Socialislism in One Dynasty [Archive]

kurr

13th January 2012, 00:40

The ISO always does shit like this. They put out smear articles of other organizations who they assure they've "worked alongside with" in order to show that they totally aren't sectarians. Nevermind that the ISO have ties with the Democratic Party and the Green Party in the United States. Nevermind that last Spring, they participated in pro-Imperialist protests when the NATO intervention in Libya was about to go down. And in the case with the PSL article, here you have a White Euroamerikan Male "criticizing" a Female Korean communist, it really puts things into perspective... Criticizing is good (and I'm all for that) but there is clearly an ulterior motive on the part of the ISO and it's to make it seem like they are more "Socialist" than these other organizations. Which is blatant fucking bullshit. And as someone who doesn't agree with the PSL, FRSO, and WWP and find some of their lines completely awful, I have to wonder about this.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

13th January 2012, 00:55

And in the case with the PSL article, here you have a White Euroamerikan Male "criticizing" a Female Korean communist, it really puts things into perspective...

Because whenever a white male disagrees with a person of color, it must be racism. :rolleyes: Is the substance of the article wrong, and even if it is, is it wrong because they are racist, or because they have theoretical problems with the way North Korea is run and the fact that it claims to be "socialist"?

andrewsplane

13th January 2012, 00:56

Kurr, are you are you also a police state socialist?

Renegade Saint

13th January 2012, 01:03

Nevermind that the ISO have ties with the Democratic Party
Care to provide proof? It might be hard, since the ISO specifically says in "Where We Stand" that we don't support the Democratic Party, period.

Nevermind that last Spring, they participated in pro-Imperialist protests when the NATO intervention in Libya was about to go down.

Hard to believe, since we opposed the NATO intervention in Libya.

And in the case with the PSL article, here you have a White Euroamerikan Male "criticizing" a Female Korean communist, it really puts things into perspective
Here I thought he was critisizing the PSL, not the author personally. I guess that's because he never even mentions the author or says anything about her. Silly me.

there is clearly an ulterior motive on the part of the ISO and it's to make it seem like they are more "Socialist" than these other organizations.

Not "more socialist", a different kind of socialism. The ISO identifies with "Socialism from Below". Anyone masturbating furiously to pictures of the 'Dear Leader' obviously believes in Socialism from Above. Which is a view you're entitled to, but I like to make clear to all that it's radically different than my conception of Socialism.

Prometeo liberado

13th January 2012, 01:26

What I get from people that I talk to on the Left and also within my party is the support for what North Korea has been able to accomplish in the face of capitalist aggression. The North Korea we see today is a relatively new creation born of natural disasters and imperialist aggression and yes government mismanagement. While the Communist world withered away hold outs such as North Korea bared the brunt and so to did its economy. All this while South Korea benefited from US and Japanese investment on a scale that reads of nothing less than neo-colonialism.

Do these Socialist parties praise the dynasty, or simply applaude the fact that the North, at least for this day, has remained an independent Socialist country. A country facing down the barrel of U.S. aggression. The need to look for flaws in each others definition of Socialism is a debate I'll leave to others. Some of us know where the fight is and thats where we will be
The Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL) declared that the elevation of Kim's son, Kim Jong-un, represented (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/north-koreans-mourn-death-of.html) a "well-developed succession plan."
Can anyone argue that it wasn't well developed? No coup, no "NATO peacekeepers".
All that the PSL was saying is that the plan was indeed well-developed. We leave it up to the North to decide its fate.
..our vision of socialism is very different from these organizations--and that the differences matter.
And as the years go by with little or no progress I can't help but know the reason why.:confused:

roy

13th January 2012, 02:01

The Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL) declared that the elevation of Kim's son, Kim Jong-un, represented (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/north-koreans-mourn-death-of.html) a "well-developed succession plan."
Can anyone argue that it wasn't well developed? No coup, no "NATO peacekeepers".
All that the PSL was saying is that the plan was indeed well-developed. We leave it up to the North to decide its fate.

Indeed it is a very well-developed monarchy that exists in the Kingdom of North Korea. The fact that the country stands up to US agression means nothing considering that it has imprisoned its own people under the guise of socialism.

manic expression

13th January 2012, 02:28

I don't really take the ISO's arguments very seriously because apparently they don't. For example:

RELIABLE INFORMATION about North Korea can be hard to come by. The regime is secretive, and the mainstream media--rather than doing any actual investigative work--typically rely on official U.S. sources that have demonized and lied about the country for decades, since the early years of the Cold War.OK, so I guess the article will reasonably refrain from basing its conclusions on spurious claims in the mainstream US media...that sounds fair enough, right? Wrong.

