and salluting the flag and praying in school suddenly ignore that north-korean kids spend hours, from their first day in school, singing and dancing every day the glory of the Kim-gods. the same people to champion mumia & peltier and such and are the first to play the FBI cointelpro card suddenly ignore the widespread political terror in "anti-imperialist" countries. The same people to complain over the fox monopoly dismiss that north-koreans can not just flip to a different channel or go online to find out what's really happening.
Seriously, this is getting a pathetic religious "don't confuse me with the facts when my mind is made up" taste

[Os Cangaceiros]

korean people who support the DPRK = principled partisans against imperialism, who have a balanced and accurate view of the system they support

american people who support the american government and/or capitalism = merely a bad case of false consciousness

also, lol:



Natural Wonders Observed

Pyongyang, December 21 (KCNA) -- Peculiar natural wonders were observed on Mt. Paektu, Jong Il Peak and Tonghung Hill in Hamhung City where the statue of President Kim Il Sung is standing at a time when all Korean people are mourning the demise of leader Kim Jong Il in bitterest sorrow.

On the morning of Dec. 17 layers of ice were broken on Lake Chon on Mt. Paektu, shaking the lake with big noise.

The Group for Comprehensive Exploration of Lake Chon on Mt. Paektu said it was the first time that such big noise was heard from the ridge of Janggun Peak and the lake.

The temperature on Mt. Paektu that day registered 22.4 degrees centigrade below zero and there was strong wind accompanied by snowstorm measuring 18 meters per second.

The snowstorm stopped blowing all of a sudden from dawn of Tuesday and heavy clouds were seen hanging around Hyangdo Peak.

At around 8:05 a.m. the sky began turning red with sunrise on the horizon. The peaks looked like a picture for wide and thick glow.

Kim Jong Il's autographic writings "Mt. Paektu, holy mountain of revolution. Kim Jong Il." carved on the mountain, in particular, were bright with glow.

This phenomenon lasted till 5:00 pm.

Glow was seen atop Jong Il Peak for half an hour from 16:50 on Dec. 19 when the nation was shocked by the news of the leader's demise. This was the first of its kind in dozens of years since the observation of the area was started.

A natural wonder was also observed around the statue of the President standing on Tonghung Hill.

At around 21:20 Tuesday a Manchurian crane was seen flying round the statue three times before alighting on a tree. The crane stayed there for quite a long while with its head drooped and flew in the direction of Pyongyang at around 22:00.

Observing this, the director of the Management Office for the Hamhung Revolutionary Site, and others said in union that even the crane seemed to mourn the demise of Kim Jong Il born of Heaven after flying down there at dead of cold night, unable to forget him."

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

[manic expression]

I think more people in the US considerd something else than north koreans, seriously, are you gonna keep dancing around the terror and brainwashing and complete isolation? It's so telling that the first people to get their panties in a bunch over the pledge of alliance and salluting the flag and praying in school suddenly ignore that north-korean kids spend hours, from their first day in school, singing and dancing every day the glory of the Kim-gods. the same people to champion mumia & peltier and such and are the first to play the FBI cointelpro card suddenly ignore the widespread political terror in "anti-imperialist" countries. The same people to complain over the fox monopoly dismiss that north-koreans can not just flip to a different channel or go online to find out what's really happening.
Seriously, this is getting a pathetic religious "don't confuse me with the facts when my mind is made up" taste
If you want to talk of religious belief, we should talk of religious devotion to the media's false depiction of the DPRK.

"Terror and brainwashing and complete isolation" is just a string of unproven assertions. Terror? The only group terrorizing the people of the DPRK is imperialism, which destroyed the country once and is strangling it today. Brainwashing? Celebrating national heroes is not "brainwashing", and furthermore no one is mourning the death of Kim Jong Il because they were forced to. Complete isolation? Blame the inhumane imperialist sanctions, not the DPRK.

[manic expression]

korean people who support the DPRK = principled partisans against imperialism, who have a balanced and accurate view of the system they support

american people who support the american government and/or capitalism = merely a bad case of false consciousness
Nationality doesn't enter into it. It's a matter of the way a people arrives to a given position. US capitalism is passively accepted by many workers because it's seemingly untouchable, whereas the DPRK has won the active acceptance of its people because of its constant struggle against imperialism.

The people of the DPRK have had ample opportunity to submarine their government if they so wished. The fact that they haven't seems to suggest a great measure of support.

[Sasha]

Your delusional, the people I know that visited north korea, all revolutionary leftists, all describe the mindset of north koreans as terrified to the bone.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nationality doesn't enter into it.

It does in this specific case, because someone compared American workers to DPRK workers.


It's a matter of the way a people arrives to a given position. US capitalism is passively accepted by many workers because it's seemingly untouchable, whereas the DPRK has won the active acceptance of its people because of its constant struggle against imperialism.

That's just you believing your own bullshit.


The people of the DPRK have had ample opportunity to submarine their government if they so wished. The fact that they haven't seems to suggest a great measure of support.

How ridiculous. So people not violently overthrowing their government is a sign that they're happy with their government? By that measure countries like Burma, Chad and Haiti must be great, after all those countries aren't embroiled in violent revolutions at the moment. :rolleyes: Any mass resistance to the regime would be machine-gunned down, think middle eastern uprisings, only without all the pesky international attention.

[manic expression]

Your delusional, the people I know that visited north korea, all revolutionary leftists, all describe the mindset of north koreans as terrified to the bone.
I'd like more information on that. I had the impression that people on tours didn't get to talk to all that many DPRK citizens directly.


It does in this specific case, because someone compared American workers to DPRK workers.
But it was a comment on a working class and its relationship to a given state, it could have just as easily been a comparison of DPRK and RoK workers.


That's just you believing your own bullshit.
How so?


How ridiculous. So people not violently overthrowing their government is a sign that they're happy with their government? By that measure countries like Burma, Chad and Haiti must be great, after all those countries aren't embroiled in violent revolutions at the moment. :rolleyes: Any mass resistance to the regime would be machine-gunned down, think middle eastern uprisings, only without all the pesky international attention.
To take one of your examples, Haiti's popular government was overthrown by an imperialist-backed coup, and now the imperialists are controlling the country through force. My point was that seeing as the DPRK is under imperialist siege and facing very difficult circumstances, it could not survive very long without substantial support from the people of the DPRK.

And no, if there were protests in the DPRK there would be non-stop 24-hour attention focused on it.

[Lucretia]

It's amazing how many thoughtful posters have been banned in the past couple of weeks, while the Kim apologists are free to remain here spewing their vile cultish nonsense. So sad how the left always eats the best of its own.

[DaringMehring]

Why were they banned? The site wasn't working for me and I missed it.

[DaringMehring]

I guess the people defecting from North Korea / being executed or sent to prison camp for defecting don't count in the "loving (non-terrorized) population" because they aren't real people.

I guess Kim shot a 31 including 11 holes in one on his first round of golf?

I guess a progressive country doing the best it can with scarce resources, has everything to be afraid of from visitors and journalists, and certainly doesn't kidnap foreigners and enslave them to its own purpose.

I guess the sky turned red when Kim died and volcanos began to erupt from under ice?

I guess the ruling class in a workers state should not be the proletariat but the military bureaucracy, that sucks an enormous portion of the GDP, while the people are undernourished and grow to be inches shorter than their south Korean counterparts.

I guess a double rainbow and a bright star appeared as Kim, who would go on to compose six operas, was born?

Of course N. Korea was bordered a hostile power, and physically destroyed in war... we can see some material causes as well as the anti-Marxist Juche ideology, for the complete degeneration of the Korean revolution (really more a war of national liberation). But degenerated it obviously is, past any reasonable point of socialist defensibility -- it is nowhere close to how the late-stage, degenerated USSR used to be.

"That means you support US Imperialism against Korea!" Actually I don't support US Imperialism against any country no matter how disgusting its leaders or social system.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nationality doesn't enter into it. It's a matter of the way a people arrives to a given position. US capitalism is passively accepted by many workers because it's seemingly untouchable, whereas the DPRK has won the active acceptance of its people because of its constant struggle against imperialism.

...


How so?


This sort of a circular argument. What evidence do we have that the people of the DRPK support their government for anti-Imperialist reasons, other than the propaganda of their government? As for the US government, many Americans have faith in it for defeating Japanese and Nazi Imperialism, but that does not make American policies justified. Neither does American Imperialism justify the level of control and micromanagement by the DPRK.



The people of the DPRK have had ample opportunity to submarine their government if they so wished. The fact that they haven't seems to suggest a great measure of support.

Or a great level of fear.

Great level of support can be created by a government by constant propaganda as well, especially when that propaganda no longer reflects reality. Did you read the article posted by Explosive Situation regarding the absurd metaphysical mythologizing taken by a supposedly "materialist" government? If people are caught up in the whole absurd mythology (and State Media would not spread that story unless they thought that many in Korea actually believed it), it's a lot easier to support a leader. But that means that their support is not based on their authentic opinions or interests but that which is dictated to them night after night by the state propaganda ministry.