Take the inequality, for example. The weekly bar tab of the "Dear Leader" was reputed to be many times higher than the average North Korean's yearly income (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/12/hennessy-isnt-too-too-sad-about-losing-kim-jong-ils-business/46642/).So it took them a few short paragraphs to do exactly what they said they shouldn't.

Oh, and comparing your opponents' articles to The Onion...you stay clever, ISO.

andrewsplane

13th January 2012, 02:41

Yes, because the US media lies about the North Korean regime, that means we should just go ahead and believe all of the regime's propaganda about itself and its former Dear Leader.

Any criticism of the dynastic police state is probably just some Amnesty International/CIA propaganda. Sure.

PSL: Police State Liberation

Renegade Saint

13th January 2012, 02:49

So it took them a few short paragraphs to do exactly what they said they shouldn't.

Oh, and comparing your opponents' articles to The Onion...you stay clever, ISO.
Yeah, I'm sure Hennessy is engaged in an elaborate ruse to make it seem likes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cognac were being bought by Kim Jong Il each year. :rolleyes:

Ilyich

13th January 2012, 02:57

Yes, because the US media lies about the North Korean regime, that means we should just go ahead and believe all of the regime's propaganda about itself and its former Dear Leader.

I do not believe anyone is suggesting that.

manic expression

13th January 2012, 02:59

@ Renegade Saint, it didn't even link to an article, it was a blub about how sales in Asia haven't changed. And if you go through the links to the original source on the Hennessey claim, it's actually made by a CIA psychologist (http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-08/us/wbr.kim.jong.il_1_north-korean-leader-house-arrest-hennessey?_s=PM:US) (no, I'm not kidding):

Dr. Jerold Post, a former CIA psychologist who now heads the Political Psychology program at George Washington University....

Dr. Post, in his study of the Korean dictator, says Kim Jong Il also loves to drink a certain Hennessey cognac that sells for $630 a bottle in Korea.And anyway, here's a gem from another fine Atlantic article (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/12/lifestyle-dear-leader/46375/):

Last year, the thirsty despot bought up every single bottle (http://winebeing.com/2010/04/01/dictators-relish-top-wine/) of the Chateau Latour’s 2009 Les Forts de Latour, and (Update: Apparently, Kim Jong-Il did not buy up this vintage; a wine blog reported the news as an April 1 joke. As its very difficult to separate fact from fiction with all things Kim, the story was then reported as news, and the joke seems not (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Wines+of+the+week.-a0222915371) to have been particularly well-received within the fine wine community.)

Crux

13th January 2012, 03:31

I don't really take the ISO's arguments very seriously because apparently they don't. For example:

OK, so I guess the article will reasonably refrain from basing its conclusions on spurious claims in the mainstream US media...that sounds fair enough, right? Wrong.

So it took them a few short paragraphs to do exactly what they said they shouldn't.

Oh, and comparing your opponents' articles to The Onion...you stay clever, ISO.
I must assume you stopped reading at that point.

syndicat

13th January 2012, 04:07

The article suggests that mainstream sources have to be viewed critically, not that information can't be found there. The left has often used mainstream sources for all kinds of facts.

I took the main point to be that for FRSO-Fight Back, PSL, and WWP "socialism" is simply identified with state control of the economy. I think that's true. And it leads to apologetics for bureaucratic class regimes & dictatorships....as North Korea clearly is.

State control is not what socialism is. Authentic socialism is the direct power of the immediate producers, no longer subordinate to some dominating class.

kurr

13th January 2012, 04:39

Because whenever a white male disagrees with a person of color, it must be racism. :rolleyes: Is the substance of the article wrong, and even if it is, is it wrong because they are racist, or because they have theoretical problems with the way North Korea is run and the fact that it claims to be "socialist"?

Normally I would agree with you, however, I think that the ISO is almost an exception to this. Seeing as how they have purged a lot of non-white members over the past few years (completely taking out Black leadership in the DC branch, for instance). I think that liberalism runs deep in the ideology of the ISO and with liberalism comes white chauvinism.

Kurr, are you are you also a police state socialist?

First of all, this is a ridiculous sectarian term which has no place among Leftist discourse. Secondly, no, this is what I would consider an "awful view" that all three organizations share. Do China, Vietnam, and Laos really deserve our support? I think not.