I'd like more information on that. I had the impression that people on tours didn't get to talk to all that many DPRK citizens directly.
.

Doesn't that make you in the least bit suspicious that the DPRK doesn't let tourists talk to the locals too much?



But it was a comment on a working class and its relationship to a given state, it could have just as easily been a comparison of DPRK and RoK workers.


Is there evidence? Or merely an affirmation of faith in the anti-Imperialist worldview? The DPRK is not managed by the working class but by party and military elites, and all we have to go on that the people support them for their glorious anti-Imperialist leadership is their word and that of their state media.



To take one of your examples, Haiti's popular government was overthrown by an imperialist-backed coup, and now the imperialists are controlling the country through force. My point was that seeing as the DPRK is under imperialist siege and facing very difficult circumstances, it could not survive very long without substantial support from the people of the DPRK.

And no, if there were protests in the DPRK there would be non-stop 24-hour attention focused on it

Well, Haiti is proof that it is not really popularity which keeps a government in control but it is the monopoly on force which does. The Haitian government, no matter how popular or unpopular, has rarely ever had an effective monopoly on the use of force. On the other hand Saddam Hussein was incredibly unpopular amongst the 50% of Iraq that was Shiite and the 25% of Iraq which was Kurdish, yet he did not lose power by a popular rebellion. An unpopular leadership will not lead to a rebellion under all circumstances. The DPRK however has a monopoly on force and the willingness to use it to repress protests, which is a great disincentive to go out marching with signs about how Kim Jong Un is a spoiled princeling or Kim Jong Il was never a particularly competent leader when he was alive.

[Renegade Saint]

If you want to talk of religious belief, we should talk of religious devotion to the media's false depiction of the DPRK.

"Terror and brainwashing and complete isolation" is just a string of unproven assertions. Terror? The only group terrorizing the people of the DPRK is imperialism, which destroyed the country once and is strangling it today. Brainwashing? Celebrating national heroes is not "brainwashing", and furthermore no one is mourning the death of Kim Jong Il because they were forced to. Complete isolation? Blame the inhumane imperialist sanctions, not the DPRK.
How would one go about proving it to your satisfaction (answer: nothing other than an official announcement on KCNA, because that's truth and all Western news is just propaganda!)?

What about all the refugees and asylum seekers from North Korea? Does the fact that they risked life and limb (and the lives of their families) to escape the Great Workers' Paradise ipso facto mean they're traitors whose statements cannot be trusted (particularly when compared with the objectivity of KCNA)?

I actually think talking about nationalism is very appropriate here, since the Kim defenders are behaving in exactly this manner:
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by "our" side. The Liberal News Chronicle published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians. It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell's soldiers slashing Irishwomen's faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the "right" cause. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century, one finds that there was hardly a single year when atrocity stories were not being reported from some part of the world; and yet in not one single case were these atrocities -- in Spain, Russia, China, Hungary, Mexico, Amritsar, Smyrna -- believed in and disapproved of by the English intelligentsia as a whole. Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.

[Sasha]

I'd like more information on that. I had the impression that people on tours didn't get to talk to all that many DPRK citizens directly.

you get snippets but its mostly in their body language and eyes, one of the people that i know that went there was years ago involved in breaking up a cult that involved horific sexual abuse, when she visited the cult all the kids an women dutiful or even fanatically sang the praise of the cult leader and assured her nothing was wrong, the facts only came out after the cult leader got nicked for fraud but she knew all along, according to her north Koreans had the same look in their eyes when talking about state officials.

[manic expression]

This sort of a circular argument. What evidence do we have that the people of the DRPK support their government for anti-Imperialist reasons, other than the propaganda of their government? As for the US government, many Americans have faith in it for defeating Japanese and Nazi Imperialism, but that does not make American policies justified. Neither does American Imperialism justify the level of control and micromanagement by the DPRK.
We have a strong level of participation in the struggle against imperialism, which is the only reason why the DPRK exists.

Many Americans did have faith in the fight against fascism, and rightfully so. Does it justify all US policies? Of course not, but it speaks to the value of defeating the fascist regimes of the world.


Or a great level of fear.

Great level of support can be created by a government by constant propaganda as well, especially when that propaganda no longer reflects reality. Did you read the article posted by Explosive Situation regarding the absurd metaphysical mythologizing taken by a supposedly "materialist" government? If people are caught up in the whole absurd mythology (and State Media would not spread that story unless they thought that many in Korea actually believed it), it's a lot easier to support a leader. But that means that their support is not based on their authentic opinions or interests but that which is dictated to them night after night by the state propaganda ministry.
What evidence do you have that everyone is cowering in fear?

My position is not that the DPRK takes correct positions on every single issue, "metaphysical mythologizing" as you call it does not preclude it from being a progressive force in the world and the result of the will of the people of the DPRK. Further, it does not make the opinions of DPRK citizens unauthentic.


Doesn't that make you in the least bit suspicious that the DPRK doesn't let tourists talk to the locals too much?
It's not an unreasonable precaution given the circumstances. I would prefer it not to be there but I don't want to play Monday Morning Revolutionary while the DPRK is trying to defend itself from espionage.


Is there evidence? Or merely an affirmation of faith in the anti-Imperialist worldview? The DPRK is not managed by the working class but by party and military elites, and all we have to go on that the people support them for their glorious anti-Imperialist leadership is their word and that of their state media.
There is scarcely much of a division between the DPRK and the anti-imperialist worldview, so I'm not sure what you're asking.

The party and military are both managed by the workers.


Well, Haiti is proof that it is not really popularity which keeps a government in control but it is the monopoly on force which does. The Haitian government, no matter how popular or unpopular, has rarely ever had an effective monopoly on the use of force. On the other hand Saddam Hussein was incredibly unpopular amongst the 50% of Iraq that was Shiite and the 25% of Iraq which was Kurdish, yet he did not lose power by a popular rebellion. An unpopular leadership will not lead to a rebellion under all circumstances. The DPRK however has a monopoly on force and the willingness to use it to repress protests, which is a great disincentive to go out marching with signs about how Kim Jong Un is a spoiled princeling or Kim Jong Il was never a particularly competent leader when he was alive.
Haiti is proof that popular reformists in capitalist states aren't in a very good position. Allende proved the same.

Ba'athism did have some sway in the working class, and by the mid-90's Saddam lost control of a large part of the country. Of course, US imperialism filled the vacuum and the people of Iraq have suffered unspeakable atrocities for it.

[manic expression]

you get snippets but its mostly in their body language and eyes, one of the people that i know that went there was years ago involved in breaking up a cult that involved horific sexual abuse, when she visited the cult all the kids an women dutiful or even fanatically sang the praise of the cult leader and assured her nothing was wrong, the facts only came out after the cult leader got nicked for fraud but she knew all along, according to her north Koreans had the same look in their eyes when talking about state officials.
Thanks for the clarification, but I don't know how much we can read into that. Trying to formulate opinions on states based on the look in people's eyes is suspect IMO.

[Rodrigo]

News that comes out of the DPRK is filtered through it's state media.

There are videos of what I said and they're even on YouTube.

If someone say it's "fake", now take a look at how SOUTH Koreans are crying in this one: S03jongVTwA

[Rodrigo]

By the above logic, I should completely give up every last one of my political positions since the majority of Americans "like" capitalism. :rolleyes:

We are talking about North Korea, not USA. :sleep:

[Rodrigo]

exactly. when it suits the pro-DPRK crowd, they're happy to spew workerist crap, but when workers do something they don't approve of they're 'counterrevolutionaries' or US stooges.

And what the North Korean workers "did" that the government "didn't approve"? Please, base your opinions on FACTS, not BELIEVES. ;)

[Renegade Saint]

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't know how much we can read into that. Trying to formulate opinions on states based on the look in people's eyes is suspect IMO.
Trying to formulate opinions on states based on the official state news agency is suspect IMO.

[Luís Henrique]

Kim Jong Il has died.

Astonishing. Who would have thunk? He was alive just a few minutes before that.

Wasn't he immortal?

Luís Henrique

[La Comédie Noire]

You don't need to be a raging imperialist to think the North Korea is an authoritarian shit pile. I find it really weird when parties try to present hero worship and state repression as somehow Democratic.

Our Democracy is fake, but so is there's.

[manic expression]

Trying to formulate opinions on states based on the official state news agency is suspect IMO.
And where have I done that?

[danyboy27]

i aint no M-L, but i could somehow agree that kim il sung did some good stuff while he was in power like pushing for the contruction of universities, dam, factory. His son on the other hand didnt seem to have improved anything.

[praxis1966]

Nationality doesn't enter into it. It's a matter of the way a people arrives to a given position. US capitalism is passively accepted by many workers because it's seemingly untouchable, whereas the DPRK has won the active acceptance of its people because of its constant struggle against imperialism.

I'm soooo tempted to post pictures of owls at this point. At any rate, are you seriously going to deny the parallels in the national mythology of N. Korea with stories like Kim shooting a 31 the first time he ever played golf and George Washington and the cherry tree? Why is it that it's impossible to believe that the same processes are at work in N. Korea and the US when American politicians invoke the phrase "Founding Fathers" and then say "God bless America" two sentences later and in N. Korea you have articles like the one Explosive Situation quoted? Why is it so hard to believe that the constant bombardment of propaganda is responsible for the maintenance of the status quo in both countries just as much as anti-imperialism... a phrase with which I could just as easily substitute anti-terrorism? Your argument at this point looks more like it's supporting Psycho's rather than your own.


The people of the DPRK have had ample opportunity to submarine their government if they so wished. The fact that they haven't seems to suggest a great measure of support.

Or alternatively, their government is "seemingly untouchable." Sound familiar?


We are talking about North Korea, not USA. :sleep:

a·nal·o·gy/əˈnaləjē/

Noun:

A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.

[manic expression]

I'm soooo tempted to post pictures of owls at this point. At any rate, are you seriously going to deny the parallels in the national mythology of N. Korea with stories like Kim shooting a 31 the first time he ever played golf and George Washington and the cherry tree? Why is it that it's impossible to believe that the same processes are at work in N. Korea and the US when American politicians invoke the phrase "Founding Fathers" and then say "God bless America" two sentences later and in N. Korea you have articles like the one Explosive Situation quoted? Why is it so hard to believe that the constant bombardment of propaganda is responsible for the maintenance of the status quo in both countries just as much as anti-imperialism... a phrase with which I could just as easily substitute anti-terrorism? Your argument at this point looks more like it's supporting Psycho's rather than your own.
You can draw all the parallels from golf to logging as you can, I don't think national mythologies determine the character of a government. Perhaps you do, but then that's a difference in focus I suppose.

As for the rest, anti-imperialism isn't "anti-terrorism" (aka imperialist aggression) just like a tree isn't a piece of shepherd's pie. Substituting entirely unrelated terms for each other doesn't create equivalency, it's just pretending there is equivalency in the first place. And propaganda is at work in all political matters, invoking the word itself doesn't say much.


Or alternatively, their government is "seemingly untouchable." Sound familiar?Not the case...DPRK citizens have felt the ill effects of the imperialist embargo and war...they know how threatened their government is.

[praxis1966]

You can draw all the parallels from golf to logging as you can, I don't think national mythologies determine the character of a government. Perhaps you do, but then that's a difference in focus I suppose.

As for the rest, anti-imperialism isn't "anti-terrorism" (aka imperialist aggression) just like a tree isn't a piece of shepherd's pie. Substituting entirely unrelated terms for each other doesn't create equivalency, it's just pretending there is equivalency in the first place. And propaganda is at work in all political matters, invoking the word itself doesn't say much.

Perhaps I should've preceded the word propaganda with phrase "emotionally manipulative," but I think you're smart enough to get the point (that being origin mythology) at which I was driving. You just choose to ignore it. I'm fully aware that anti-imperialism isn't anti-terrorism, but the psychological effects on a populace of browbeating them with images and rhetoric of a perpetual external enemy, whether real or perceived, have consequences whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

At any rate, you can say what you want about anti-imperialism, but to my mind the fact that somebody in N. Korea has felt the need at all to create this cult of personality around Kim is proof positive of an internal logic that who you are is vastly more important than what you do. Put simply, never mind that N. Korea is an authoritarian, state capitalist society, look at this clever guy over here...! It's called manufacturing consent.


Not the case...DPRK citizens have felt the ill effects of the imperialist embargo and war...they know how threatened their government is.

I'd wager those citizens have felt the effects of the embargo. I'd also wager that images of masses of goosestepping soldiers in the streets have had their effect as well... just as images of ICBMs being trucked all over the country had an effect on the US in the Reagan era or airliners colliding with skyscrapers had during the first five years of the Bush administration. The point is if you can create a bunker mentality strong enough, just about anything can be made to sound not only excusable but necessary.

[Renegade Saint]

Kind of ironic, all these Marxism-Leninists going out of their way to defend the Kim dynasty when the North Korea constitution never even mentions Marxism-Leninism or communism.

[Lucretia]

Kind of ironic, all these Marxism-Leninists going out of their way to defend the Kim dynasty when the North Korea constitution never even mentions Marxism-Leninism or communism.

It's not even Marxist-Leninists who are mostly to blame here. Even many of those don't support the Kims (or at least, what they've become). It's Marcyism Gone Wild. If you oppose the US, or the US hates you, you are by definition anti-imperialist and are therefore a progressive force in the global class struggle (which, incidentally, is not carried out by classes in the Marxian sense but by governments, some of them authoriatarian or theocratic).

[manic expression]

Perhaps I should've preceded the word propaganda with phrase "emotionally manipulative," but I think you're smart enough to get the point at which I was driving. You just choose to ignore it. I'm fully aware that anti-imperialism isn't anti-terrorism, but the psychological effects on a populace of browbeating them with images and rhetoric of a perpetual external enemy, whether real or perceived, have consequences whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

At any rate, you can say what you want about anti-imperialism, but to my mind the fact that somebody in N. Korea has felt the need at all to create this cult of personality around Kim is proof positive of an internal logic that who you are is vastly more important than what you do. Put simply, never mind that N. Korea is an authoritarian, state capitalist society, look at this clever guy over here...! It's called manufacturing consent.
All propaganda is "emotionally manipulative" in some sense, that's the whole point of it. Look, I get what you're saying, but the fact that that external enemy is real and is trying to destroy the DPRK means that the consequences are unavoidable. I don't like those consequences any more than you do, but the struggle the DPRK is waging is a progressive one, and indeed one of survival IMO.

On the DPRK's "manufacturing consent"...portraying, what you might term glorifying, leadership isn't so much as all that.


I'd wager those citizens have felt the effects of the embargo. I'd also wager that images of masses of goosestepping soldiers in the streets have had their effect as well... just as images of ICBMs being trucked all over the country had an effect on the US in the Reagan era or airliners colliding with skyscrapers had during the first five years of the Bush administration. The point is if you can create a bunker mentality strong enough, just about anything can be made to sound not only excusable but necessary.
The difference is that the DPRK bunkering against imperialism isn't the cheap fallacy that it was for Reagan or Bush. The bunker mentality is there because of a bunker reality.

PS what does the goosestep have to do with anything?

[manic expression]

Kind of ironic, all these Marxism-Leninists going out of their way to defend the Kim dynasty when the North Korea constitution never even mentions Marxism-Leninism or communism.
I don't judge a society by how many mentions M-Lism or communism gets in the constitution...

[praxis1966]

All propaganda is "emotionally manipulative" in some sense, that's the whole point of it.

It can be, or it can be a logical construction of facts used to persuade a person... Or at least that's what I was taught at my shitty community college. :lol:


Look, I get what you're saying, but the fact that that external enemy is real and is trying to destroy the DPRK means that the consequences are unavoidable. I don't like those consequences any more than you do, but the struggle the DPRK is waging is a progressive one, and indeed one of survival IMO.

Progressive for whom? Certainly not the workers of the DPRK and certainly not for the region. US influence is all pervasive in that region and by the look of it, I don't see the DPRK exporting what semblance of a revolution it's had. So what's left? We're right back to my assertion of excusing the inexcusable, that being state capitalist authoritarianism.


On the DPRK's "manufacturing consent"...portraying, what you might term glorifying, leadership isn't so much as all that.

And how exactly are you going to quantify that?


The difference is that the DPRK bunkering against imperialism isn't the cheap fallacy that it was for Reagan or Bush. The bunker mentality is there because of a bunker reality.

Call me silly, but I happen to think that's a piss poor excuse for a bureaucratic caste living a life of relative opulence compared to the average citizen of the DPRK. Like I said, the inexcusable becomes not only excusable but necessary.


PS what does the goosestep have to do with anything?

Oh, don't go baiting me into a Godwin's law discussion. I mentioned it simply as another form of melodrama that is the DPRK's state sponsored propaganda.

[Sasha]

Wouldnt be a godwin, the Nazi's didn't goosestep...
Soviets and China did.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What is this whole Godwin thing? :confused:

[praxis1966]

Wouldnt be a godwin, the Nazi's didn't goosestep...
Soviets and China did.

I swear I remember seeing footage to that effect someplace but I'll take your word for it, lol.

[Commissar Rykov]

Wouldnt be a godwin, the Nazi's didn't goosestep...
Soviets and China did.
Er yes they did.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1989-034-21%2C_Warschau%2C_Parade_vor_Adolf_Hitler.jpg

The Goose Step was a Wehrmacht/Prussian Tradition that was abandoned post WWII by the German Army but maintained by the NVA.