Care to provide proof? It might be hard, since the ISO specifically says in "Where We Stand" that we don't support the Democratic Party, period.

Everybody knows about UFPJ's ties with the Democrats and the ISO was a leading organization in unity with UFPJ. They might say that they don't support them but they sure have no problem working with/for them.

Hard to believe, since we opposed the NATO intervention in Libya.

Not exactly. http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/28/rallying-for-the-libyan-people "Chants alternated between English and Arabic as megaphones changed hands, and the crowd, with a heavy presence of Libyan Americans, raised criticisms not only of Qaddafi and his murderous regime, but of the Obama administration. The chant, "Obama, where are you? Gaddafi must go!" was followed by the more pointed, "Obama must know! Gaddafi must go!""

Not "more socialist", a different kind of socialism. The ISO identifies with "Socialism from Below". Anyone masturbating furiously to pictures of the 'Dear Leader' obviously believes in Socialism from Above.

Actually the strategies for revolution between the ISO and the WWP, PSL, and FRSO-FB seem all too similar and inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution strategy. So your "Socialism from Above" rhetoric doesn't really apply here.

Maybe you should bring this up with your dishonest organization who wants to appease their liberal/social democratic readership and assure them that THEIR socialism would be different and less "authoritarian" than the other Leninist organizations socialism. Yeah right.

Renegade Saint

13th January 2012, 05:56

I think that liberalism runs deep in the ideology of the ISO and with liberalism comes white chauvinism. A non-falsifiable hypothesis, so I won't bother.

Everybody knows about UFPJ's ties with the Democrats and the ISO was a leading organization in unity with UFPJ. They might say that they don't support them but they sure have no problem working with/for them.Hahaha, so we're not only not supposed to work with democrats, but anyone who works with democrats either? Have fun in your tiny sectarian movement.
We absolutely worked with democrats on the campaign in Ohio to overturn senate bill 5 (while also pointing out that Ted Strickland (D) had many of the same anti-union policies). But we have never worked "for" democrats or encouraged anyone to vote democrat. If you think that's unacceptable you may be suffering from that infantile disorder Lenin diagnosed.

Not exactly. http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/2...-libyan-people (http://www.anonym.to/?http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/28/rallying-for-the-libyan-people) "Chants alternated between English and Arabic as megaphones changed hands, and the crowd, with a heavy presence of Libyan Americans, raised criticisms not only of Qaddafi and his murderous regime, but of the Obama administration. The chant, "Obama, where are you? Gaddafi must go!" was followed by the more pointed, "Obama must know! Gaddafi must go!""
I guess you thought no one would actually read the links, because it's pretty terrible "proof" of the ISO's supposed support for NATO intervention, including quotes like:
The demonstration's organizers made a point of countering the fear mongering of a civil war in Libya that could be used to justify foreign intervention; it was a repeated message from the stage, and one frequent chant was, "From the East, to the West, it's Qaddafi we detest!"
and
there were disagreements among some rally organizers and speakers as to whether the rally should endorse sanctions on Qaddafi's regime, a no-fly zone and limited U.S./UN intervention. Those making these demands believe sanctions to be a solution that will force Qaddafi out and stop the killing without infringing on the sovereignty of the Libyan people. But a majority believes that no foreign country, especially the U.S., should intervene in Libya, since it would be doing so to guarantee its own economic and geopolitical interests, not the sovereignty of the Libyan people. One thing is certain--everyone made it loud and clear that Qaddafi must go.

Actually the strategies for revolution between the ISO and the WWP, PSL, and FRSO-FB seem all too similar and inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution strategy. So your "Socialism from Above" rhetoric doesn't really apply here.

Maybe you should bring this up with your dishonest organization who wants to appease their liberal/social democratic readership and assure them that THEIR socialism would be different and less "authoritarian" than the other Leninist organizations socialism. Yeah right. So we're social democrats and Bolsheviks? Fascinating.

I don't think anyone thinks that revolution in 20?? USA will bear more than the vaguest similarities to 1917 Russia. Different material circumstances yo.

Olentzero

13th January 2012, 09:04

Seeing as how they have purged a lot of non-white members over the past few years (completely taking out Black leadership in the DC branch, for instance).Hi there. I was a member of the DC branch from its very inception in 1994 until I left the States in 2007. I would dearly love for you to back this slanderous accusation up.

manic expression

13th January 2012, 17:43

The article suggests that mainstream sources have to be viewed critically, not that information can't be found there. The left has often used mainstream sources for all kinds of facts.
So viewing sources critically means holding up a paragraph-long non-article that tells us nothing at all, in order to perpetuate a rumor started by a CIA psychologist?