[Sasha]

You would be right, they still did in the 1930's when triumph of the will etc was filmed. They stopped before they started invading other countries.




There you go. Now, who goose-stepped their way across Europe in the 1940s?
Sandi

[presses buzzer, which plays the sound of a parrot screeching] 


Stephen

Yay.

Sandi

Was it a goose?

Stephen

No*.*.*.*

Forfeit: Klaxons sound. Viewscreens flash the word "GEESE".Stephen

Sorry.

Sandi

Worth a try.

John

Yes.

Stephen

It was. Who goose-stepped their way across Europe in the 1940s?

Bill

Well, I mean*.*.*.*

Alan

Oh, we're reluctant to say, erm*.*.*.*

Stephen

What? What? What are you reluctant to say, Alan?

Alan

Any reference to*.*.*.*er*.*.*.*

Bill

To, er*.*.*.*Hitler! Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler.

Stephen

Oh, Hitler? No.

Forfeit: Klaxons sound. Viewscreens flash the words "THE NAZIS".Stephen

The Nazis didn't goose-step in the 1940s.

Sandi

The Russians?

Stephen

"The Russians" is the right answer. But why?

Sandi

Because they had incredibly stiff starch.

Stephen

No, but why was "the Nazis" wrong? Why was "the Nazis" the wrong answer? Surely they did goose-step.

Sean

Because they didn't do the goose-step.

Stephen

They did do the goose-step, but not in the 1940s. They stopped it in the 1930s. They only goose-stepped in their early years.

Sandi

Oh.

Stephen

In the Nuremburg rallies and so forth.

Bill

New Year's resolution.

Sandi

It had fallen out of fashion.

Stephen

It fell out of fashion and no new recruits were asked to do it. They called it their Stechschritt. Their Stechschritt.

Viewscreens: Video of soldiers goose-stepping.

Alan

Very high impact.

Stephen

That's actually Chinese or Korean, I think, is it?

Bill

That's Korean, yeah.

Stephen

North Koreans there. That's the point. It's very, very hard to do, and it shows just how butch and clever and disciplined you are.

John

They have to have tremendously flexible hamstrings to do that, I think.

Sean

You all have to be the same height as well, don't you?

John

Yes –

Stephen

You do have to be the*.*.*.*

John

 – and Korean, apparently.

Stephen

Mmm. Well, Korean or Russian or Chinese or Cuban or Vietnamese or Chilean or Iranian. There you are. So, the Nazis dropped the goose-step in 1940. The only people who goose-stepped in Europe for the rest of the war were the Soviets.


So the north-koreans have been goosestepping a lot longer than the nazis.

[Commissar Rykov]

Uh I just posted a picture of German Troops goosestepping during the victory parade in Poland. Quite a bit after Triumph des Willens.

[manic expression]

It can be, or it can be a logical construction of facts used to persuade a person... Or at least that's what I was taught at my shitty community college. :lol:
You're not wrong, but logos should not be privileged over pathos at all times. Emotional content is incredibly important when it comes to political propaganda...lists of statistics make for boring pamphlets, I find.


Progressive for whom? Certainly not the workers of the DPRK and certainly not for the region. US influence is all pervasive in that region and by the look of it, I don't see the DPRK exporting what semblance of a revolution it's had. So what's left? We're right back to my assertion of excusing the inexcusable, that being state capitalist authoritarianism.
Yes, that's an important question. IMO, it's progressive chiefly for the workers of the DPRK: they are defending themselves from the proven murderous force of imperialism. Second, the socialist construction that exists in the DPRK is progressive in that it has freed workers from capitalist wage slavery. Third, the DPRK is progressive in that it is an example of socialism resisting the overwhelming force of capitalism.

Breaking down "state capitalist authoritarianism"...I have no quarrel with the existence of states in the present day, I don't think the economy is run by capitalist laws and authoritarianism is inherent in any state.


And how exactly are you going to quantify that?
I would ask the same of your position. How do we tell when a government has become a "cult"? Is there any real way of quantifying it?

As for your question to me, I would say that since there is a pressing reason for the "bunker mentality", that it can't be unexpected. Of course, I prefer the way other socialist governments have dealt with the portrayal leadership, but I'm not about to withdraw my support over such an issue.


Call me silly, but I happen to think that's a piss poor excuse for a bureaucratic caste living a life of relative opulence compared to the average citizen of the DPRK. Like I said, the inexcusable becomes not only excusable but necessary.
I hear you, but I haven't seen very many valid sources for the opulence of the bureaucracy. They usually come from the same crowd who claimed with absolutely no evidence that Fidel was one of the richest men on earth (:rolleyes:).


Oh, don't go baiting me into a Godwin's law discussion. I mentioned it simply as another form of melodrama that is the DPRK's state sponsored propaganda.
Believe me, I wasn't trying to catch you or anything, I just don't think it's productive to harp on the marching style of soldiers. It's a military custom in multiple countries, and anyway parades can be just as melodramatic without them. If anarchist soldiers goosestepped I wouldn't care.

[Renegade Saint]

I don't judge a society by how many mentions M-Lism or communism gets in the constitution...

I highly doubt that, but I'll play along. What objective criteria do you use to evaluate countries and their governments, so we can judge the North Korean regime by your standards.

[Mr. Gorilla]

Can't wait to see how his successor goes about screwing over the working class the "communist" leaders of North Korea promised to help.

[Chambered Word]

Nationality doesn't enter into it. It's a matter of the way a people arrives to a given position. US capitalism is passively accepted by many workers because it's seemingly untouchable, whereas the DPRK has won the active acceptance of its people because of its constant struggle against imperialism.

The people of the DPRK have had ample opportunity to submarine their government if they so wished. The fact that they haven't seems to suggest a great measure of support.

I guess Kim Jong-Il got 100% of the vote because the entire country, down to every last man and woman, supports him?

you can apply this standard to any country and say that if the workers wanted to, they could overthrow its government. that's just ridiculous. I'm still waiting on some kind of justification for your assertions about support within North Korea for the regime that isn't completely flawed.


Thanks for the clarification, but I don't know how much we can read into that. Trying to formulate opinions on states based on the look in people's eyes is suspect IMO.

while for once this post actually makes some sense, I still think there's a large and obvious difference between walking down a crowded street of some major city in some liberal democratic country and visiting a city where many of the people you see look terrified.


And what the North Korean workers "did" that the government "didn't approve"? Please, base your opinions on FACTS, not BELIEVES. ;)

please stop being condescending and read my post again, I didn't mention the North Korean government and I was talking about workers in so-called anti-imperialist countries in general.


I highly doubt that, but I'll play along. What objective criteria do you use to evaluate countries and their governments, so we can judge the North Korean regime by your standards.

dude was trying to tell us some time ago that the Belarusian state was some neutral body that wasn't part of a ruling class.

[Veovis]

You know, I'll kind of miss him. His personality cult was so surreal it sort of held a morbid fascination for me. Oh well. I'm sure the young 'Un will provide more of the same.

http://nickcernak.com/hangar18/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/jp-illin-f01.jpg

[Tifosi]

Second, the socialist construction that exists in the DPRK is progressive in that it has freed workers from capitalist wage slavery. Third, the DPRK is progressive in that it is an example of socialism resisting the overwhelming force of capitalism.


IKBC The International Korean Business Centre is a comprehensive one-stop service for worldwide companies and individuals interested to trade and explore opportunities with the DPR of Korea.

The DPR of Korea (North Korea) will become in the next years the most important hub for trading in North-East Asia.

Lowest labour cost in Asia.

Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.

Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.

No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies. No middle agents.

Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.

Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.

New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).

Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.

From the offical North Korean website (http://www.korea-dpr.com/business.htm) no less.

You see how the workers there will work for nothing, never leave you, you will have to pay no taxes, look how our government will bend over backwards for you etc etc.*

In other words they are screaming out for Capital to expand there.

*

[Thirsty Crow]

Workers will not abandon their positions for higher salaries...because what we have here is loyal and motivated personnel. And people still peddle the "anti-imperialist", "progressive" line. Just sad.

[Luís Henrique]

Workers will not abandon their positions for higher salaries...because what we have here is loyal and motivated personnel.

This would be awful enough it true, but it is a transparent lie. They won't abandon their positions for a higher salary, because there are no higher salaries first place, and because they would be "persuaded" not to do so if there were.

Luís Henrique

[manic expression]

I guess Kim Jong-Il got 100% of the vote because the entire country, down to every last man and woman, supports him?

you can apply this standard to any country and say that if the workers wanted to, they could overthrow its government. that's just ridiculous. I'm still waiting on some kind of justification for your assertions about support within North Korea for the regime that isn't completely flawed.
You're not understanding me...I think there's a huge difference between the situation the DPRK finds itself in and that of the US. The DPRK is under siege and facing very dire problems in many respects, while the US government, at the present moment, is not.


while for once this post actually makes some sense, I still think there's a large and obvious difference between walking down a crowded street of some major city in some liberal democratic country and visiting a city where many of the people you see look terrified.
Well, I dispute the title "democratic" for capitalist societies, and it could be that people are not used to seeing foreigners around.


dude was trying to tell us some time ago that the Belarusian state was some neutral body that wasn't part of a ruling class.
I find it interesting that in threads on the DPRK, people bring up my position on Belarus; in threads on Belarus, people are liable to bring up my position on the DPRK. It seems almost like a tautology.

[manic expression]

I highly doubt that, but I'll play along. What objective criteria do you use to evaluate countries and their governments, so we can judge the North Korean regime by your standards.
Good question...tougher than one might think. This is off the top of my head.

a.) the social conditions established by a government.

b.) the specific position of a government in relation to its development (ie Venezuela needs to be evaluated differently from Cuba because of the government's place in the trajectory of class struggle).

c.) the standard of living provided for the masses, and the method of which this standard is achieved.

[eyeheartlenin]

Yup, I checked out the site, and it is real, just as Tifosi's post indicates. (There is even a shop on the site, where one can buy North Korean chotchkies.) I think "screaming for capital to expand there" is a very accurate summary of what we now know, thanks to cde Tifosi, to be the official North Korean state policy. Low wages and no strikes by the "stable" North Korean workforce, sure sounds to me like a policy of hyper-exploitation of workers (i.e., quoting the official North Korea site, "Lowest labour cost in Asia"), backed and enabled by the "socialist" North Korean State. This official North Korean site brings the discussion of the "Democratic People's Republic" back to the realm of what is real and proves that North Korea is the opposite of having "freed workers from capitalist wage slavery," since the North Korean State seeks the expansion of "capitalist wage slavery" into its own country! Many thanks to cde Tifosi, for this invaluable information!

[Chambered Word]

You're not understanding me...I think there's a huge difference between the situation the DPRK finds itself in and that of the US. The DPRK is under siege and facing very dire problems in many respects, while the US government, at the present moment, is not.

and when a nation is an enemy of US imperialism, this gives justification to their ruling class' existence?


Well, I dispute the title "democratic" for capitalist societies, and it could be that people are not used to seeing foreigners around.

obviously liberal democracies aren't really democratic at all, so the terminology isn't really relevant. I also find it hard to believe that people are terrified of foreigners in a major city, even in a relatively insular one such as Pyongyang.


I find it interesting that in threads on the DPRK, people bring up my position on Belarus; in threads on Belarus, people are liable to bring up my position on the DPRK. It seems almost like a tautology.

they reflect each other consistently. it's not as if nobody has criticized your positions on both.

[Sasha]

Acording to official propaganda apparently kji never urinated nor deficated, so he really was full of shit...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Acording to official propaganda apparently kji never urinated nor deficated, so he really was full of shit...

No,he has a magical portal in him that takes all his waste to an undisclosed location somewhere on Planet Kim.In return this portal fills him with sunshine and rainbows.

This comes from official sources.

[Luís Henrique]

Evidently, if he really really had Juche at his heart he would not have died. His death shows that he was a man of weak faith.

Luís Henrique

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Answer this:


Lowest labour cost in Asia.[/B]

Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.

Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.

No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies. No middle agents.

Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.

Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.

New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).

Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.


From the offical North Korean website (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.korea-dpr.com/business.htm) no less.

You see how the workers there will work for nothing, never leave you, you will have to pay no taxes, look how our government will bend over backwards for you etc etc.*

In other words they are screaming out for Capital to expand there.

As posted by Tifosi

[Yazman]

My main problem with North Korea discussion is that there's so much overwhelming propaganda from both sides that it's virtually impossible to get a realistic picture of the situation there. Hence, I try to avoid taking a side, although it does appear that it is generally a pretty brutal military state, which I will never defend.

You know shit sucks when even capitalism could be progressive somewhere (not that I'm defending the market system).

[Renegade Saint]

Good question...tougher than one might think. This is off the top of my head.

a.) the social conditions established by a government.

b.) the specific position of a government in relation to its development (ie Venezuela needs to be evaluated differently from Cuba because of the government's place in the trajectory of class struggle).

c.) the standard of living provided for the masses, and the method of which this standard is achieved.
Well those aren't objective or empirical in any sense of the word, so I don't see any debate progressing along that front.

My own standards would be more along the lines of:

1. to what degree do the working classes effectively control the government (ie, how close to the dictatorship of the proletariat are we)?

2. how transparent is the state/society (you can't have a democracy without a transparent government, because what the people don't know they can't reject?

3. Are the rights of religious, ethnic, sexual and racial minorities respected?

4. Are there multiple independent sources of information widely available to the public? (goes back to point 2; you can't have an actual democracy if the people are relentlessly propagandized from one side. See, Manufacturing Consent)

5. Do people have the right to disagree?

I don't include standard of living because some countries are well behind others in that regard so comparing them to states that developed early would be unfair, plus I assume that if the working classes effectively control the state they'll use it to improve the standard of living of the majority.

[piet11111]

Shame that site does not have a commemorative kin jong il material yet though that beer stein does look mighty interesting.

Tempting.

[Chambered Word]

My main problem with North Korea discussion is that there's so much overwhelming propaganda from both sides that it's virtually impossible to get a realistic picture of the situation there. Hence, I try to avoid taking a side, although it does appear that it is generally a pretty brutal military state, which I will never defend.

You know shit sucks when even capitalism could be progressive somewhere (not that I'm defending the market system).

I'm not sure which is worse, this kind of weak liberalism or support for the capitalist North Korean state. two sides of the same coin I guess.

[Small Geezer]

I'm not sure which is worse, this kind of weak liberalism or support for the capitalist North Korean state. two sides of the same coin I guess.God what a heavily intellectual post without the slightest hint of cliche. If only the left had more dedicated millitants such as you.

[Commissar Rykov]

Did anyone see the Rick Roll in the condolences to Kim Jong Il in the KFA page? Fucking hilarious whoever got it through to be posted by the North Korean Government. Here it is:


Fellow Comrades!

I am in great sorrow over our loss of the great leader Kim Jong-Il,
the world is a smaller place without him. My heart is heavy and
the grief is hard to carry, he was never going to give us up,
never going to let us down.

From Sweden

https://www.korea-dpr.com/users/kimjongil70/

[Chambered Word]

God what a heavily intellectual post without the slightest hint of cliche. If only the left had more dedicated millitants such as you.

you haven't contributed a thing and I never claimed to be a 'dedicated militant' either. consider not posting in the future.

[Luís Henrique]

I think we should consider the hypothesis that he didn't die at all, that this is just an imperialist propaganda campaign.

I mean, Kim Jong Il, dead? Definitely, not possible.

Luís Henrique

[manic expression]

Fucking hilarious whoever got it through to be posted by the North Korean Government.
I'm wondering, why is it funny that DPRK citizens can't identify some American internet meme written in English? It's like there's some underlying assumption that the whole world should revolve around US cultural norms.


and when a nation is an enemy of US imperialism, this gives justification to their ruling class' existence?
I wouldn't put it that way, but it does give meaning to a few things. First, it does make that government an anti-imperialist orientation, which is in and of itself progressive, as it means that even if the government is not of the working class, it is still far better (materially) for the working class than its enemy. Second, there is oftentimes a good reason for imperialism to be an enemy of certain countries...they're bad for business, and that's something all leftists can recognize and appreciate.


obviously liberal democracies aren't really democratic at all, so the terminology isn't really relevant. I also find it hard to believe that people are terrified of foreigners in a major city, even in a relatively insular one such as Pyongyang.
Well yeah, but in a lot of countries people will be very surprised when they see visitors who look different from the norm. If someone from Senegal showed up in Mongolia (or even some parts of China), it would be the talk of the town for weeks if not months. Hell, I was in a few countries that see lots and lots of tourism and whole bus-loads of people would just stare at me because they rarely see "whites" around their neck of the woods.

Add to that the fact that the only exposure DPRK citizens have to a lot of foreigners is the harrowing experience (and resulting memories) of the Korean War and of course the reaction isn't going to be what we might expect.


they reflect each other consistently. it's not as if nobody has criticized your positions on both.
True, but it deflects discussion from a unique issue...Belarus is a wildly different situation anyway IMO.

[manic expression]

Well those aren't objective or empirical in any sense of the word, so I don't see any debate progressing along that front.

My own standards would be more along the lines of:

1. to what degree do the working classes effectively control the government (ie, how close to the dictatorship of the proletariat are we)?

2. how transparent is the state/society (you can't have a democracy without a transparent government, because what the people don't know they can't reject?