State control is not what socialism is.
State control by a working-class party is a great deal of what socialism is.

Renegade Saint

13th January 2012, 18:51

State control by a working-class party is a great deal of what socialism is.
Working class control-often through the state-is what socialism is. But I see what you did there, instead of working class you say working class party. Who decides what's a working class party and whether the KWP is one?

manic expression

13th January 2012, 19:04

Working class control-often through the state-is what socialism is. But I see what you did there, instead of working class you say working class party. Who decides what's a working class party and whether the KWP is one?
Well history shows us that the vanguard party is the most reliable way for workers to organize themselves for their interests, so in the modern age any working-class control would involve a working-class party in some role or another. But as to your question, nobody just decides if a party is a working-class party, it is or it isn't. I think it's most useful to look at a party's actions in order to determine this. In the case of the KWP, its long-standing commitment to the liberation of the Korean workers and its defense of the worker state even under the most difficult circumstances tells us its orientation, I think.

Lucretia

13th January 2012, 19:38

Well history shows us that the vanguard party is the most reliable way for workers to organize themselves for their interests, so in the modern age any working-class control would involve a working-class party in some role or another. But as to your question, nobody just decides if a party is a working-class party, it is or it isn't. I think it's most useful to look at a party's actions in order to determine this. In the case of the KWP, its long-standing commitment to the liberation of the Korean workers and its defense of the worker state even under the most difficult circumstances tells us its orientation, I think.

Right. Socialism, or building socialism, isn't about democracy or anything silly like that. The party that is supposed to lead the revolutionary movement to socialism does not have to be chosen by anybody. It just proves it's the vanguard by...enforcing state control over the economy? Certainly if I mentioned the standard of living for workers in the NK, the improvement of which you might be tempted to point out as one such action proving the vanguard role of the party, you'd just retort that its extremely low level in NK is due to the need combat imperialism.

But on the other hand, you would never concede that this prolonged military threat against and accompanying isolation within NK might just make socialism impossible there. Instead socialism becomes equated with "anti-imperialism" and state control over the economy, no matter who effectively controls the state.

syndicat

13th January 2012, 19:49

State control by a working-class party is a great deal of what socialism is. and ever since the Bolsheviks the tendency has been to simply define the Leninist party as "working class" by definition. Socialism is actual control over industry and social affairs...the running of the society...by the working class through its organizations based on direct participation and control at the base, not the dictatorship of a bureaucratic class. This is not...and cannot be...reduced to power in the hands of a party (which means in practice a party leadership).

As in the Russian revolution the Bolsheviks were only one party within the working class and they were a minority of that class. Initially they organized for support within mass organizations and claimed some initial legitimacy on the basis of the broad support they had achieved. But as that began to evaporate in 1918, they..and Lenin...switched to the formula of the "dictatorship of the party."

to suppose that socialism can be created through a top-down state hierarchy by a party leadership is merely a recipe for a bureaucratic class mode of production in which workers continue to be a subordinate and exploited class. it's also inconsistent with socialism from below which the ISO claims to favor.

later Leninist regimes couldn't even claim the kind of legitimacy the Bolsheviks could from their role in the mass organizations of 1917 in Russia. and so those who are apologists for these regimes are not actual socialists in my opinion. they're for bureaucratic class rule.

manic expression

13th January 2012, 21:55

Right. Socialism, or building socialism, isn't about democracy or anything silly like that. The party that is supposed to lead the revolutionary movement to socialism does not have to be chosen by anybody. It just proves it's the vanguard by...enforcing state control over the economy? Certainly if I mentioned the standard of living for workers in the NK, the improvement of which you might be tempted to point out as one such action proving the vanguard role of the party, you'd just retort that its extremely low level in NK is due to the need combat imperialism.
What I was responding to was the assertion that there is some panel of judges that tells us that one party is working-class while another is not; that's not how it works, a party is a working-class formation or it isn't.

Parties can prove themselves working-class vanguards by doing what can be expected of a genuinely revolutionary party of the masses: expropriating the expropriators, establishing a society not based on exploitation but on property held in common, showing solidarity with the workers of the world and refusing to bow to the threats of the bourgeoisie. The KWP has done all those things.