3. Are the rights of religious, ethnic, sexual and racial minorities respected?

4. Are there multiple independent sources of information widely available to the public? (goes back to point 2; you can't have an actual democracy if the people are relentlessly propagandized from one side. See, Manufacturing Consent)

5. Do people have the right to disagree?

I don't include standard of living because some countries are well behind others in that regard so comparing them to states that developed early would be unfair, plus I assume that if the working classes effectively control the state they'll use it to improve the standard of living of the majority.
Yes, such lists are subjective to a great extent, and I'm honestly OK with that. I think your list is a fair one, point #3 is especially an important one.

The two things that interest me though is "transparency" and "independent sources of information". Transparency is difficult because I'm not sure how much transparency we can realistically expect from a government at war. Independent is another sticky word because all sources of information come from somewhere, and so will always be dependent upon the interests of this state or that business some way or another. Information doesn't just fall out of the sky, after all.

On the last point, I ask only this: if a status quo that meets all your other points is threatened by truly despicable forces (racists, bigots, fascists...the lot of them), does the government have a right to limit their ability to mobilize? IMO, it is "mere disagreement" right up to the moment that the first crimes are committed, so we cannot be so dogmatic when it comes to this. Disagreement can sometimes be cynical sabotage posing as innocent disagreement, no?

[Tifosi]

Manic, answer this please. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for your reply. I expect it to be over-flowing with sources and evidence like all your over posts:lol:


Second, the socialist construction that exists in the DPRK is progressive in that it has freed workers from capitalist wage slavery. Third, the DPRK is progressive in that it is an example of socialism resisting the overwhelming force of capitalism.


IKBC The International Korean Business Centre is a comprehensive one-stop service for worldwide companies and individuals interested to trade and explore opportunities with the DPR of Korea.

The DPR of Korea (North Korea) will become in the next years the most important hub for trading in North-East Asia.

Lowest labour cost in Asia.

Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.

Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.

No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies. No middle agents.

Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.

Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.

New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).

Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.

From the offical North Korean website (http://www.korea-dpr.com/business.htm) no less.

You see how the workers there will work for nothing, never leave you, you will have to pay no taxes, look how our government will bend over backwards for you etc etc.

In other words they are screaming out for Capital to expand there.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's just North Korea's NEP, don't worry about it.

[manic expression]

Manic, answer this please. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for your reply. I expect it to be over-flowing with sources and evidence like all your over posts:lol:
All I need is to read what you posted:

Lowest labor cost in Asia...just another way of saying that all workers have their necessities covered by the state.

Qualified, loyal personnel...not a bad thing.

No middle agents...that's exactly proper for a socialist society. Deals are made with the state which regulates all production.

Stability...I hardly see why that's a bad thing.

Full diplomatic relations with other countries...again, no problem here.

New market...another way of saying that there's a need for a lot of development, which is true.

Transparent legal work...I can't see why you'd care about that.


In other words they are screaming out for Capital to expand there.
No, they're open to working with businesses so long as they deal with the state and don't employ any workers themselves. If that's the case then there is no exploitation and thus no grounds for any such objection.

[Lucretia]

All I need is to read what you posted:

Lowest labor cost in Asia...just another way of saying that all workers have their necessities covered by the state.

Qualified, loyal personnel...not a bad thing.

No middle agents...that's exactly proper for a socialist society. Deals are made with the state which regulates all production.

Stability...I hardly see why that's a bad thing.

Full diplomatic relations with other countries...again, no problem here.

New market...another way of saying that there's a need for a lot of development, which is true.

Transparent legal work...I can't see why you'd care about that.


No, they're open to working with businesses so long as they deal with the state and don't employ any workers themselves. If that's the case then there is no exploitation and thus no grounds for any such objection.

So lets take stock here. Workers in the DPRK earn less money than workers in traditional capitalist countries. They have less opportunity to change or to quit their jobs. Yet this is better than capitalism according to you because the state is the employer. Yet the workers in DPRK have less control over their "employer" than workers in the west have over their employers (since they, at least, have collective bargaining capabilities). I fail to see how this is either politically or economically progressive in any way.

[manic expression]

So lets take stock here. Workers in the DPRK earn less money than workers in traditional capitalist countries. They have less opportunity to change or to quit their jobs. Yet this is better than capitalism according to you because the state is the employer. Yet the workers in DPRK have less control over their "employer" than workers in the west have over their employers (since they, at least, have collective bargaining capabilities). I fail to see how this is either politically or economically progressive in any way.
First, "earning less money" in this sense doesn't take into account most of the earnings of DPRK workers. Second, "traditional capitalist countries" are not under siege. Every issue with wages and opportunity must be seen through that lens. Third, it does very much matter who employs a worker. If it is a state that is under the control of one class, it is very different from employment made by a business controlled by another.

[Lucretia]

First, "earning less money" in this sense doesn't take into account most of the earnings of DPRK workers.

Even if you include education and health care benefits, they would still be way, way behind the typical Western worker, particularly workers in countries (besides the US) which have single-payer nationalized health care and heavily subsidized education. How many of the DPRK workers actually get to attend post-secondary schooling, anyway? And we won't even talk about the state of the health care system in DPRK. Needless to say, the benefits they receive in compensation are insignificant except a tiny ruling cadre in the military and government.


Second, "traditional capitalist countries" are not under siege. Every issue with wages and opportunity must be seen through that lens.According to you, it must be seen through that lens because the DPRK is a non-class society battling class societies in a war for economic progress. But if we do not simply assume (as you do) that the DPRK is a classless society, the "under siege" factor is completely and totally undermined as a mitigating circumstance.


Third, it does very much matter who employs a worker. If it is a state that is under the control of one class, it is very different from employment made by a business controlled by another.If a state employs a worker by paying her a wage, and the workers have no control over the state, then the relationship between the employer and employee is virtually identical to the relationship between a private firm in western capitalism and its workers -- except, as I said, that in many western states, workers have managed to acquire at least some minimal control over workplace conditions through bourgeois democracy and collective bargaining.

[manic expression]

Even if you include education and health care benefits, they would still be way, way behind the typical Western worker, particularly workers in countries (besides the US) which have single-payer nationalized health care and heavily subsidized education. How many of the DPRK workers actually get to attend post-secondary schooling, anyway? And we won't even talk about the state of the health care system in DPRK. Needless to say, the benefits they receive in compensation are insignificant except a tiny ruling cadre in the military and government.
I wouldn't be so sure. The head of the WHO called the DPRK's healthcare system the "envy of the developing world". As for post-secondary schooling (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/Korea-South-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html):

Nevertheless, it [South Korea] is still lags behind North Korea in the percentage of the population with post-secondary education

More stats in the link.


According to you, it must be seen through that lens because the DPRK is a non-class society battling class societies in a war for economic progress. But if we do not simply assume (as you do) that the DPRK is a classless society, the "under siege" factor is completely and totally undermined as a mitigating circumstance.
I hold that the DPRK is socialist and thus a class society.


If a state employs a worker by paying her a wage, and the workers have no control over the state, then the relationship between the employer and employee is virtually identical to the relationship between a private firm in western capitalism and its workers -- except, as I said, that in many western states, workers have managed to acquire at least some minimal control over workplace conditions through bourgeois democracy and collective bargaining.
The workers, IMO, have control over the state through the vanguard party of the KWP. Even if they didn't, the structure of the state makes it such that it would not be capitalist economic relations and therefore something quite different from your conclusion, but that's another issue.

[Lucretia]

I hold that the DPRK is socialist and thus a class society.


The workers, IMO, have control over the state through the vanguard party of the KWP. Even if they didn't, the structure of the state makes it such that it would not be capitalist economic relations and therefore something quite different from your conclusion, but that's another issue.

Yes, a "vanguard" that rules in the name of the people but is in no way accountable to them. There's not even a pretense of democratic mechanisms in existence in the DPRK. Thus what you call vanguardism is reality substitutionism (sometimes "substitutism"). Lenin's understanding of the vanguard was that it would consists of the most advanced layer of workers, not army officers, bureaucrats or despots, and that it would be fused to the party by and through a revolutionary situation, not a crumbling society that has been gradually trying to develop for decades.

Marx and Engels had a word for an elite group that exercises exclusive control over productive resources, whether that control is propagandized as being in the name of all the workers in society or not: class. Not socialism.

[manic expression]

Yes, a "vanguard" that rules in the name of the people but is in no way accountable to them. There's not even a pretense of democratic mechanisms in existence in the DPRK. Thus what you call vanguardism is reality substitutionism (sometimes "substitutism"). Lenin's understanding of the vanguard was that it would consists of the most advanced layer of workers, not army officers, bureaucrats or despots, and that it would be constituted by and through a revolutionary situation, not a crumbling society that has been gradually trying to develop for decades.

Marx and Engels had a word for an elite group that exclusively controlled productive resources, whether they control it in the name of all of society or the workers or anybody else: class. Not socialism.
Well, I would say that the KWP has proved itself a vanguard party through its immense struggles against US imperialism. Army officers, bureaucrats and leaders (called "despots" by their enemies) are part of any state, working-class or capitalist. The important thing is that the (workers') party controls that apparatus, not the other way around.

Further, there is at the very, very least a pretense to democratic mechanisms. For instance, the DPRK constitution clearly states that all officials are subject to recall by those they represent.

[Lucretia]

Well, I would say that the KWP has proved itself a vanguard party through its immense struggles against US imperialism. Army officers, bureaucrats and leaders (called "despots" by their enemies) are part of any state, working-class or capitalist. The important thing is that the (workers') party controls that apparatus, not the other way around.

Bureaucratic leadership that is inherited? That's despotism, comrade, no matter how badly you might want to airbrush it. And you're right in noting that I oppose it, as I do all ruling classes.

The fact that you mistake opposition to US imperialism with a revolutionary situation (which Lenin was consistent in declaring to be a prerequisite to a vanguard) is highly problematic in my mind. Governments can oppose imperialism for its own class-based reasons, independent of the interests of the workers involved, as is the case of rival imperial powers opposing one another. At any rate, governmental opposition to imperialism does not constitute a revolutionary situation. So it is difficult to see how a Leninist might insist that a vanguard can be forged solely through opposition to imperialism, even if workers were the ones doing the opposing. Contemporary imperialism is an outgrowth of capitalism, but the two are not in any sense synonymous with one another.


Further, there is at the very, very least a pretense to democratic mechanisms. For instance, the DPRK constitution clearly states that all officials are subject to recall by those they represent.

Point conceded. Just as there is a pretense to equality of opportunity and the rule of law in the U.S.. Of course pretense is different than reality.

[manic expression]

Bureaucratic leadership that is inherited? That's despotism, comrade, no matter how badly you might want to airbrush it. And you're right in noting that I oppose it, as I do all ruling classes.
It's not inherited automatically, it's the decision of the party and by extension the people of the DPRK and we should at least recognize that for what it is. They are at war, so stability in leadership is to be desired.


The fact that you mistake opposition to US imperialism with a revolutionary situation (which Lenin was consistent in declaring to be a prerequisite to a vanguard) is highly problematic in my mind. Governments can oppose imperialism for its own class-based reasons, independent of the interests of the workers involved, as is the case of rival imperial powers opposing one another. At any rate, governmental opposition to imperialism does not constitute a revolutionary situation. So it is difficult to see how a Leninist might insist that a vanguard can be forged solely through opposition to imperialism, even if workers were the ones doing the opposing. Contemporary imperialism is an outgrowth of capitalism, but the two are not in any sense synonymous with one another.I don't mistake the two, I don't see the DPRK as being in a revolutionary situation.

You say that rival imperialist powers can oppose one another, and that's true, but how is the DPRK imperialist? If it isn't, then doesn't that lend to its position the inherently progressive role of defending its people from imperialist aggression?


Point conceded. Just as there is a pretense to equality of opportunity and the rule of law in the U.S.. Of course pretense is different than reality.
OK, and we would likely disagree on the reality of the matter. However, my overall point is the DPRK isn't as it's so commonly portrayed and we should be wary of that.

[Lucretia]

I don't mistake the two, I don't see the DPRK as being in a revolutionary situation.

Really? Please explain to me, since you believe the DPRK is already a socialist country, what kind of revolution you expect to occur. What class will assume control in this revolution? And how long has this revolutionary situation been in existence? (History had demonstrated conclusively that they tend to last for years at most, not decades.)

To reiterate Lenin's understanding of the vanguard: the role of the vanguard to the class of which it must be a part is dialectical. One stimulates the other to revolutionary political activity that in turn changes, shapes, and recreates the vanguard. Once a vanguard assumes political power in the form of a ruling party or government, two basic possibilities predominate: either the vanguard, continuously spurred on by and inciting the activity of the proletarian masses, increasingly negates its own authority and delegates those powers to the increasingly educated and empowered masses; or the vanguard loses the support of the proletarian masses, but insists on maintaining political power, in which case what you have is the re-establishment of class society. Only in very rare circumstances, lasting for a handful of years maximum after a vanguard's seizure of power, could I foresee a situation in which a vanguard detached from its working-class base might have the capability to rejuvenate the political support and activity of the masses while substituting itself for their will. After more than a few years, the antagonistic relationship between the rulers and ruled becomes so ossified that the re-establishment of class becomes all but inevitable. The revolutionary situation will have passed, and the nature of the necessarily growing rather than shrinking government will tend to attract officials who are not committed to relinquishing power, thus swamping whatever revolutionary-vanguard nucleus ever existed. Political momentum will be toward centralizing power rather than devolving it.


You say that rival imperialist powers can oppose one another, and that's true, but how is the DPRK imperialist?I am not saying it is. I am simply saying that opposition to US imperialism should not be confused with opposition to capitalism or opposition to class society. The two are very much compatible, as inter-imperialist rivalries demonstrate. They are no less compatible in cases where a domestic ruling class is threatened by a foreign imperialist threat (e.g., the Indian ruling class's opposition to British imperialism did not make it "progressive"). I don't think one ruling class's opposition to another ruling class's overtures of military aggression makes the resisting ruling class a beacon for proletarian hope. To assume that they do is premised on the Marcyist fallacy that there are only "two systems" participating in a global class war. In fact, there are not and have never been only two systems.

[manic expression]

Really? Please explain to me, since you believe the DPRK is already a socialist country, what kind of revolution you expect to occur. What class will assume control in this revolution? And how long has this revolutionary situation been in existence? (History had demonstrated conclusively that they tend to last for years at most, not decades.)
Well, I don't expect a revolution to occur, I see socialism as a stage the working class takes on the road to communist society. As capitalism is abolished worldwide, the need for a state will disappear and with it states will disappear as well. The DPRK has in my view already abolished capitalism and must now hold the fort and support progressive forces around the world so that the workers of all nations can liberate themselves.


Political momentum will be toward centralizing power rather than devolving it.
That whole paragraph is very well put, but this is the thing: I see the DPRK as the product of a revolutionary situation that led to a working-class government.


I am not saying it is. I am simply saying that opposition to US imperialism should not be confused with opposition to capitalism or opposition to class society. The two are very much compatible, as inter-imperialist rivalries demonstrate. They are no less compatible in cases where a domestic ruling class is threatened by a foreign imperialist threat (e.g., the Indian ruling class's opposition to British imperialism did not make it "progressive"). I don't think one ruling class's opposition to another ruling class's overtures of military aggression makes the resisting ruling class a beacon for proletarian hope. To assume that they do is premised on the Marcyist fallacy that there are only "two systems" participating in a global class war. In fact, there are not and have never been only two systems.We're treading into new territory, but I'd say that Indian independence was indeed progressive even if it didn't result in a socialist state. I'd even say that India's annexation of Goa from Portuguese rule was progressive. You're right that not all opposition to imperialism is progressive, but then again a lot of it is, so it's all about the circumstances through which that opposition plays out. In the case of the DPRK, I think it's a matter of a society that has abolished capitalism resisting the truly monstrous efforts of US imperialism.

The point about the two systems is that in modern industrial society, there are really only two viable systems available: rule of the capitalists or rule of the workers. Fascism, usually cited as separate from this, falls pretty comfortably in the former category once you look at the specifics. It's really just another way of saying: "Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

[Lucretia]

Well, I don't expect a revolution to occur, I see socialism as a stage the working class takes on the road to communist society. As capitalism is abolished worldwide, the need for a state will disappear and with it states will disappear as well. The DPRK has in my view already abolished capitalism and must now hold the fort and support progressive forces around the world so that the workers of all nations can liberate themselves.

The whole idea of a revolutionary situation is that institutions and ideas are in such dynamic flux, that hegemonic patterns of authority are subject to such widespread and open questioning and criticism, that the masses have demonstrated such a resoluteness in organizing themselves, that a revolution looks likely to occur. I am, to say the least, puzzled by your claim that the DPRK is experiencing a revolutionary situation on the one hand, but that on the other hand you don't expect a revolution to occur. That's a contradiction.


That whole paragraph is very well put, but this is the thing: I see the DPRK as the product of a revolutionary situation that led to a working-class government.

But my whole point in the paragraph you have lauded (and I thank you for your even-handedness in that regard) is that an institution that was initially forged as an instrument of working class power can evolve and change, due to a variety of circumstances, to a point where what appears on the face of it to be the same institution in fact begins to assume the role and political functions of what Lenin called "a state as such," including the suppression and silencing of the working classes. That is the opposite of what a proletarian state does, and deviation from the essence of a proletarian state -- proletarian political and economic power -- can only be a temporary matter that renders precarious its identity as a proletarian state. It certainly cannot be a decades long matter.