But on the other hand, you would never concede that this prolonged military threat against and accompanying isolation within NK might just make socialism impossible there. Instead socialism becomes equated with "anti-imperialism" and state control over the economy, no matter who effectively controls the state.
So long as workers refuse to be enslaved, socialism is never impossible.

As in the Russian revolution the Bolsheviks were only one party within the working class and they were a minority of that class.
If you are interested in ranting about the Bolsheviks then I propose you take your bitter rancor elsewhere, this is quite another topic.

to suppose that socialism can be created through a top-down state hierarchy by a party leadership is merely a recipe for a bureaucratic class mode of production in which workers continue to be a subordinate and exploited class. it's also inconsistent with socialism from below which the ISO claims to favor.
The onus you face lies in proving to us that workers are indeed exploited. Until then, you may repeat your rhetoric about "top-down" or "right-left" or "zig-zag" bureaucracy as much as you please, but it will remain rhetoric with little behind it.

Lucretia

13th January 2012, 22:16

So long as workers refuse to be enslaved, socialism is never impossible.

Idealism finds its purest expression.

Tim Cornelis

13th January 2012, 23:08

Well history shows us that the vanguard party is the most reliable way for workers to organize themselves for their interests

Begging the question: how so?

so in the modern age any working-class control would involve a working-class party in some role or another.

A non-sequitur and begging the question: why?

But as to your question, nobody just decides if a party is a working-class party, it is or it isn't.

Begging the question: by what standard?

I think it's most useful to look at a party's actions in order to determine this.

Begging the question: what kind of actions would qualify a party as a "working class" party? And by what standard?

In the case of the KWP, its long-standing commitment to the liberation of the Korean workers and its defense of the worker state even under the most difficult circumstances tells us its orientation, I think.

The most totalitarian state in the world, yet it has a long-standing commitment to the libertarian, the liberation, (the LIBERATION! for crying out loud) of the working class?!

its defense of the worker state even under the most difficult circumstances tells us its orientation, I think.

Which is yet another completely fallacious argument. Because the KWP defends their state (which every ruling party in the history of the world has done and will do) and they purport it to be a workers' state, it must necessarily be true?!

"all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation", that's why it is defending the state it rules.

The mere suggestion that North Korea deserves praise is ludicrous.

I cannot fathom why any person declaring himself a socialist could praise North Korea. In terms of working class power, there is more in Sweden and the Netherlands!

Moreover, the notion that it is a vanguard/working class-party that has to control the state is completely and utterly contrary to the very basic foundations of the writings of Marx.

Socialism, as well as Marxism, is about self-emancipation.

The aim of the vanguard party is to lead the working class, and not the party, to the position of power.

Marxist-Leninists are not Marxists.

manic expression

14th January 2012, 00:33

Idealism finds its manic expression.
fyp :lol:

how so?
The most successful revolutionary efforts have seen great participation by centrally-organized parties. Where there weren't such parties, the gains made by workers were usually quite fragile. Experiences in Russia, post-WWII Europe, China and Cuba all show this.

A non-sequitur and begging the question: why?
Because it allows for greater working-class strength in the political arena and I doubt any revolutionary wants to do away with that.

what kind of actions would qualify a party as a "working class" party? And by what standard?
The ones right after that sentence...

The most totalitarian state in the world, yet it has a long-standing commitment to the libertarian, the liberation, (the LIBERATION! for crying out loud) of the working class?!
This is about liberation, not being libertarian. I hope you're not confusing the two.

"all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation",And the dictatorship of the proletariat is hardly different when it comes to resisting imperialism.

Renegade Saint

14th January 2012, 20:25

manic expression

14th January 2012, 20:40

Of course, freely embracing it implies the existence of other parties-so we can never really know if a party is 'working class' if its the only legal option available.
There (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Social_Democratic_Party) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheondoist_Chongu_Party) others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongryon).

Renegade Saint

14th January 2012, 22:00

There (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Social_Democratic_Party) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheondoist_Chongu_Party) others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongryon).
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yeah, there's more than one political party in China too (for appearance sake), but all power rests with the CPC. Don't tell me you'll defend the CPC too, because they allow actual capitalists to join the party.

manic expression

14th January 2012, 22:08

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yeah, there's more than one political party in China too (for appearance sake), but all power rests with the CPC. Don't tell me you'll defend the CPC too, because they allow actual capitalists to join the party.
I don't think there are members of non-KWP parties in the highest levels of government solely for the sake of appearances.

As for the CPC, yes, I do, but we can both be sure that we'll be able to discuss the PRC at another time, right now we should concentrate on the subject at hand.

I am curious as to how you measure the "freeness" by which the workers embrace a party. Is it not conceivable that a working class might decide that allowing for anti-socialist parties simply in order to appear democratic isn't the best course of action at a given time?

Sasha

14th January 2012, 22:15

What I was responding to was the assertion that there is some panel of judges that tells us that one party is working-class while another is not; that's not how it works, a party is a working-class formation or it isn't.

Parties can prove themselves working-class vanguards by doing what can be expected of a genuinely revolutionary party of the masses: expropriating the expropriators, establishing a society not based on exploitation but on property held in common, showing solidarity with the workers of the world and refusing to bow to the threats of the bourgeoisie. The KWP has done all those things.

So long as workers refuse to be enslaved, socialism is never impossible.

I'm sure the north-Koreans slaving in the economic free zones or whatever the newspeak term is will be delighted to know that they in fact own the factories they are working in in common and that they are also not being exploited. I'm equally sure this will be news to them.

Your a evangelist, not a leftist

manic expression

14th January 2012, 22:21

I'm sure the north-Koreans slaving in the economic free zones or whatever the newspeak term is will be delighted to know that they in fact own the factories they are working in in common and that they are also not being exploited. I'm equally sure this will be news to them.
Some specifics on this would be helpful. All I've seen on foreign investment is that the workers are still employed by their own state.

Sasha

14th January 2012, 23:09

Some specifics on this would be helpful. All I've seen on foreign investment is that the workers are still employed by their own state.

In contrast to the failed Chinese SEZs, the North Koreans developed with South Korea the Kaesong Industrial Zone (KIZ) in the southern part of North Korea. The KIZ is based on the assumption that the interests of both Koreas can be served by a combination of Southern capital and technologies with the cheap labour of North Korea. By late 2010, some 120 South Korean companies operated there with 47,000 North Korean workers. In 2010 KIZ-based companies produced goods worth $323.3 million. For the mammoth South Korean economy, this was small change, but for the North it was significant enough.
[...]
The future of the Hwanggumpyong SEZ is far less certain. Obviously Chinese businesses want to do there what their South Korean counterparts did in Kaesong, take advantage of low labour costs in North Korea. Even though Chinese labour is cheap, North Korean labour is much cheaper still, since US$15-20 a month would be seen by the average North Korean worker as a good wage. For the same labour, they would have to pay a Chinese worker between US$100 and US$150 a month

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/14/north-korea-china-special-economic-zones/

Os Cangaceiros

14th January 2012, 23:32

I don't think that the DPRK has survived because of anything they've done, necessarily, I think the DPRK is still around because their benefactor China sees the need to keep them on life support for China's own strategic and economic interests. For example:

(Seoul, Yonhap, 2011/11/06 (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2011/11/06/0200000000AEN20111106000300315.HTML)) A joint study of Chinese data by Yonhap News Agency and Seoul-based IBK Economic Research Institute showed that China imported 8.42 million tons of minerals from North Korea from January to September this year, worth US$852 million.

Over the first nine months of last year, China brought in 3.04 million tons of minerals from the North for $245 million. Most of the minerals were anthracite coals, the data showed. This year, of 8.42 million tons, 8.19 tons were anthracites. China is the sole major ally and the biggest economic benefactor for North Korea, a reclusive regime under international economic sanctions following its nuclear and long-range missile tests.

Cho Bong-hyun, an analyst at the IBK institute, said North Korea may be trying to earn much-needed hard currency as it aims to become a powerful and prosperous country by 2012. “Last year, North Korea ordered its institutions to meet their goals in foreign currency income by this year,” Cho said. “Since exporting minerals is a military business, we can see that the military is trying to meet its target. In addition, the steep mineral export growth was attributable to the lifting of the cap on the amount of mineral exports, as ordered by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.”

China appears to be trying to stockpile mineral resources at affordable prices, Cho added. North Korean anthracites were traded at an average of $101 per ton, whereas the international standard for quality anthracites is $200 per ton. “Given that North Korean coals are of very good quality, trade with China must have been made at a fairly low price,” Cho said.

Olentzero

15th January 2012, 01:33

Forgive me, it's been a late night of fun and karaoke, and I can't resist...

affixes beer bottles to his fingers

kur-r-r... come out and play-ayyyy....

15th January 2012, 01:52

Indeed it is a very well-developed monarchy that exists in the Kingdom of North Korea. The fact that the country stands up to US agression means nothing considering that it has imprisoned its own people under the guise of socialism.

Actually, it no longer claims to be socialist at all and removed any such references from its latest constitutional amendment.

kurr

15th January 2012, 02:12

kur-r-r... come out and play-ayyyy....

It's been awhile since I've read these accounts so it took me some time to track them down. Nevertheless...
www.revleft.com/vb/iso-whitening-continues-t140791/index.html?t=14079 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/iso-whitening-continues-t140791/index.html?t=14079)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/recent-expulsions-iso-t139791/index.html?t=139791
http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/on-the-de-pocification-of-the-international-socialist-organization/ (http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/on-the-de-pocification-of-the-international-socialist organization/)
I actually forgot about a lot of the details of these accounts. What a shitty organization.

Olentzero

15th January 2012, 02:57

I was going to say a few things, especially since I know David and Zach personally, but frankly Jimmie Higgins' response (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1827490&postcount=17) in the second link you provided said all I wanted to say and more. I have nothing to add to that.

manic expression

15th January 2012, 12:34

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/14/north-korea-china-special-economic-zones/
That tells us nothing that would suggest that DPRK workers are exploited.

Investment from foreign countries does not equal exploitation.

What a shitty organization.
Calling it an organization is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sasha

15th January 2012, 13:06

That tells us nothing that would suggest that DPRK workers are exploited.

Investment from foreign countries does not equal exploitation

southkorean capitalism is bad but not when it gets outsourced to the north where the workers get paid less than the cheapest Chinese worker?
Seems that for anti-imps socialism equals providing cheap labor to the worst of capitalists. I think I can hear Marx turning in his grave from here.

manic expression

15th January 2012, 13:30

southkorean capitalism is bad but not when it gets outsourced to the north where the workers get paid less than the cheapest Chinese worker?
It's not capitalism when the DPRK state is the employer of the workers. Just because South Korean firms are involved doesn't change this.

Wages don't distinguish capitalism from socialism. Wages in the DPRK are comparatively low because all one's necessities are provided by society at large, not privatized into wage form.

Seems that for anti-imps socialism equals providing cheap labor to the worst of capitalists.I wonder how we're to believe this line when we think of the oft-repeated criticism that the DPRK is too isolated to be socialist.

Sasha

15th January 2012, 14:19

It's not capitalism when the DPRK state is the employer of the workers. Just because South Korean firms are involved doesn't change this.

Wages don't distinguish capitalism from socialism. Wages in the DPRK are comparatively low because all one's necessities are provided by society at large, not privatized into wage form.

I wonder how we're to believe this line when we think of the oft-repeated criticism that the DPRK is too isolated to be socialist.

You have read what these economic free zones look like? barbed wire, electric fences, constant surveillance, armed guards and minders to prevent anyone talking to the workers.
In Burma, Iran and Egypt the state military exploiting workers is just that; dictatorships exploiting the proletariat in a notably brutal way, but in north-Korea its socialism? Please....

manic expression

15th January 2012, 16:10

You have read what these economic free zones look like? barbed wire, electric fences, constant surveillance, armed guards and minders to prevent anyone talking to the workers.
In Burma, Iran and Egypt the state military exploiting workers is just that; dictatorships exploiting the proletariat in a notably brutal way, but in north-Korea its socialism? Please....
Barbed wire and electrified fences mean security, not economic exploitation necessarily. I am less concerned with the manner in which a country surrounds a factory and more concerned with the orientation of a state/employer to the workers of a society.

In short, while Burma, Iran and Egypt may have barbed wire, they do not have the form of society that the DPRK does, and that is what we are discussing.

Sasha

15th January 2012, 16:36

I mentioned burma, Iran and Egypt for a reason, in all countries the military reinvented itself in to a vast corporation with tentacles deep into into civilian life while being at the same time (part of a powerfull faction of) the regime.
In NK they even elavated this too its state ideology thus establishing a monopoly.
It's not the working class owning the means of production there, its just not...

manic expression

15th January 2012, 16:58

How is the DPRK military a "vast corporation"?

The workers do, by law, own the means of production and control them through the KWP. Last I checked no one privately owns factories there.

PhoenixAsh

15th January 2012, 22:25

kurr

18th January 2012, 00:18

Calling it an organization is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Nah, bro, they've got the newspaper and everything.

manic expression

18th January 2012, 00:42

Wauw O_o ManicE are you fucking serious?

Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars North Korea DOESN'T have are spend on the military? And how much hunger there is in that country? That associated with the extremely un-socialistic and un-comunistic position of the military first. The vast luxury the party leaders dwell in and the fact that foreign investments are ALWAYS done to make and create PROFIT.....well...draw the conclusion!!

Investments are done to generate profit. Hence the name investment. Ie. the expectation of gain. So where exactly is this gain comming from? Tell me!
You're making all sorts of unfounded assumptions...the leaders don't dwell in "vast luxury", the military is entirely necessary to the survival of the gains made by the workers and is thus a justified expense. The "profit" in the DPRK is benefiting the workers because the process is controlled by them.

Nah, bro, they've got the newspaper and everything.
Ah, yes, how could I forget. :D

Per Levy

18th January 2012, 01:49

I am less concerned with the manner in which a country surrounds a factory and more concerned with the orientation of a state/employer to the workers of a society.

well fact is these workers work in private factorys, thanks to their low pay(enforced by the "workerstate") the private corporations make a nice profit from the workers. that is called exploitation, you know? in many capitalists countries the workers could organise a union that could fight for their interests and rights but the interest of the private capital and the north-korean state dosnt equal the interests of the workers.

In short, while Burma, Iran and Egypt may have barbed wire, they do not have the form of society that the DPRK does, and that is what we are discussing.

yeah if burma iran and egypt would just paint a red star on their flags and said they would be super socialists and anti-imperialistic then you would support them.

Killer Enigma

18th January 2012, 03:03

And now, the takedown. (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/korea-resilient-socialism-in-democratic-korea/)

Return to the Source released a response to the ISO's piece.

Per Levy

18th January 2012, 03:15

And now, the takedown. (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/korea-resilient-socialism-in-democratic-korea/)

Return to the Source released a response to the ISO's piece.

oh wonderful the "market socialist" that thinks that china is a super duper socialist country writes a lot of bs on how great north-korea is and how the iso is evil and anticommunistic. really i rather red "revleft by birth" that guy was at least entertaining in his adoration for the north-korean leadership.

to be fair though, if you think that china and north korea are socialistic then read the article it might suit you, anyone else will get nothing out of this and rightfully though.

Crux

18th January 2012, 05:10

And now, the takedown. (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/korea-resilient-socialism-in-democratic-korea/)

Return to the Source released a response to the ISO's piece.
If you genuinely believe the current chinese regime is socialist, I see no reason why your attitude to the Kim dynasty should be any different. He is to the right even of the PSL.

The "profit" in the DPRK is benefiting the workers because the process is controlled by them.
Really? You base this on...what exactly?

PhoenixAsh

18th January 2012, 06:30

You're making all sorts of unfounded assumptions...the leaders don't dwell in "vast luxury", the military is entirely necessary to the survival of the gains made by the workers and is thus a justified expense. The "profit" in the DPRK is benefiting the workers because the process is controlled by them.

Ah, yes, how could I forget. :D

You do understand that foreign investment means FOREIGN profits right? YOu do understand this basic grade 1 principle don't you? So basically you are full of shit when you say that this benefits the DPRK citizens....since it goes abroad. Meaning the DPRK citizens are exploited.

Now your asinine and very anti socialist position that the military first rule is somehow benefitting the citizens in the DPRK is repuslive.

Now explain this:

http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=7962

Since this is in part confirmed by the Chinese customs...you can not have it both ways. Either the Chinese are lying or you are full of shit about the luxury of the party top...

I also love the humbleness of his dwelling: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=39.1266208&lon=125.8134475&z=17&l=0&m=b

Renegade Saint

18th January 2012, 07:16

The workers do, by law, own the means of production and control them through the KWP. Last I checked no one privately owns factories there.
Are you aware of the difference between de facto and de jure?

Rooster

18th January 2012, 08:18

Parties can prove themselves working-class vanguards by doing what can be expected of a genuinely revolutionary party of the masses: expropriating the expropriators, establishing a society not based on exploitation but on property held in common, showing solidarity with the workers of the world and refusing to bow to the threats of the bourgeoisie.

So by this criteria, the Bolsheviks after attaining power, were the vanguard party only some of the time? Cause history didn't quite pan out like you said there. The vast majority of industry was nationalised by the workers themselves during the NEP against the desires of the Bolsheviks. So who was the vanguard party there? Also, at which point did property stop being held in common? The other two points are just rhetoric.