We're treading into new territory, but I'd say that Indian independence was indeed progressive even if it didn't result in a socialist state.

Now we're talking about two separate things. You are talking about Indian independence as it took place in the aftermath of WWII. I am talking about the indigenous ruling class's opposition to British imperialism the prior two centuries. An argument can be made that in throwing off the yolk of imperialism, India did make political progress from a tributary, semi-feudal dictatorship to a bourgeois democracy. But it certainly would not have been progress to support the 18th and 19th century officials of the Indian ruling class who resisted British encroachments on their own spheres of authority.


You're right that not all opposition to imperialism is progressive, but then again a lot of it is, so it's all about the circumstances through which that opposition plays out. In the case of the DPRK, I think it's a matter of a society that has abolished capitalism resisting the truly monstrous efforts of US imperialism.

I think you're spot-on in the first sentence. It's in the functional applicability of that general analysis that I think you're incorrect. I don't see the NPRK's economic system as any way progressive. It's still a bunch of wealthy and pampered elites dictating work matters to the vast majority of people whose quality of life is far inferior.


The point about the two systems is that in modern industrial society, there are really only two viable systems available: rule of the capitalists or rule of the workers. Fascism, usually cited as separate from this, falls pretty comfortably in the former category once you look at the specifics. It's really just another way of saying: "Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

Again, I think you're right about saying that modern industrial technology is basically only compatible with capitalism or socialism. But I think you're restricting your understanding of capitalism and class unnecessarily by disqualifying the possibility that capital can take the form of a state whose officials exercise the functions of "the capitalist."

[manic expression]

The whole idea of a revolutionary situation is that institutions and ideas are in such dynamic flux, that hegemonic patterns of authority are subject to such widespread and open questioning and criticism, that the masses have demonstrated such a resoluteness in organizing themselves, that a revolution looks likely to occur. I am, to say the least, puzzled by your claim that the DPRK is experiencing a revolutionary situation on the one hand, but that on the other hand you don't expect a revolution to occur. That's a contradiction.
I am puzzled too...I don't recall ever referring to the DPRK as being in a revolutionary situation. If I did, it was a mistake because I don't believe that.


But my whole point in the paragraph you have lauded (and I thank you for your even-handedness in that regard) is that an institution that was initially forged as an instrument of working class power can evolve and change, due to a variety of circumstances, to a point where what appears on the face of it to be the same institution in fact begins to assume the role and political functions of what Lenin called "a state as such," including the suppression and silencing of the working classes. That is the opposite of what a proletarian state does, and deviation from the essence of a proletarian state -- proletarian political and economic power -- can only be a temporary matter that renders precarious its identity as a proletarian state. It certainly cannot be a decades long matter.
Do you really think that the DPRK has evolved to a point of complete similarity with bourgeois institutions? I think not, the differences are innumerable.

Further, I do not agree that a proletarian state must be a "temporary matter"...a proletarian state must adapt to the circumstances presented to it, of course, but there is no ticking clock that necessitates its end. The proletarian state, in my view, is as it is so long as the workers hold the fort.


Now we're talking about two separate things. You are talking about Indian independence as it took place in the aftermath of WWII. I am talking about the indigenous ruling class's opposition to British imperialism the prior two centuries. An argument can be made that in throwing off the yolk of imperialism, India did make political progress from a tributary, semi-feudal dictatorship to a bourgeois democracy. But it certainly would not have been progress to support the 18th and 19th century officials of the Indian ruling class who resisted British encroachments on their own spheres of authority.
Well, all that (the 18th and 19th century) is before imperialism even existed. Ignoring that for a minute, I think there is a case to be made that the so-called Sepoy Mutiny of the mid-19th Century was indeed progressive and that leftists should stand in admiration for that struggle, which was one of the first times Hindus and Muslims fought side-by-side against a foreign foe. As Marx put it (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22.htm): The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindoos themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether.

Again, your point that not all resistance to western yoke is progressive is true, but I would then say that a great deal of it is, and that there is a good reason for that.


I think you're spot-on in the first sentence. It's in the functional applicability of that general analysis that I think you're incorrect. I don't see the NPRK's economic system as any way progressive. It's still a bunch of wealthy and pampered elites dictating work matters to the vast majority of people whose quality of life is far inferior.
The "wealthy and pampered elites" is usually a myth perpetrated by the media and Hollywood. There are differences in life...Pyongyang didn't get hit by the famines all too hard while the countryside was hurt bad. I do not propose that the DPRK is a society without any differences between this or that group, the nature of production necessitates some variations in lifestyle, but I do object to the idea that the DPRK leadership is living the highlife; I've never seen much to prove this.


Again, I think you're right about saying that modern industrial technology is basically only compatible with capitalism or socialism. But I think you're restricting your understanding of capitalism and class unnecessarily by disqualifying the possibility that capital can take the form of a state whose officials exercise the functions of "the capitalist."
Capital always does take the form of a state...every capitalist government is proof enough of this. However, I see no such dynamics in the DPRK. Trotsky argued that the only way for bureaucrats to "exploit" workers was through abuse of office, not through capitalist extraction of profit. The state, even if it takes a Bonapartist position over all classes, rests on the economic nature of the society it rules; what capitalist basis is there in the DPRK? All we've seen is that the DPRK wants foreign investment (because it would be foolish and hurtful not to seek it), but only through dealings directly with the state which means no worker will be employed under such capitalist bodies. I don't see that as anything other than a society that has long since done away with capitalist mechanisms of production.

[GallowsBird]

I am neither 100% for or 100% against North Korea (I am slightly more for than against) however I think it is time that the party in N. Korea should show the world it isn't a strange monarchy by electing someone who isn't part of the Kim family.
Always selecting the son of the previous leader doesn't exactly lend itself to getting support with many Leftists (which North Korea needs) but also gives amunition to Western Imperialist nations who would of course despise North Korea no matter how its country is run (as long as it remains against their interestes and officially Leftist).
A part of me just thinks it is a shame for the Korean people (most of which legitimately are grieving for Kim's death, whether it is truly love for a leader they view as great or just fear in uncertain times it doesn't matter) that they gone the predictable route of making Kim Jong-Il's son the leader.

In Cuba it isn't as bad as at least Raul Castro was an important revolutionary so it doesn't seem as Monarchic. Though I do hope they don't go the way of Cuba and elect another Castro to soon. Or at least elect them on merit (oh and they have had elections by the people in Cuba contrary to what the Capitalist media claims).

[Yazman]

I'm not sure which is worse, this kind of weak liberalism or support for the capitalist North Korean state. two sides of the same coin I guess.

When it comes down to it, nobody can ever really be agnostic on this sort of issue, and I am pretty sure that North Korea is basically just an authoritarian military dictatorship. Which I strongly oppose. It seems that even capitalism would be progressive in North Korea.

I'm just not really willing to make a value judgment since it's hard to tell what's propaganda and what's not in this particular case. So my opinion here is pretty shaky, hence my hesitation to really participate fully in this discussion. Since there's so much bullshit from all sides.

[Sendo]

I am neither 100% for or 100% against North Korea (I am slightly more for than against) however I think it is time that the party in N. Korea should show the world it isn't a strange monarchy by electing someone who isn't part of the Kim family.
Always selecting the son of the previous leader doesn't exactly lend itself to getting support with many Leftists (which North Korea needs) but also gives amunition to Western Imperialist nations who would of course despise North Korea no matter how its country is run (as long as it remains against their interestes and officially Leftist).
A part of me just thinks it is a shame for the Korean people (most of which legitimately are grieving for Kim's death, whether it is truly love for a leader they view as great or just fear in uncertain times it doesn't matter) that they gone the predictable route of making Kim Jong-Il's son the leader.

In Cuba it isn't as bad as at least Raul Castro was an important revolutionary so it doesn't seem as Monarchic. Though I do hope they don't go the way of Cuba and elect another Castro to soon. Or at least elect them on merit (oh and they have had elections by the people in Cuba contrary to what the Capitalist media claims).

My feelings as well on Korea. I don't think the monarchical succession is doing anyone any good. It may be a non-capitalist state, but the leadership is inarguably a hereditary monarchy. I will respect China, USSR, and Cuba for transitioning to non-son-of-the-leader people. Raul, of course, actually has revolutionary credentials, and USSR has moved to Stalin and then to a non-Lenin/Stalin family member. China had Mao, then Hua.

In any case, since right now the clique of friends and family tied to Kim Jong-il is really in charge, they could appoint a different figurehead in the future. They're probably doing the smoothest thing, though, and as Bruce Cumings has pointed out, North Korea has never experienced anything other than monarchical succession before.

[SacRedMan]

The king is dead!! Long live the king!!

[El Chuncho]

So the north-koreans have been goosestepping a lot longer than the nazis.

Who cares about goosestepping? Or do we now judge people on how they march? :rolleyes: