Just Watched North Korean Documentary,I'm totaly shocked

[Psychedelia]

im in a complete shock right now,i always knew that any country that claimed to be communistic are lying,but i think that i dont want to be grouped with communists again,this totaly fucked my moral. How can this people claim that they are socialistic? How many crimes did they made again humanity,how do you people live day to day that you are grouped with such people?- im asking you revleft

This is the documentary
24R8JObNNQ4
awQDLoOnkdI





Well if you have me for a troll you dont need to post here, i dont care what you think of me,fine if you dont like me fuck it,but dont post it here,this thread should be kept how fucked up north koreans,chinas,cubans leaders are

[Bronco]

Can't see this thread going well..

What documentary was it?

[honest john's firing squad]

god you're not even a funny troll, OP

[Comrade Samuel]

Yes blame Stalin for getting rid of most if not all things that even resemble a Marx-Leninist policy in a country he never led, years after his death.

Good logic.

Your either gravely misinformed or your a troll dear sir.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Yes blame Stalin for getting rid of most if not all things that even resemble a Marx-Leninist policy in a country he never led, years after his death.

Good logic.
Also the entirely idealistic position of blaming what happened in a country on a person or ideas...

[edit]
I know it's kind of late for this, but I should have clarified that this isn't a tendency swipe but referencing the OP's blaming the state of North Korea on Stalin, which (s)he later removed

[Drosophila]

I blame George Washington for George W. Bush. Fucking Washingtonists.

[Bostana]

And im blaming stalin for the state in china and korea.
fucking stalinists

Or you can blame the reforms brought on by Khrushchevist revisionist but hey if you wanna stick to something that doesn't make any sense when it comes to history that's your right.

[Le Penseur Libre]

What is the name of the documentary ? Im bored and i need something interesting to watch

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Or you can blame the reforms brought on by Khrushchevist revisionist but hey if you wanna stick to something that doesn't make any sense when it comes to history that's your right.
Dude (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)


From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yes blame Stalin for getting rid of most if not all things that even resemble a Marx-Leninist policy in a country he never led, years after his death.

Good logic.

Your either gravely misinformed or your a troll dear sir.
Am I missing something here? Who mentioned Stalin's name? op seems to be rather the trolling anti-communist, doesn't he?

[Raúl Duke]

I don't see it as much of a direct, outrageous trolling.

Sometimes I myself am baffled that some people on here support Stalin's regime, the failed "socialist" states (on the matter of Cuba, the only thing noteworthy and good about it is that it has brought a substantial standard of living to the Cuban people, particularly right after the Batista regime; but nothing about it is socialist), and even the DRPK (i.e. china studen). Normal people in the real world would be surprised as well, plus giving a shit about those things (many of it being 20+ years in the past) don't do anything to advance real socialism in the 21st century.

Plus I like Vice.com and its documentaries, etc.

[Koba Junior]

My eyes! They hurt from rolling!

[Igor]

I love how when a new member gets here and is enraged at one of the worst human rights violators in the world, how do M-Ls respond? (note: i'm not claiming USA is any better before any of you throws that at me)

No, they don't justify their position or explain anything, they roll their eyes and throw in witty comments and accusations of trolling.

great job boys and girls!

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

My eyes! They hurt from rolling!

These bourgeois ultra-"leftists" believe the bourgeoisie when they tell them that North Korea and even China are Stalinist. Stalin would start crying of shame if he ever saw North Korea and China today.

[Comrade Samuel]

Am I missing something here? Who mentioned Stalin's name? op seems to be rather the trolling anti-communist, doesn't he?

He edited out the part about how much we "stalinists" are at fault for whats wrong in china and north Korea.

[honest john's firing squad]

Am I missing something here? Who mentioned Stalin's name? op seems to be rather the trolling anti-communist, doesn't he?
OP edited out a part of his post blaming stalinism for the situation in NK, and also removed this questionable youtube video:
HphUVhV_MaY

[Railyon]

I actually liked that doc, watched it a while ago. Not like it shows you anything you didn't know already, but there's always gonna be people screaming "imperialist lapdogs!" at those dissing the DPRK.

[Koba Junior]

I love how when a new member gets here and is enraged at one of the worst human rights violators in the world ... (note: i'm not claiming USA is any better before any of you throws that at me)

What's interesting is that they're not shaking with rage over the worst human rights violators that happen to be closer to home. They all seem to find it much easier to latch onto propaganda disseminated about anti-imperialist countries and to rail about the evils of Stalinism.

[Igor]

What's interesting is that they're not shaking with rage over the worst human rights violators that happen to be closer to home. They all seem to find it much easier to latch onto propaganda disseminated about anti-imperialist countries and to rail about the evils of Stalinism.

how do you know he's not? it's just that this is revleft.com and it's much easier to find people defending something DPRK does than people defending something USA does.

also, even if he is utterly wrong, the correct response isn't really to just call him a troll and ignore the points he's bringing up. are you seriously expecting everyone who comes here to be somewhat well-read on leftist politics? being a rude fuck isn't really an effective method of education, imho.

[Koba Junior]

how do you know he's not?

Where are all his posts about the atrocities committed by Western capitalist countries, then?


it's just that this is revleft.com and it's much easier to find people defending something DPRK does than people defending something USA does.

This might have something to do with the fact that many people are skeptical that the information being fed them about anti-imperialist countries by atrocious capitalist countries is absolutely accurate.


also, even if he is utterly wrong, the correct response isn't really to just call him a troll and ignore the points he's bringing up. are you seriously expecting everyone who comes here to be somewhat well-read on leftist politics? being a rude fuck isn't really an effective method of education, imho.

Quite the contrary, shame can be an important tool. If he's new, he needs to lurk a bit more and do some searches, exploring posts that have touched upon these topics already. That he elected to forgo this procedure and post yet another "every communist country is bad because the television told me so" thread suggests, to me at least, that he needs to feel ashamed of himself.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

As shitty as North Korea is, I'd highly advise not to fall for bourgeois imperialist bullshit about it. The bourgeois media demonizes anti-imperialist leaders in order to justify imperialist intervention in their nations.

[Bronco]

Where are all his posts about the atrocities committed by Western capitalist countries, then?



The guy has 11 posts but if you want to see posts about the atrocities committed by Western capitalist countries you can probably find them in threads about the atrocities committed by Western capitalist countries

[Koba Junior]

The guy has 11 posts but if you want to see posts about the atrocities committed by Western capitalist countries you can probably find them in threads about the atrocities committed by Western capitalist countries

That's odd. I expected to find among his posts contributions to said threads, but I can't seem to find any.

[Igor]

Where are all his posts about the atrocities committed by Western capitalist countries, then?

He has 11 posts but uh let's just make lots of assumptions


This might have something to do with the fact that many people are skeptical that the information being fed them about anti-imperialist countries by atrocious capitalist countries is absolutely accurate.

My point was that posting "hey guys USA sucks" is pretty much preaching to the choir here. "hey guys DPRK sucks" is something that some people actually are gonna disagree on.


Quite the contrary, shame can be an important tool. If he's new, he needs to lurk a bit more and do some searches, exploring posts that have touched upon these topics already. That he elected to forgo this procedure and post yet another "every communist country is bad because the television told me so" thread suggests, to me at least, that he needs to feel ashamed of himself.

it's also a great tool to think we're dicks and discourage them from posting

[Krano]

Anyone defending the Kim dynasty for selling there people for profit should get restricted.

[Koba Junior]

He has 11 posts but uh let's just make lots of assumptions

He has enough posts to rail against Democratic Korea, but not enough to denounce American imperialism?


My point was that posting "hey guys USA sucks" is pretty much preaching to the choir here. "hey guys DPRK sucks" is something that some people actually are gonna disagree on.

Controversy does not a poignant post make.


it's also a great tool to think we're dicks and discourage them from posting

Like we're short on these brilliant posts or something.

[Zealot]

I was enjoying that "documentary" until it used a clip of a George Bush speech to prove how bad the DPRK was. Then I just laughed.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

how do you people live day to day that you are grouped with such people?- im asking you revleft


Oh dude, I have many sleepless nights worrying about what right wingers and those who are misinformed think about me, it haunts my every waking moment.:crying:

Look, I personally don't support the Kim dynasty or any of the other Juchebags, so equating what I support with the Kims is like saying I support social darwinism since I believe in evolution. I mean, seriously, there are people out there who equate Socialists to Hitler, so if you can't get over the fact that idiots will always think or say idiotic things, or make generalisations about your political beliefs, then you might as well not be a Socialist... fuck, you might as well abandon politics altogether.

[Raúl Duke]

My point was that posting "hey guys USA sucks" is pretty much preaching to the choir here. "hey guys DPRK sucks" is something that some people actually are gonna disagree on.


Controversy does not a poignant post make.

While that is true, at least in the case of the OP's post.

I really find it disingenuous and lacking that so far some people want to treat the socialist failures as something "we stay quiet about" or even, mind boggling, as something we should defend and celebrate rather than having a good, realistic dialogue about these socialist failures, their nature, the cause, and how we can avoid them in the future. Sure, I agree that the OP post is mostly worthless outside of showing us (later) some VICE.com documentaries; but I feel critiques about the DRPK, et.al has their merits in discussions among the left and hopefully one we can one day all come to some conclusion about (personally, I hope all the left realizes that they're failures and not real socialism).

And to be honest, Igor has a point. Denouncing US atrocities are basically "preaching to the choir," I bet quite a few posters here don't even bother responding/posting those things since, on the left, the atrocious behavior of the capitalist class is mostly a given.

[Igor]

He has enough posts to rail against Democratic Korea, but not enough to denounce American imperialism?

are you expecting a serious answer to someone who refers to DPRK as "Democratic Korea"

nope wasn't thinking so


Like we're short on these brilliant posts or something.

well yeah overflow of support and participation is a crucial problem with the contemporary left

[Brosip Tito]

Stalinist knee-jerk reaction to people who, correctly, criticize the DPRK as a capitalist dictatorship, brought on by the idealist and revisionist Marxist-Leninist trend arising from Russia, is hilarious.

Fuck the capitalist dictatorship of North Korea, and it's barbaric streak of human rights abuses.

It's about time you Stalinists drop this defense of everything "anti-imperialist".

[Koba Junior]

While that is true, at least in the case of the OP's post.

I really find it disingenuous and lacking that so far some people want to treat the socialist failures as something "we stay quiet about" or even, mind boggling, as something we should defend and celebrate rather than having a good, realistic dialogue about these socialist failures, their nature, the cause, and how we can avoid them in the future. Sure, I agree that the OP post is mostly worthless outside of showing us (later) some VICE.com documentaries; but I feel critiques about the DRPK, et.al has their merits in discussions among the left and hopefully one we can one day all come to some conclusion about (personally, I hope all the left realizes that they're failures and not real socialism).

And to be honest, Igor has a point. Denouncing US atrocities are basically "preaching to the choir," I bet quite a few posters here don't even bother responding/posting those things since, on the left, the atrocious behavior of the capitalist class is mostly a given.

Critiques about Democratic Korea ought to focus on the failures that are objectively true, not those perpetuated through propaganda nurtured by capitalism. I have my own criticisms of Juche and various anti-imperialist countries that are not truly socialist, but what good are we doing allowing ourselves to digest the kind of propaganda that, by design, attacks communism and anti-imperialism?

[Koba Junior]

are you expecting a serious answer to someone who refers to DPRK to "Democratic Korea"

nope wasn't thinking so

It's interesting how you elected to post this in lieu of an actual point.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

What I am gathering from the idiots . . . oops, I mean ultra-lefts:

Imperialism does not exist and should stop being used as a "defense" for North Korea.

This bourgeois documentary is cool.

"Stalinists" (Marxist-Leninists) fighting against the flame the OP went on to edit out of his post are supporting North Korea.

Anyone acknowledging the existance of imperialism and its attempts to destroy North Korea should be restricted so no one has to know about imperialism (and this is coming from a former "Marxist-Leninist").

[Koba Junior]

Imperialism does not exist ...

Is this a joke?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Is this a joke?

:confused: I wasn't talking about me, I was mocking the ultra-lefts and one traitor.

[Koba Junior]

:confused: I wasn't talking about me, I was mocking the ultra-lefts and one traitor.

Oh, thank Stalin. I was actually worried about you for a moment.

[BE_]

To the Marxist-Leninists, you can't denounce every western news source as "imperialist". There are ultimate truths about the DPRK that are horrid, like them using their people as slaves. Put that in your head. Any "communist" country shouldn't use their citizens as slaves.

[Bronco]

Who said Imperialism doesn't exist?

[Railyon]

What I am gathering from the idiots . . . oops, I mean ultra-lefts:

Imperialism does not exist and should stop being used as a "defense" for North Korea.

This bourgeois documentary is cool.

"Stalinists" (Marxist-Leninists) fighting against the flame the OP went on to edit out of his post are supporting North Korea.

Anyone acknowledging the existance of imperialism and its attempts to destroy North Korea should be restricted so no one has to know about imperialism (and this is coming from a former "Marxist-Leninist").

You are a lot like individualists; you see all the parts but can't grasp the totality.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Who said Imperialism doesn't exist?

That is what you guys are basically saying when you say the imperialism "defense" should not be used anymore.

[Igor]

That is what you guys are basically saying when you say the imperialism "defense" should not be used anymore.

it should not be used to defend other imperialist states

ie north korea

[Koba Junior]

it should not be used to defend other imperialist states

ie north korea

North Korea does have a strong armed and economic presence all over the world.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

it should not be used to defend other imperialist states

ie north korea

North Korea . . . Imperialist? Please do explain why you are more willing to highlight a small nation's non-existent imperialism instead of accepting the West's real and large-scale imperialism.

[Bronco]

That is what you guys are basically saying when you say the imperialism "defense" should not be used anymore.

It isn't at all, recognising and condemning imperialism does not necessitate supporting the DPRK, a capitalist state which oppresses the workers every bit as much as Western nations do. I mean, they even brag about having the "lowest labour cost in Asia" and their expanding "new market(s)" (http://www.korea-dpr.com/business.html)

[Koba Junior]

It isn't at all, recognising and condemning imperialism does not necessitate supporting the DPRK, a capitalist state which oppresses the workers every bit as much as Western nations do. I mean, they even brag about having the "lowest labour cost in Asia" and their expanding "new market(s)" (http://www.korea-dpr.com/business.html)

Recognizing and condemning imperialism necessarily means being critical of propaganda efforts to justify imperialist activity. I do not stand in solidarity with Democratic Korea on the issue of socialism, but I do stand with them in solidarity on the issue of anti-imperialism. To be critical of the Qaddafi or Hussein regimes is not the same as permitting the use of propaganda to justify imperialist intervention in those countries.

[Rafiq]

Well if cheap moralism and emotionally targetted rhetoric effect your political views on things so easily, perhaps you should rethink whether you're a Marxist to begin with.

[Zealot]

By the way, I just love how the topic is called "Just Watched North Korean Documentary,I'm totaly shocked" as if, you know, they had never heard of North Korea and the claims made about it. It's possible but it just seems more likely that this is a very trollish attempt at a thread.

Psychedelia seems like he/she may be quite new to the left. For example, he makes this thread, lists Gandhi as a hero (he/she is a pacifist), promotes so-called "Green Marxism" and, to top it all, has written in his signature "A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." Now if that isn't idealism I don't know what is.

Comrade Psychedelia, if you are new to left politics I suggest you do some reading on Imperialism and Korean history before you make threads like this. Yes, not many people here are supportive of the regime in the DPRK but we do attempt to examine the material forces at play.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well if cheap moralism and emotionally targetted rhetoric effect your political views on things so easily, perhaps you should rethink whether you're a Marxist to begin with.

I never know who you are speaking out against.

Is it the ultra-lefts who whine about "human rights", or the Marxist-Leninists who don't like flaming and don't like people believing everything the bourgeoisie tells them to?

[Bronco]

Recognizing and condemning imperialism necessarily means being critical of propaganda efforts to justify imperialist activity. I do not stand in solidarity with Democratic Korea on the issue of socialism, but I do stand with them in solidarity on the issue of anti-imperialism. To be critical of the Qaddafi or Hussein regimes is not the same as permitting the use of propaganda to justify imperialist intervention in those countries.

I don't deny we should be critical of Western propaganda which attempts to justify imperialism, and of course we should take it with a big pinch of salt, but at the same time we shouldn't simply overlook the problems of the DPRK regime and blindly dismiss any valid criticisms

[Rafiq]

I never know who you are speaking out against.

Is it the ultra-lefts who whine about "human rights", or the Marxist-Leninists who don't like flaming and don't like people believing everything the bourgeoisie tells them to?


It's targetted against the OP.

[Rafiq]

To our non-Stalinists here: Do not adopt the opposite of their politics for fuck all reason. Don't resort to cheap moral criticisms about "Human rights" and so on.

There are better ways in which we can criticize the DPRK, without Humanism, and without this Emotional Idealism.

[Koba Junior]

I don't deny we should be critical of Western propaganda which attempts to justify imperialism, and of course we should take it with a big pinch of salt, but at the same time we shouldn't simply overlook the problems of the DPRK regime and blindly dismiss any valid criticisms

Where do we find these valid criticisms? Certainly not in the original post.

[Igor]

North Korea . . . Imperialist? Please do explain why you are more willing to highlight a small nation's non-existent imperialism instead of accepting the West's real and large-scale imperialism.

instead of? are some of you people literally incapable of understanding that condemning north korean imperialism and capitalism in absolutely no fucking way has an effect on how i view the united states? it seriously tells a lot about you guys that the primary defence for DPRK you have is reflecting it all to how the united states is worse. it's glad to know how high your standards are.

also yeah, NK is acting precisely like an imperialist power. just how many times have they threatened seoul with destruction by their godly artillery fire? and it's not like them shooting missiles over south korea and into the sea of japan is nothing else than them trying to flex their nice little muscles. the scale might be small, sure, but they're doing everything they can to establish themselves as a regional force to be reckoned with, especially through showcasing their military capabilities. yeah, they're not a global imperialist force in any way but the state of DPRK is nothing to be protected with the "yeah but imperialism" argument because I'm pretty sure they would take on Seoul if the current situation didn't make it a very bad idea. in my eyes, they're really no better than the United States, their weakness doesn't grant them any kind of superiority or anything that'd make me to stand up for them.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Where do we find these valid criticisms? Certainly not in the original post.
You didn't see the video where the workers live in shitty labor camps essentially working as slaves in Siberia?

[Bronco]

Where do we find these valid criticisms? Certainly not in the original post.

No I agree there, the OP is new to leftist politics I feel and by their own admission is a previous anti-Communist. Admittedly I've not seen the video that was posted so I can't say if that contained any valid criticisms or not

[Igor]

You didn't see the video where the workers live in shitty labor camps essentially working as slaves in Siberia?

yes but the united states is so much worse

guys can't we just focus on this!!

[Koba Junior]

I love how mature people are being.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I love how mature people are being.
Did you even watch the videos before you brushed it off as "bourgeois propaganda"?

[Koba Junior]

Did you even watch the videos before you brushed it off as "bourgeois propaganda"?

Yes. It shouldn't come as so much of a surprise that I might hold an opinion that's different from yours.

[moulinrouge]

Well if cheap moralism and emotionally targetted rhetoric effect your political views on things so easily, perhaps you should rethink whether you're a Marxist to begin with.

Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.

[#FF0000]

yo people defending North Korea are generally dummies but at the same time I am p. sure it is nowhere as bad as people say it is.

ain't somewhere i'd want to live, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was better than a lot of the world.

[Rafiq]

Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.

Well, you do sound ridiculous. Partially because it's a gross misinterperitation of the quote, and partially because Che was a Bourgeois romantic and not Marxist.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rusty Shackleford]

hey look how shitty Iraq was in the 90's! Totes a reason to liberate them.


O8iQ5eVrdPk

[Krano]

:confused: I wasn't talking about me, I was mocking the ultra-lefts and one traitor.
If it means that im a traitor because i don't subscribe to your idea of Socialism which is the idea that being exiled to Siberia and working as a slave for a bourgeois regime thats living in luxury back in Pyongyang.

[Drosophila]

Gotta give the OP credit, he managed to turn something that otherwise would have been a 3 post thread into a 4 page thread. Want attention on RevLeft? Mention Joseph Stalin in your post.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yes. It shouldn't come as so much of a surprise that I might hold an opinion that's different from yours.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that a Stalinist doesn't care if workers are getting fucked over in another country that describes itself as socialist, it's really not surprising at all. That's basically been the norm of Stalinism hasn't it? Oh but you know it's not socialism, so you have to cover it up by saying they're "anti-imperialist". Oh how I would hate to live in anti-imperialist countries...

[Koba Junior]

It shouldn't come as a surprise that a Stalinist doesn't care if workers are getting fucked over in another country that describes itself as socialist, it's really not surprising at all.

Given that you have access to any and all of my previous posts, this is just a baseless personal attack.


That's basically been the norm of Stalinism hasn't it? Oh but you know it's not socialism, so you have to cover it up by saying they're "anti-imperialist". Oh how I would hate to live in anti-imperialist countries...

You couldn't be saying that you would accept or encourage the efforts of Western countries, the epicenter of capitalism, to maintain the system through exploiting other countries. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, and the epicenter of capitalism is weakened through opposition to imperialist efforts to delay the effects of the crisis. You're not arguing against my position at all; you're inventing one so you have a reason to attack me.

[JAM]

The misunderstanding here is that for the op all the states with "Socialism" in its name or associated to it are the same and probably don't have a notion of what Juche means and how it departed from Marxism-Leninism. That is why all this discussions take place afterwards.

I wanna just give this quote of Kim Jong-il to the op:

"We could not literally accept the Marxist theory which had been advanced on the premises of the socio-historic conditions of the developed European capitalist countries, or the Leninist theory presented in the situation of Russia where capitalism was developed to the second grade. We had had to find a solution to every problem arising in the revolution ... from the standpoint of Juche".

Kim Jong-il admitted himself the divorce with marxism-leninism.

Not everybody is forced to know this things but is important to mention it in order to avoid future misunderstandings.

[Offbeat]

Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.
Love is a bourgeois construct which should be shunned by leftists.

[Tim Cornelis]

yo people defending North Korea are generally dummies but at the same time I am p. sure it is nowhere as bad as people say it is.

It arguably is exaggerated, but I wouldn't say "nowhere as a bad". Many of the claims of the atrocious nature of are based on the aggregate of claims of fled North Korean emigrants.


ain't somewhere i'd want to live, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was better than a lot of the world.

I think North Korea is the worst place to live, not only are you subject to severe exploitation, perpetual threat of hunger, if you speak your mind you are severely punished.

I can't imagine a worse country to live in.
------------------------------

It'd be curious to see how some here would treat North Korea if its leadership aligned themselves with the likes of Mussolini and Shin Chaeho without changing the content of their economic, social, and political policies. I imagine those most vocal in defending North Korea for whatever reason, would embrace any criticism uncritically.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

If it means that im a traitor because i don't subscribe to your idea of Socialism which is the idea that being exiled to Siberia and working as a slave for a bourgeois regime thats living in luxury back in Pyongyang.

:crying:Please come back:wub:

No, I'm kinding. I just called you a traitor to make it sound dramatic . . . dun dun dun.

[Krano]

Love is a bourgeois construct which should be shunned by leftists.
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/171/lolsjs.png

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Given that you have access to any and all of my previous posts, this is just a baseless personal attack.



You couldn't be saying that you would accept or encourage the efforts of Western countries, the epicenter of capitalism, to maintain the system through exploiting other countries. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, and the epicenter of capitalism is weakened through opposition to imperialist efforts to delay the effects of the crisis. You're not arguing against my position at all; you're inventing one so you have a reason to attack me.
I really don't think it's a baseless attack at all. You can talk all you want about workers and how you are for them but Stalinists have shown over and over again that they could give two shits about workers in "anti-imperialist" states which are themselves just nationalist capitalist dictatorships and instead will just say in response to any criticism of these places "Well the USA is worse and imperialist"!

You don't think a good criticism of "Democratic Korea's"(As you call it) regime is they send workers to Siberia, make them live in shitty conditions, and massively exploit their labor like they're slaves? Because that video was in the OP, and you just said that the OP had no valid criticism. So please tell me how much you care about North Korean workers again, I'd love to hear you gush over how you love the working class.

[Koba Junior]

I really don't think it's a baseless attack at all. You can talk all you want about workers and how you are for them but Stalinists have shown over and over again that they could give two shits about workers in "anti-imperialist" states which are themselves just nationalist capitalist dictatorships and instead will just say in response to any criticism of these places "Well the USA is worse and imperialist"!

Just more of the same, huh? All right then. It's interesting how you've ignored my criticisms of the Workers' Party of Korea and juche, seizing instead upon my criticism of imperialist propaganda as an implicit approval of the anti-socialist policies of the country.


You don't think a good criticism of "Democratic Korea's"(As you call it) regime is they send workers to Siberia ... [emphasis added]

They're cooperating with capitalist Russia?


... make them live in shitty conditions ...

Is this so much a problem of coercion as it is of exploitation and the inherent poverty of the country?


... and massively exploit their labor like they're slaves? Because that video was in the OP, and you just said that the OP had no valid criticism. So please tell me how much you care about North Korean workers again, I'd love to hear you gush over how you love the working class.

I've had the courtesy not to label every little thing you said as approval of Western imperialism and exploitation of workers; I should be able to expect you to extend a similar courtesy. I don't know what I'm doing expecting informed, civilized debate on this website, though.

[Offbeat]

They're cooperating with capitalist Russia?

Russia and DPRK are big buddies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean-Russian_relations

[Koba Junior]

Russia and DPRK are big buddies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean-Russian_relations

I should've been more specific:

They're cooperating with capitalist Russia to send Koreans to Siberia?

[Drosophila]

I see the OP changed from mentioning Stalin to mentioning Cuba. Good thing manic and Kassad aren't here anymore to debate that.

[Offbeat]

I should've been more specific:

They're cooperating with capitalist Russia to send Koreans to Siberia?
Yes. If you've got time for another documentary about North Korea, this one's quite good and investigates the labour camps in Siberia.
http://www.vice.com/vice-news/north-korean-labor-camps-part-1
EDIT: This is actually the full version of the second video in the OP.

[Koba Junior]

Yes. If you've got time for another documentary about North Korea, this one's quite good and investigates the labour camps in Siberia.
http://www.vice.com/vice-news/north-korean-labor-camps-part-1

I'm checking out the documentary as we speak. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but Siberia actually looks kind of nice. But, seriously, I am checking this out.

[marl]

I'm checking out the documentary as we speak. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but Siberia actually looks kind of nice. But, seriously, I am checking this out.

I hope you mean Siberia, as in the geographic region, and not life within the camps.

Anyway, I think the term 'Stalinism', as it applies to the CPSU under Stalin, is silly for the DPRK. North Korea is actually a "stratocracy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy) where power lies within the state (controlled by the NDC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defence_Commission_of_North_Korea) (which controls the armed forces)), rather than a central party bureaucracy.

[Koba Junior]

I hope you mean Siberia, as in the geographic region, and not life within the camps.

I meant the geographical region. As for the labor camps, what I'm seeing is grossly unpleasant, but not nearly as awful as conditions that exist in the American prison system. There's an awful lot of effort into making sure these images are being juxtaposed to highly emotional rhetoric.

That being said, before some genius comes along and says I'm approving of these camps, I am not approving of their use by a clearly non-socialist regime. If they were being used to house and extract labor from expropriated capitalists, I wouldn't have much of a problem with them, however.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Just more of the same, huh? All right then. It's interesting how you've ignored my criticisms of the Workers' Party of Korea and juche, seizing instead upon my criticism of imperialist propaganda as an implicit approval of the anti-socialist policies of the country.Except for the fact that you didn't make any criticisms of North Korea at all, at least not in this thread. I just looked at all of your posts and you basically say the same thing over and over "bourgeois propaganda, we shouldn't be listening to bourgeois propaganda".


They're cooperating with capitalist Russia?
Apparently.



Is this so much a problem of coercion as it is of exploitation and the inherent poverty of the country?So you are justifying it? Justifying the conditions workers live in in North Korea while the leaders live fat I might add.


I've had the courtesy not to label every little thing you said as approval of Western imperialism and exploitation of workers; I should be able to expect you to extend a similar courtesy. I don't know what I'm doing expecting informed, civilized debate on this website, though.
I don't care if you said I give approval for Western imperialism, every time there is talk about countries that are "anti-imperialist" the message Stalinists give over and over again is "The U.S. is worse and imperialist!" Yes the U.S. is imperialist, but what of the workers of North Korea? How do they gain their liberation? By hushing up about their shitty existence and waiting for the imperialist powers to fall to socialist revolution?

If the criticism is correct, then it is correct, whether it's coming from the "imperialists" or "communists". Does the North Korean government do some pretty weird shit to try and make things look like they're better than they really are? Yeah, it obviously does. Does it have some really weird cultish shit going on? Yeah obviously. Does it exploit it's people? We could go on an on like this, and it doesn't bother me one bit if a person who wants to invade North Korea believes the same things, as long as they are true.

[Comrade Hill]

instead of? are some of you people literally incapable of understanding that condemning north korean imperialism and capitalism in absolutely no fucking way has an effect on how i view the united states? it seriously tells a lot about you guys that the primary defence for DPRK you have is reflecting it all to how the united states is worse. it's glad to know how high your standards are.


There wouldn't even be a "North Korea" if it wasn't for the U.S. The people there only wish to be reunited, but the U.N. and South Korea keep putting off the peace talks.



also yeah, NK is acting precisely like an imperialist power. just how many times have they threatened seoul with destruction by their godly artillery fire? and it's not like them shooting missiles over south korea and into the sea of japan is nothing else than them trying to flex their nice little muscles.


They are not simply "flexing their muscles," they are telling the imperialists to lay off. North Korea, as revisionist and non-socialist it may be, has a right to self-determination. An imperialist power does not fire rockets into the sea, they fire rockets onto people.



"yeah but imperialism" argument because I'm pretty sure they would take on Seoul if the current situation didn't make it a very bad idea.


And your "yeah but North Korea" argument is based off of some kind of magical mind reading power you have that tells you what North Korea wants to do.



in my eyes, they're really no better than the United States

The United States has attempted to overthrow nearly 50 governments in the past, and is on the bridge of fighting 3 wars now. Gallons of blood are on their hands. North Korea waged a war against Japanese imperialism, that's it. They don't compare at all.

Read William Blum's Killing Hope, then tell me whether the United States is just like North Korea.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Igor is doing apologia for American imperialism by trying to compare it to "North Korean imperialism".:laugh:

Pathetic.

[Rooster]

How can North Korea be anti-imperialist when it's not even socialist? :rolleyes:

[Koba Junior]

Except for the fact that you didn't make any criticisms of North Korea at all, at least not in this thread. I just looked at all of your posts and you basically say the same thing over and over "bourgeois propaganda, we shouldn't be listening to bourgeois propaganda".

Then you've been actively ignoring my criticisms of juche and the persistence of the national capitalist class in that country.


So you are justifying it? Justifying the conditions workers live in in North Korea while the leaders live fat I might add.

Yes, I'm justifying exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. That's exactly what I'm doing.


I don't care if you said I give approval for Western imperialism, every time there is talk about countries that are "anti-imperialist" the message Stalinists give over and over again is "The U.S. is worse and imperialist!" Yes the U.S. is imperialist, but what of the workers of North Korea? How do they gain their liberation? By hushing up about their shitty existence and waiting for the imperialist powers to fall to socialist revolution?

They certainly do not gain their liberation through documentaries like this. These only serve to justify imperialist intervention. Liberation of the working class in Korea does not come through endorsing imperialism; it comes through criticism of juche and the party in that country.


If the criticism is correct, then it is correct, whether it's coming from the "imperialists" or "communists".

Correct or not, it's what's done with the information that's the question. And this kind of thing is clearly not designed in favor of the cause of worker liberation; it's designed to be used as justification for imperialist intervention. Or do you think that, when the general public sees something like this, they say to themselves, "If only they were socialist!"?

[QUOTE[Does the North Korean government do some pretty weird shit to try and make things look like they're better than they really are? Yeah, it obviously does. Does it have some really weird cultish shit going on? Yeah obviously. Does it exploit it's people? We could go on an on like this, and it doesn't bother me one bit if a person who wants to invade North Korea believes the same things, as long as they are true.[/QUOTE]

You're treading a fine line between criticizing Democratic Korea and implicitly endorsing the imperialist paradigm. I'd be interested in reading what you'd have to say about juche and the historical determination of this type of revisionism.

[Koba Junior]

How can North Korea be anti-imperialist when it's not even socialist? :rolleyes:

I sometimes can't believe the things I read on this website.

[Rooster]

I sometimes can't believe the things I read on this website.

Oh? Is it socialist then?

[Drosophila]

How can North Korea be anti-imperialist when it's not even socialist? :rolleyes:

Who's saying that?

I think most simply don't want imperialist powers (America, UK, Russia, etc.) to take it over. That doesn't mean they support the policies of the DPRK.

[marl]

There wouldn't even be a "North Korea" if it wasn't for the U.S. The people there only wish to be reunited, but the U.N. and South Korea keep putting off the peace talks.

Although much of the Korean people want unification, both sides are at fault. The DPRK would like to have the peninsula, and the ROK would like it as well.

It was the south that made the first leaps into cooperation (with the neoliberal economic community and "sunshine policy), but we, as communists, should not take a side and support either (ROK because they're bourgeoisie capitalist, DPRK because they're a state-capitalist military dictatorship slowly opening themselves up to liberalism).



They are not simply "flexing their muscles," they are telling the imperialists to lay off. North Korea, as revisionist and non-socialist it may be, has a right to self-determination. An imperialist power does not fire rockets into the sea, they fire rockets onto people.

They're just trying to piss off the west into supplies (which, due to material conditions, they can't get themselves).

[A Revolutionary Tool]

There wouldn't even be a "North Korea" if it wasn't for the U.S. The people there only wish to be reunited, but the U.N. and South Korea keep putting off the peace talks.But I doubt the South Korean people want to live like they do in North Korea, under the leadership of the Kim family dynasty.




They are not simply "flexing their muscles," they are telling the imperialists to lay off. North Korea, as revisionist and non-socialist it may be, has a right to self-determination. An imperialist power does not fire rockets into the sea, they fire rockets onto people.Okay then, take the example of when North Koreans shelled and killed actual people within the last few years.




And your "yeah but North Korea" argument is based off of some kind of magical mind reading power you have that tells you what North Korea wants to do.Except for they come out all the time saying they want to bomb the shit out of South Korea. During the lead up to the latest missile launch they sent out videos of military commanders talking about wiping out Seoul for some sort of disrespect given to the new leadership or something like that.



The United States has attempted to overthrow nearly 50 governments in the past, and is on the bridge of fighting 3 wars now. Gallons of blood are on their hands. North Korea waged a war against Japanese imperialism, that's it. They don't compare at all.He was saying that if they were in a favorable position they would.

[seventeethdecember2016]

The OP is either a troll, stupid, or new; either way, there is no knowledge to be gained from strawmans and simple speculations. Close this thread please!

[Koba Junior]

Oh? Is it socialist then?

So do you people never read previous messages in a thread, ever?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

How can North Korea be anti-imperialist when it's not even socialist? :rolleyes:

Even the most reactionary nation, like Iran, can be anti-imperialist. As long a nation stands against the imperialism of larger imperialist states, like the United States, it is an anti-imperialist state, even if they are only anti-imperialist for their own interests.

[Rooster]

So do you people never read previous messages in a thread, ever?

I'm just clearing things up here. You support North Korea because it's anti-imperialist, right? But you don't think it's socialist?

[marl]

Even the most reactionary nation, like Iran, can be anti-imperialist. As long a nation stands against the imperialism of larger imperialist states, like the United States, it is an anti-imperialist state, even if they are only anti-imperialist for their own interests.

They stand against the imperialism of the US, but certainly not the imperialism of Russia.

[Koba Junior]

I'm just clearing things up here. You support North Korea because it's anti-imperialist, right? But you don't think it's socialist?

I support Democratic Korea's anti-imperialist efforts. I support efforts that may be undertaken in Democratic Korea to improve the conditions of the working class. I do not support the Workers' Party's continued maintenance of the national bourgeoisie and their justification for so doing.

[Igor]

Igor is doing apologia for American imperialism by trying to compare it to "North Korean imperialism".:laugh:

Pathetic.

how exactly am i apologizing for american imperialism when i say that north korea is really not any better, just currently in a lot weaker position. you might disagree on that stance, sure, but it's in no way an apologia for american imperialism.

also whoever recommended me go and read Killing Hope, I've read it and it's a good book.

it's just pretty pointless for us as leftists to be focusing everything we got against specifically US imperialism because it'd get just replaced with another kind of imperialism if US ever came crumbling down. imperialism is our enemy, not US imperialism.

[marl]

I support Democratic Korea's anti-imperialist efforts. I support efforts that may be undertaken in Democratic Korea to improve the conditions of the working class. I do not support the Workers' Party's continued maintenance of the national bourgeoisie and their justification for so doing.

If sending workers off to be slaves in Russia to pay off a debt is improving their conditions, then you must support austerity in the west.

[Omsk]

Oh just close this deranged workers thread.

[Rooster]

I support Democratic Korea's anti-imperialist efforts. I support efforts that may be undertaken in Democratic Korea to improve the conditions of the working class. I do not support the Workers' Party's continued maintenance of the national bourgeoisie and their justification for so doing.

You support the state because it's anti-imperialist. So, is it or isn't it socialist?

[Koba Junior]

If sending workers off to be slaves in Russia to pay off a debt is improving their conditions, then you must support austerity in the west.

Right, because that's exactly what I meant. Good work.

[Rooster]

If sending workers off to be slaves in Russia to pay off a debt is improving their conditions, then you must support austerity in the west.

It's not just it's own workforce that it is exploiting, be that in Siberia, in the SEZs or within it's own state. It's adversely the working class as a whole.

[Koba Junior]

You support the state because it's anti-imperialist. So, is it or isn't it socialist?

I detect hostility, because I've been very clear that I support specific actions without supporting the state in general. That, and I've already answered, several times throughout this thread, whether the country is socialist or not. I'd thank you to exercise some courtesy and attempt to keep up.

[Rooster]

I detect hostility, because I've been very clear that I support specific actions without supporting the state in general. That, and I've already answered, several times throughout this thread, whether the country is socialist or not. I'd thank you to exercise some courtesy and attempt to keep up.

I want you to explicitly answer this though; is it, or isn't it, socialist?

[moulinrouge]

Liberation of the working class in Korea does not come through endorsing imperialism; it comes through criticism of juche and the party in that country.

The north korean workers who have criticized the party disagree with you.

[Koba Junior]

I want you to explicitly answer this though; is it, or isn't it, socialist?

You know my answer. I refuse to be baited.

[Omsk]

Oh come on comrade Rooster,why would he as an anti-revisionist, (I presume) consider the DPRK as a socialist country?

[Rooster]

You know my answer. I refuse to be baited.

If I know it, then why would I need to bait you? Maybe I'm missing the post in this thread where you said whether it is or isn't socialist. Perhaps you could link me to it?

[marl]

If I know it, then why would I need to bait you? Maybe I'm missing the post in this thread where you said whether it is or isn't socialist. Perhaps you could link me to it?

Here's your answer:


Critiques about Democratic Korea ought to focus on the failures that are objectively true, not those perpetuated through propaganda nurtured by capitalism. I have my own criticisms of Juche and various anti-imperialist countries that are not truly socialist, but what good are we doing allowing ourselves to digest the kind of propaganda that, by design, attacks communism and anti-imperialism?

[Rooster]

Here's your answer:

That's a poor answer.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Then you've been actively ignoring my criticisms of juche and the persistence of the national capitalist class in that country.Maybe somewhere in a different thread, but not in this one.




Yes, I'm justifying exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. That's exactly what I'm doing.That's exactly what it looks like you're doing. You even say "what I'm seeing is grossly unpleasant, but not nearly as awful as conditions that exist in the American prison system." Which again looks like you trying to justify it but at the same time saying you're not. "It's bad, I agree, but it's not THAT bad" makes it look like you're justifying it whether you like it or not.


They certainly do not gain their liberation through documentaries like this. These only serve to justify imperialist intervention. Liberation of the working class in Korea does not come through endorsing imperialism; it comes through criticism of juche and the party in that country.Haha, nobody ever said the liberation of the working class comes through a documentary, but I don't think it justifies imperialist intervention at all. Do you see me saying we need to invade North Korea? No. It's not my fault if the truth is used against countries as reasons for imperialist invasion, if something is used against a country as an excuse for imperialist invasion it doesn't make the criticism factually incorrect does it?




Correct or not, it's what's done with the information that's the question. And this kind of thing is clearly not designed in favor of the cause of worker liberation; it's designed to be used as justification for imperialist intervention. Or do you think that, when the general public sees something like this, they say to themselves, "If only they were socialist!"?So keep the truth hidden because it may make them look bad? It's funny because half of the bad press North Korea gets is "It's so secretive, nobody knows what is going on so they must be doing horrible things".


You're treading a fine line between criticizing Democratic Korea and implicitly endorsing the imperialist paradigm. I'd be interested in reading what you'd have to say about juche and the historical determination of this type of revisionism.
Haha, I'm treading a fine line by saying the truth is the truth, no matter who accepts it. I thought it was what people did with that information that mattered, not whether it was correct or not. If somebody says "that's fucked up how they treat those workers, let's invade North Korea" I'd have no problem with the former half of what they said and neither should you.

[marl]

That's a poor answer.

Well, I didn't write it, post it nor agree with it. I merely hit control f and typed in 'socialist'.

[Koba Junior]

That's a poor answer.

So "no" was not the answer you wanted?

[Koba Junior]

I merely hit control f and typed in 'socialist'.

Why was the above so difficult for Comrade Brooster?

[marl]

Why was the above so difficult for Comrade Brooster?
Maybe because in your posts you imply the proletariat are the ruling class of the DPRK (which they aren't).

[Koba Junior]

Maybe because in your posts you imply the proletariat are the ruling class of the DPRK (which they aren't).

I would be very interested in seeing where, exactly, I implied that and how. And I'd also be interested in learning how this impeded his ability to hit CTRL and F.

[marl]

I would be very interested in seeing where, exactly, I implied that and how.

Actually, nevermind. I misinterpreted something you typed.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Why was the above so difficult for Comrade Brooster?
Because a simple "no" was just as hard right?

[Tim Cornelis]

I should've been more specific:

They're cooperating with capitalist Russia to send Koreans to Siberia?

Labor trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean-Russian_relations)


North Korea’s export of labor to Russia dates to the Soviet era, when prisoners were used in logging compounds that were run entirely by North Korean security forces. In 1995 the North Korean and Russian governments renewed the treaty that had lapsed in 1993 under which North Korea would supply 15,000–20,000 loggers to work off Soviet-era debts. A variety of other North Korean enterprises have subsequently entered the business of providing contract labor in logging and the construction sector in Vladivostok.[53]

In 2004, the Russia Federal Immigration Service issued in 14,000 licenses for the employment of North Korean laborers in Russia. Following strong demand from local companies, just in 2006 regional authorities of Primorsky Krai agreed to issue extra 5,000 working visas to North Koreans.[54]


North Korea, as revisionist and non-socialist it may be, has a right to self-determination.

Another ML who believes in national self-determination/national sovereignty. This idea is based on the idea you need a state to enforce order, therefore communists must logically opposite it. Moreover, national self-determination in practice means self-determination for the national elite.

No country or people has a right to self-determination.

[Rooster]

So, Koba Junior here (your run of the mill Stalinist) supports North Korea, a capitalist state on the basis of anti-imperialism even though it is exploiting it's own workforce and as a side effect, lowering the power of labour worldwide. Who was it that said that Marxism-Leninism is little more than social democracy?

[Koba Junior]

Because a simple "no" was just as hard right?

It wasn't like he was being needlessly hostile, not like you would know a thing about that, though.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It wasn't like he was being needlessly hostile, not like you would know a thing about that, though.
Sorry, I tend to get needlessly hostile when I see people who describe themselves as communists justify terrible things the working class has to endure.

[Koba Junior]

Sorry, I tend to get needlessly hostile when I see people who describe themselves as communists justify terrible things the working class has to endure.

This clearly demonstrates that you're ignoring the content of literally all of my posts. You've taken what could've been an actual debate and turned it into catty little pissing contest held against an imagined enemy.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

This clearly demonstrates that you're ignoring the content of literally all of my posts. You've taken what could've been an actual debate and turned it into catty little pissing contest held against an imagined enemy.
Not really, as all you've done the entire thread is say "This may be bad but" which usually means you're really about to negate everything you just said. Like when you said those camps are bad but not as bad as American prisons. So you can sit here and say whatever you want all day, but don't think that I'm going to think you're actually being genuine when you say these things, because I think you're being very disingenuous to be honest.

[Omsk]

No country or people has a right to self-determination.
I thought you were a reasonable poster,but if you continue with such simply ridiculous comments,im going to change my mind..

[Rooster]

It wasn't like he was being needlessly hostile, not like you would know a thing about that, though.

Yeah but you support a capitalist state that helps further the existence of capitalism.

[JAM]

So, Koba Junior here (your run of the mill Stalinist) supports North Korea, a capitalist state on the basis of anti-imperialism even though it is exploiting it's own workforce and as a side effect, lowering the power of labour worldwide. Who was it that said that Marxism-Leninism is little more than social democracy?

It was me. I'm glad you followed that discussion. In this case you already know how it ended and I don't have to repeat myself all over again.

[Art Vandelay]

So, Koba Junior here (your run of the mill Stalinist) supports North Korea, a capitalist state on the basis of anti-imperialism even though it is exploiting it's own workforce and as a side effect, lowering the power of labour worldwide. Who was it that said that Marxism-Leninism is little more than social democracy?

I would be interested in seeing this answered. I also find it humorous when "communists" (I use that term liberally) pick their favorite shade of capital.

[Railyon]

I also find it humorous when "communists" (I use that term liberally) pick their favorite shade of capital.

I quite like the way you put this, how else would someone in their right mind support a capitalist state only because it has beef with "the imperialist powers"? Kinda like saying, oh oppression ain't so bad as long as the US or France or Germany don't do it, like cheering on the losing bully in a bully fight over someone's lunch money.

I'm looking at the Gaddafi supporters in special.

[Tim Cornelis]

I thought you were a reasonable poster,but if you continue with such simply ridiculous comments,im going to change my mind..

National sovereignty is the right of the national elite to rule within the confinements of the borders of the nation-state. It is therefore an anti-socialist concept (being based on elitism and the bourgeois nation-state).

The right of people to self-determination has always been used by nationalists to argue for "Britain for the British". If a people, say the British or Vietnamese, have a right to self-determination they have a right to govern "their" nation-state as they please, thus depriving minorities of their rights.

Why do you think a nation has a right to self-determination? Why should self-determination be based on one's nationality or ethnicity? That seems intrinsically reactionary. Communism would take away the right to national self-determination, thus communism and national self-determination are incompatible.

[Robespierres Neck]

All the threads about North Korea (that I've seen) tend to make this turn.

I've seen that documentary. Doesn't he sing "Anarchy in the DPRK" during karaoke at the end?

Anyway, your faith in communism shouldn't diminish because of North Korea. Many of the people here consider the DPRK revisionist, and I agree. Still, I find the state fascinating.


http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=108293
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun


Sidenote - Here's some DPRK propaganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Gjw9GucKk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqUUsdoLXx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qjeqIkLrE

[Drosophila]

The host of that documentary is a dumbass, and also seems a bit racist.

[ParaRevolutionary]

The only thing thats ever damaged my morale has been the authoritarian and totalitarian complexes of leftists.

[Rafiq]

The only thing thats ever damaged my morale has been the authoritarian and totalitarian complexes of leftists.


Come at me.

[Art Vandelay]

I quite like the way you put this, how else would someone in their right mind support a capitalist state only because it has beef with "the imperialist powers"? Kinda like saying, oh oppression ain't so bad as long as the US or France or Germany don't do it, like cheering on the losing bully in a bully fight over someone's lunch money.

I'm looking at the Gaddafi supporters in special.

You could be on to something here...we have been taking it for granted that our revleft peers are "in their right mind(s)."

[Koba Junior]

Not really, as all you've done the entire thread is say "This may be bad but" which usually means you're really about to negate everything you just said. Like when you said those camps are bad but not as bad as American prisons. So you can sit here and say whatever you want all day, but don't think that I'm going to think you're actually being genuine when you say these things, because I think you're being very disingenuous to be honest.

Further proving you've neglected to read absolutely all of my posts, particularly regarding my criticisms of the regime. I'm not exactly sure what you're after, but if you'd like me to admit you're simply the better communist, you may have that.

[Koba Junior]

Yeah but you support a capitalist state that helps further the existence of capitalism.

You betray your own idealism in this post, because I was quite specific in explaining that I stand in solidarity with those anti-imperialist efforts of the D.P.R.K., while at the same time making sure to explain that I do not stand in solidarity with their anti-socialist efforts. Your position is similar to saying that, because I might happen to agree with animal rights efforts and that I found those efforts undertaken by the N.S.D.A.P. in Germany to have been advancing the cause of animal rights, I implicitly endorse genocide and antisemitism. The N.S.D.A.P. likewise banned smoking, something I happen to agree with, but does that necessarily mean that I endorse the Final Solution? That is illogical. It is likewise illogical to say that I endorse capitalist efforts because I endorse anti-imperialist efforts.

[Koba Junior]

I quite like the way you put this, how else would someone in their right mind support a capitalist state only because it has beef with "the imperialist powers"? Kinda like saying, oh oppression ain't so bad as long as the US or France or Germany don't do it, like cheering on the losing bully in a bully fight over someone's lunch money.

I'm looking at the Gaddafi supporters in special.

Weakening the imperialist powers means weakening the epicenter of capitalism, thus fighting world capitalism. If you have only a choice of evils, you must pick the lesser of the two, in an attempt to survive until the day in which you have a righteous choice to annihilate all evil.

[honest john's firing squad]

Weakening the imperialist powers means weakening the epicenter of capitalism, thus fighting world capitalism.
I wasn't aware that armed conflict between bourgeois states could mean the end of the capitalist mode of production.


If you have only a choice of evils, you must pick the lesser of the two, in an attempt to survive until the day in which you have a righteous choice to annihilate all evil.
The problem with that is that it means sending the proles off to fight and die in a bourgeois war which is against their class interests and which weakens the workers' movement as a whole.

P.S. what ridiculous appeal to morality is this?

[Koba Junior]

I wasn't aware that armed conflict between bourgeois states could mean the end of the capitalist mode of production.

I doubt North Korea has nearly as much influence over world capitalism as does America.


The problem with that is that it means sending the proles off to fight and die in a bourgeois war which is against their class interests and which weakens the workers' movement as a whole.

P.S. what ridiculous appeal to morality is this?It's an appeal to the impulse of survival which is present in all living organisms.

[honest john's firing squad]

I doubt North Korea has nearly as much influence over world capitalism as does America.
and this addresses what i said how, exactly?


It's an appeal to the impulse of survival which is present in all living organisms.
no, you said some downright weird shit about righteously annihilating all evil.

[Koba Junior]

and this addresses what i said how, exactly?

North Korea resisting the attempts of the United States to absorb it economically is not the same as endorsing capitalism.



no, you said some downright weird shit about righteously annihilating all evil.

It was weird, wasn't it? I meant that, when you only have a choice between a douche and a turd, you pick the lesser of two evils until you can pick something that isn't quite so douche-shitty.

[Art Vandelay]

North Korea resisting the attempts of the United States to absorb it economically is not the same as endorsing capitalism.




It was weird, wasn't it? I meant that, when you only have a choice between a douche and a turd, you pick the lesser of two evils until you can pick something that isn't quite so douche-shitty.

So then you believe some manifestations of capital to be quantitatively better than others?

Also if my choices are a douche and a turd, I will choose neither and will spit in the face of anyone who claims I need to pick a side. I am a communist, I don't favor certain flavors of capitalism. On second thought....I'll take the douche (for obvious reasons).

[Koba Junior]

So then you believe some manifestations of capital to be quantitatively better than others?

Also if my choices are a douche and a turd, I will choose neither and will spit in the face of anyone who claims I need to pick a side. I am a communist, I don't favor certain flavors of capitalism. On second thought....I'll take the douche (for obvious reasons).

Depending on what would keep me alive, I'd pick either a bloody douche or a mineral-filled turd to keep me alive. I'm not so idealist that I'd turn away the absolutely disgusting if eating it meant I'd live another day to fight. I have a job in the capitalist scheme of things; I keep it because I want to live to fight capitalism, even though I must support it through my labor.

[Art Vandelay]

Depending on what would keep me alive, I'd pick either a bloody douche or a mineral-filled turd to keep me alive. I'm not so idealist that I'd turn away the absolutely disgusting if eating it meant I'd live another day to fight. I have a job in the capitalist scheme of things; I keep it because I want to live to fight capitalism, even though I must support it through my labor.

That is not even an argument, you addressed nothing that I said; you also strike me as incredibly idealist.

[Koba Junior]

That is not even an argument, you addressed nothing that I said; you also strike me as incredibly idealist.

I don't understand, but maybe if I explained my point further? I support anti-imperialism, but I don't support anti-socialism. So, I don't generally support Democratic Korea except in the case of their efforts against anti-imperialism. Please don't let my choice of name confuse you; I'd think Korea could be infinitely more democratic than it is. But, like I might be said to support Hitler's vegetarianism, I support Korea's anti-imperialism. Am I making any sense?

[Comrade Hill]

But I doubt the South Korean people want to live like they do in North Korea, under the leadership of the Kim family dynasty.


How do you know that? People in South Korea get arrested if they publicly announce their support of North Korea.

Anyway, that's not really the point. It's possible that many things could change after a national reunification. However, the main reason people want this, is they can get the hands of imperialism off of them. Then next step would be organizing the emancipation of the working people, but you can NOT have that ever if you don't reunite Korea.



Okay then, take the example of when North Koreans shelled and killed actual people within the last few years.


If you are talking about the "chemical tests on human subjects" then you are just reciting bourgeois propaganda from South Korea and the West. The people who came up with the false documents admitted that they were false.



Except for they come out all the time saying they want to bomb the shit out of South Korea. During the lead up to the latest missile launch they sent out videos of military commanders talking about wiping out Seoul for some sort of disrespect given to the new leadership or something like that.


I'd like to see the actual video, with the actual translation. I've heard from a bourgeois Australian politician that North Korea was actually plotting to launch a missile at Australia, so I am having a pretty hard time believing what you are saying.

[#FF0000]

It arguably is exaggerated, but I wouldn't say "nowhere as a bad". Many of the claims of the atrocious nature of are based on the aggregate of claims of fled North Korean emigrants

Yeah you're absolutely right -- but even in that case, the testimony of refugees like that is notoriously bad.

Either way, I should've said "I have no idea what North Korea is like". That is the only accurate and honest thing any of us can say about North Korea with absolute certainty

(probably still sucks tho)

[Igor]

Either way, I should've said "I have no idea what North Korea is like". That is the only accurate and honest thing any of us can say about North Korea with absolute certainty.

This really is the best way to go about North Korea in most matters. We really have lots of reasons to assume it isn't really doing very great at the moment and there's some really questionable shit going on, but still pretty much every single piece of news we get from there is going to be skewed into one direction or another from just slight exaggerations to outright absurdities. I mean yeah, no filter basically exists for NK stuff in the Western media and if some South Korean hack source says something, it's usually enough for people to make a "wow crazy north koreans" news article.

so yeah good basic rule question every single thing you hear from NK, pro or anti, and require some hard backing up before you'll actually believe it. there's a good chance they have nothing to do with reality. i seriously can't think of a single other thing that's surrounded by such an prolific industry of outright lying about how things are, from both sides.


How do you know that? People in South Korea get arrested if they publicly announce their support of North Korea.

This is stupid. You seriously have to be extremely unaware of anything going on in South Korea if you actually thought people there secretly want to be part of the north if only the police state didn't hold them now.

[Misanthrope]

I don't know why you expected us to defend North Korea like we are all jingoist basement dwellers.

[Comrade Hill]

This is stupid. You seriously have to be extremely unaware of anything going on in South Korea if you actually thought people there secretly want to be part of the north if only the police state didn't hold them now.

I'd have to be unaware of life in general if I thought people "secretly thought" certain things.

Many people in South Korea, such as students, can't hide their "secrets," because they announce their support of North Korea.

[#FF0000]

This really is the best way to go about North Korea in most matters. We really have lots of reasons to assume it isn't really doing very great at the moment and there's some really questionable shit going on, but still pretty much every single piece of news we get from there is going to be skewed into one direction or another from just slight exaggerations to outright absurdities. I mean yeah, no filter basically exists for NK stuff in the Western media and if some South Korean hack source says something, it's usually enough for people to make a "wow crazy north koreans" news article.

yeah but keep in mind that goes both ways. i wouldn't take the word of north korean news sources either.

[Omsk]

National sovereignty is the right of the national elite to rule within the confinements of the borders of the nation-state. It is therefore an anti-socialist concept (being based on elitism and the bourgeois nation-state).


National sovereignty is not the same as the right of nations for self-determination.Self determination is about the oppressed people fighting the oppressor state.If the people are led by a progressive revolutionary group,than we should support them,as we are leftists. If the struggle is led by a bourgeois nationalist group which seeks to replace the old foreign rulers with themselves,than we should not support such a struggle. In that case,we should support the oppressed proletariat and the proletariat of the imperialist countries,trough proletarian internationalism,in hopes that the people will rise up and demolish both the bourgeois oppressor state and the bourgeois oppressed state.

Elitism has nothing to do with national-self-determination.If there is elitism in the group which is leading the people than we won't support it. (The group,not the people.)


The right of people to self-determination has always been used by nationalists to argue for "Britain for the British". If a people, say the British or Vietnamese, have a right to self-determination they have a right to govern "their" nation-state as they please, thus depriving minorities of their rights.


I don't care what British nationalists want. Every minority (Bourgeois concept. I'd rather use nationality.) has a right for self-determination. They are free to break away from the state. (Presuming they are a majority in a region.)



Why do you think a nation has a right to self-determination? Why should self-determination be based on one's nationality or ethnicity? That seems intrinsically reactionary. Communism would take away the right to national self-determination, thus communism and national self-determination are incompatible.


National-self-determination is one of the first steps,and when we get in the position to seriously talk about communism,than there won't be a need for self-determination.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't understand, but maybe if I explained my point further? I support anti-imperialism, but I don't support anti-socialism.

Anti-imperialism is anti-socialist because it favors certain manifestations of capital over others; as if there were a quantitative difference. It helps to entrench the artificial divisions which already fragment the working class.


So, I don't generally support Democratic Korea except in the case of their efforts against anti-imperialism. Please don't let my choice of name confuse you; I'd think Korea could be infinitely more democratic than it is. But, like I might be said to support Hitler's vegetarianism, I support Korea's anti-imperialism. Am I making any sense?

I get the line of reasoning, but no I do not think it makes sense. When it comes to certain things, you cannot just remove an aspect away from the totality. So yes you can say that you support north korea on a anti-imperialist basis, but I will continue to say that the "anti-imperialist" elements of the country cannot be removed from the totality of the analysis (the fact NK is a capitalist dictatorship). As communists our job is not to pick which flavor of capital is our favorite, but to oppose it in all its manifestations.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Further proving you've neglected to read absolutely all of my posts, particularly regarding my criticisms of the regime. I'm not exactly sure what you're after, but if you'd like me to admit you're simply the better communist, you may have that.
What criticism of the regime? You keep saying you have criticism of the regime but just saying you have criticism of the regime isn't actual substantive criticism of the regime.

I guess I am the better communist, I don't support a lesser of evil bullshit that you do. Hey if you're an anti-imperialist and don't care about supporting capitalists upon that basis, why aren't you trying to get Ron Paul elected. That's a serious question, because it seems pretty damn logical considering your position.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

How do you know that? People in South Korea get arrested if they publicly announce their support of North Korea.And you think the people of South Korea want to live under the Kim dynasty?


Anyway, that's not really the point. It's possible that many things could change after a national reunification.Yeah I can bet you one thing, the only way the Kim dynasty would still be in power after a unification is if they invade South Korea and somehow win that battle.
However, the main reason people want this, is they can get the hands of imperialism off of them.And that will happen with reunification? No, that won't.
Then next step would be organizing the emancipation of the working people, but you can NOT have that ever if you don't reunite Korea.Why can't the workers in North Korea or South Korea emancipate themselves without first unifying? Because they have imperialism breathing down their neck? Korea will always have imperialism breathing down it's neck!


If you are talking about the "chemical tests on human subjects" then you are just reciting bourgeois propaganda from South Korea and the West. The people who came up with the false documents admitted that they were false.Umm no, I'm talking about in 2010 when they shelled some South Korean island...




I'd like to see the actual video, with the actual translation. I've heard from a bourgeois Australian politician that North Korea was actually plotting to launch a missile at Australia, so I am having a pretty hard time believing what you are saying.
I saw it first on Revleft with the translation but I can't find it but here's a news report:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/north-korea-issues-unusually-specific-threat-152720861.html
North Korea said they could hit Seoul and turn it to ashes in 4 minutes. But let me guess, bourgeois source is bourgeois source, so it isn't true?

[Railyon]

I wasn't aware that armed conflict between bourgeois states could mean the end of the capitalist mode of production.

Cuban Missile Crisis... :sleep: Oh the implications of that. But I hope that is not what Koba J is trying to say.

[Art Vandelay]

What criticism of the regime? You keep saying you have criticism of the regime but just saying you have criticism of the regime isn't actual substantive criticism of the regime.

I guess I am the better communist, I don't support a lesser of evil bullshit that you do. Hey if you're an anti-imperialist and don't care about supporting capitalists upon that basis, why aren't you trying to get Ron Paul elected. That's a serious question, because it seems pretty damn logical considering your position.

For the second time in this thread I will bold something hopefully an anti-imperialist can address, but given their track record I will not expect very much.

[Homo Songun]

Anti-imperialism is anti-socialist because it favors certain manifestations of capital over others; as if there were a quantitative difference. It helps to entrench the artificial divisions which already fragment the working class.

Friend, if you think capital is a "thing" that simply manifests itself here or there like poltergeists or Our Lady of Lourdes, it is no wonder you'd say something so batshit insane as "anti-imperialism is anti-socialist". Capital is a set of social relations. Marx:


Capital employs labour. Even this relation in its simplicity is a personification of things and a reification of persons. But the relation becomes still more complex—and apparently more mysterious—in that, with the development of the specifically capitalist mode of production, not only do these things—these products of labour, both as use values and as exchange values—stand on their hind legs vis-à-vis the worker and confront him as "capital"—but also the social forms of labour appear as forms of the development of capital, and therefore the productive powers of social labour, thus developed, appear as productive powers of capital. As such social forces they are "capitalised" vis-à-vis labour. [...] In this process, in which the social characteristics of their labour confront them as capitalised, to a certain extent—in the way that e.g. in machinery the visible products of labour appear as ruling over labour—the same thing of course takes place for the forces of nature and science, the product of general historical development in its abstract quintessence: they confront the workers as powers of capital.I'd suggest folks seeking a basic understanding of the relationship between the struggle against imperialism and the movement for socialism start with the following texts in order:

Wage Labor and Capital (Marx) (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WLC47.html)
Wages, Price, and Profit (Marx) (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WPP65.html)
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (Lenin) (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/IMP16.html)

These are all short and relatively easy reads. If you don't have time even for that, then quite frankly the devil Stalin is even briefer and more succinct:

Foundations of Leninism, Chapter 1 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html#c1)

For sure, there's been updates and clarifications since these were written, but people should really stay away from all the cranky rebuttals and exegeses before reading the theoretical source documents first.:rolleyes:

[Koba Junior]

What criticism of the regime? You keep saying you have criticism of the regime but just saying you have criticism of the regime isn't actual substantive criticism of the regime.

Then hit CTRL and F and search for the word "juche." It's not like I haven't mentioned my criticism of the Workers' Party through their ideology several times.


I guess I am the better communist, I don't support a lesser of evil bullshit that you do. Hey if you're an anti-imperialist and don't care about supporting capitalists upon that basis, why aren't you trying to get Ron Paul elected. That's a serious question, because it seems pretty damn logical considering your position.

Getting Ron Paul elected wouldn't do a damn thing to end American imperialism, although I have toyed with the idea of getting someone absolutely incompetent elected to force the country into economic collapse. Before you jump down my throat about that, I'd like to explain to you that the idea is a joke.

As for anti-imperialism, the United States of America are the epicenter of global capitalism and the foremost imperialist power in the entire world. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, wherein economic and military conquest are utilized to stave off capitalist crisis through the exploitation of weaker nations and economies. In other words, imperialism is life-support for capitalism, and America is the keystone of global capitalism. To weaken that keystone means to cause the collapse of world capitalism. To weaken that keystone, then, is to combat the efforts of the imperialist powers to stave off the inevitable crises of capitalism, the advent of which would weaken capitalism worldwide and create conditions favorable to the radicalization of the proletariat and the implementation of socialist revolution. That is to say that to implicitly endorse imperialism, as you are doing by dismissing the problem out of hand, is to endorse counter-revolutionary efforts. But perhaps the D.P.R.K. would somehow rise to the top of world capitalism and resume global exploitation of the working class in the vacuum left by the destruction of American imperialism?

[Koba Junior]

For the second time in this thread I will bold something hopefully an anti-imperialist can address, but given their track record I will not expect very much.

That's a little bit like saying that someone endorses capitalism because they support the efforts of a certain bourgeois politician to make concessions that slightly improve the conditions of the working class. While it is true that the only way to truly end the exploitation of the proletariat is through revolution, it is still the duty of the communist to fight for workers' rights even as revolution remains far off. That being said, for all of Ron Paul's rhetoric and pandering, I suspect he wouldn't do much in the way of actually ending American imperialism. How can any politician installed by the bourgeois system act against the interests of the capitalist class?

[Brosip Tito]

What I am gathering from the idiots . . . oops, I mean ultra-lefts:

Imperialism does not exist and should stop being used as a "defense" for North Korea.

This bourgeois documentary is cool.

"Stalinists" (Marxist-Leninists) fighting against the flame the OP went on to edit out of his post are supporting North Korea.

Anyone acknowledging the existance of imperialism and its attempts to destroy North Korea should be restricted so no one has to know about imperialism (and this is coming from a former "Marxist-Leninist").
From now on, I'm going to refer, and I urge all those considered "ultra-lefts" to start calling Stalinists "ultra-rights"/"ultra-rightists".

We aren't saying that "imperialism does not exist" you moron. We are saying that, just because it exists, is not a reason to throw your support behind reactionary/capitalist governments who are "victims" of this imperialism, or are "anti-imperialist".

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I'm surprised that there are so many people defending, or acting as apologetics for the North Korean regime.
Sure there are shit reasons which have caused North Korea to be in its current state, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a shit country.

[Art Vandelay]

Friend, if you think capital is a "thing" that simply manifests itself here or there like poltergeists or Our Lady of Lourdes, it is no wonder you'd say something so batshit insane as "anti-imperialism is anti-socialist". Capital is a set of social relations. Marx:

Indeed it is, but capital manifests itself differently given different material conditions. When capital feels threatened it slips to fascism, when secure it takes the various forms of liberal democracies. As a communist I don't pick sides in bourgeois quarrels and don't lend support to dictators who would send the working class of his country to murder and be slaughtered by the working class of another country. Anti-imperialism, in my opinion, is reactionary since it is fundamentally based on the bourgeois concept of the sovereignty of the nation-state.

[Koba Junior]

From now on, I'm going to refer, and I urge all those considered "ultra-lefts" to start calling Stalinists "ultra-rights"/"ultra-rightists".

That reminds me of this creationist I was arguing with years ago. I told him "Nothing in modern biology makes sense except in light of evolution," and his response, I shit you not, was "Nothing in modern biology makes sense in dark of evolution." While I don't agree with the label "ultra-left," your snappy comeback just really reminded me of that creationist.


We aren't saying that "imperialism does not exist" you moron. We are saying that, just because it exists, is not a reason to throw your support behind reactionary/capitalist governments who are "victims" of this imperialism, or are "anti-imperialist".

I've actually already addressed this objection, but I'll give a simplified overview of my feelings on the issue: Imperialism, being the highest stage of capitalism, is essentially designed to stave off the capitalist crisis that would create conditions ripe for the radicalization of the proletariat. Since the foremost imperialist powers in the world are also the epicenter of global capitalism, weakening imperialism means weakening capitalism. Thus, it is not counter-revolutionary to support anti-imperialist efforts so long as the interests of the international working class are kept in mind. American imperialism would only make things worse for the workers in Democratic Korea, so it isn't so anti-socialist to stand in solidarity with anti-imperialist efforts.

[Koba Junior]

I'm surprised that there are so many people defending, or acting as apologetics for the North Korean regime.
Sure there are shit reasons which have caused North Korea to be in its current state, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a shit country.

It's interesting how people vomit up responses like this to literally pages of in-depth argument.

[Rooster]

You betray your own idealism in this post, because I was quite specific in explaining that I stand in solidarity with those anti-imperialist efforts of the D.P.R.K., while at the same time making sure to explain that I do not stand in solidarity with their anti-socialist efforts. Your position is similar to saying that, because I might happen to agree with animal rights efforts and that I found those efforts undertaken by the N.S.D.A.P. in Germany to have been advancing the cause of animal rights, I implicitly endorse genocide and antisemitism. The N.S.D.A.P. likewise banned smoking, something I happen to agree with, but does that necessarily mean that I endorse the Final Solution? That is illogical. It is likewise illogical to say that I endorse capitalist efforts because I endorse anti-imperialist efforts.

I think you're the one doing that, not me. You support a capitalist state in the hope of ending capitalism? Bravo, comrade. Love this totally incoherent post of yours.


Weakening the imperialist powers means weakening the epicenter of capitalism, thus fighting world capitalism. If you have only a choice of evils, you must pick the lesser of the two, in an attempt to survive until the day in which you have a righteous choice to annihilate all evil.

I thought all Marxist-Leninists were adapt at dialectics? :laugh:

[Art Vandelay]

That's a little bit like saying that someone endorses capitalism because they support the efforts of a certain bourgeois politician to make concessions that slightly improve the conditions of the working class. While it is true that the only way to truly end the exploitation of the proletariat is through revolution, it is still the duty of the communist to fight for workers' rights even as revolution remains far off. That being said, for all of Ron Paul's rhetoric and pandering, I suspect he wouldn't do much in the way of actually ending American imperialism. How can any politician installed by the bourgeois system act against the interests of the capitalist class?

Any politician, including those of the states who you undoubtedly support (both in the present and historically), is forced by material conditions to act in the interest of capital. It cannot be anyone other way until capital is surpassed.

[Koba Junior]

I think you're the one doing that, not me. You support a capitalist state in the hope of ending capitalism? Bravo, comrade. Love this totally incoherent post of yours.



I thought all Marxist-Leninists were adapt at dialectics? :laugh:

It's interesting how you elected to forgo actually making a counter-argument and instead opted for childish insults.

[Art Vandelay]

I've actually already addressed this objection, but I'll give a simplified overview of my feelings on the issue: Imperialism, being the highest stage of capitalism

Do people really still think that Lenin got it right back in 1917 that capitalism is in its highest stage?

[Koba Junior]

Any politician, including those of the states who you undoubtedly support (both in the present and historically), is forced by material conditions to act in the interest of capital. It cannot be anyone other way until capital is surpassed.

I'd hate to say it, but this is so far the only good point that's been made against solidarity with anti-imperialism. That being said, I still disagree, not that capitalist politicians will always act in the interests of capital, but that they will always necessarily act in the interests of world capitalism. If you were a national capitalist and your country was absorbed and exploited economically by a stronger capitalist power, you would see a stark reduction in your personal wealth, wouldn't you? And, all things considered, doesn't the expansion of the power of capitalist-imperialist countries only strengthen capitalism?

[Koba Junior]

Do people really still think that Lenin got it right back in 1917 that capitalism is in its highest stage?

What stage occurs beyond imperialism, then?

[bolshie]

yo people defending North Korea are generally dummies but at the same time I am p. sure it is nowhere as bad as people say it is.

ain't somewhere i'd want to live, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was better than a lot of the world.

I'm pretty sure that it is a pretty bad place to live, by western standards at least. They don't have much electricity or heating, not even electric lights a lot of the time, and not enough food (that's partly due to it being hilly and not very good climate). Also, not much freedom. They spend most of their money on the military. It's a bizarre place, people actually worship Kim Jong.

[Art Vandelay]

I'd hate to say it, but this is so far the only good point that's been made against solidarity with anti-imperialism. That being said, I still disagree, not that capitalist politicians will always act in the interests of capital, but that they will always necessarily act in the interests of world capitalism. If you were a national capitalist and your country was absorbed and exploited economically by a stronger capitalist power, you would see a stark reduction in your personal wealth, wouldn't you? And, all things considered, doesn't the expansion of the power of capitalist-imperialist countries only strengthen capitalism?

The class character of all states in the situation are bourgeois, they act in the interests of solely the bourgeoisie; as communists it is our job to oppose capital regardless of the manifestations it takes. I would also say that expansion of imperialist power does not necessarily strengthen global capitalism, in fact in the coming years, it would not surprise me to see resource conflicts between inter-imperialist states.


What stage occurs beyond imperialism, then?

I am not sure exactly. I have never done much reading about it and have never come across any names or whatever, but that is hardly the point. Capital is much more resilient and malleable than Lenin, Trotsky, or anyone could have predicted. Capital is constantly reinventing itself and finding new ways to stave off its own demise. I would have to say, although he addressed it, to think that Lenin's critique is still applicable today is ridiculous; the material conditions have changed too much.

[Koba Junior]

The class character of all states in the situation are bourgeois, they act in the interests of solely the bourgeoisie; as communists it is our job to oppose capital regardless of the manifestations it takes. I would also say that expansion of imperialist power does not necessarily strengthen global capitalism, in fact in the coming years, it would not surprise me to see resource conflicts between inter-imperialist states.

I'm very cautious about this kind of attitude, because I can really only see worsening conditions for the working class of Democratic Korea if the United States were to begin exploiting it directly. The working class isn't doing well as it is over there.


I am not sure exactly. I have never done much reading about it and have never come across any names or whatever, but that is hardly the point. Capital is much more resilient and malleable than Lenin, Trotsky, or anyone could have predicted. Capital is constantly reinventing itself and finding new ways to stave off its own demise. I would have to say, although he addressed it, to think that Lenin's critique is still applicable today is ridiculous; the material conditions have changed too much.

I strongly disagree. Although Lenin identified imperialism as capitalism's highest stage in 1917, I think that still applies today. Lenin could not have predicted the ways in which technology transformed the face of capital, but the very fundamental nature of capital has always remained the same. Imperialism doesn't just mean a literal military campaign of territorial conquest, but the economic exploitation of a sovereign (at least superficially) territory by a greater economic and military power.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm very cautious about this kind of attitude, because I can really only see worsening conditions for the working class of Democratic Korea if the United States were to begin exploiting it directly. The working class isn't doing well as it is over there.

You might as well be a social democrat then, because picking between bourgeois states is fundamentally the same thing as picking between bourgeois politicians. Sure the democrats may have some small improvements for the working class over the republicans; the point is however that neither are acceptable, both are still bourgeois and would only ever indirectly benefit the working class (minutely), so both must be opposed.


I strongly disagree. Although Lenin identified imperialism as capitalism's highest stage in 1917, I think that still applies today. Lenin could not have predicted the ways in which technology transformed the face of capital, but the very fundamental nature of capital has always remained the same.

I think that is a pretty simplistic (bordering on a cop-out) explanation to a situation which is almost ineffable. I think a much more interesting interpretation would be the post 1968, reinvention of capital, into what I have heard termed as cultural capitalism. Also the technological advancements and the increase in the role of finance capital since his time has made him work "imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism" almost obsolete. Regardless, I don't need a man from 1917 to tell me what I can clearly see in front of my eyes today.


Imperialism doesn't just mean a literal military campaign of territorial conquest, but the economic exploitation of a sovereign (at least superficially) territory by a greater economic and military power.

Indeed it does, however I think economic imperialism (the type prevalent today) is perhaps better described as neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism.

[Koba Junior]

You might as well be a social democrat then, because picking between bourgeois states is fundamentally the same thing as picking between bourgeois politicians. Sure the democrats may have some small improvements for the working class over the republicans; the point is however that neither are acceptable, both are still bourgeois and would only ever indirectly benefit the working class (minutely), so both must be opposed.

What's awfully frustrating is that people continue to insist that I "support" Democratic Korea all across the board, rather than standing in solidarity with their anti-imperialist efforts. That's not unlike calling me a capitalist lap-dog for supporting efforts by a bourgeois politician to, say, raise the minimum wage or to combat union-busting by other bourgeois politicians. That is incredibly idealist. I do not support capitalism or bourgeois politicians, but I support those efforts that ease the pain of capitalist exploitation until such time as a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism can occur. To not do so would be to abandon the proletariat until they're "needed," and that's a fairly anti-communist attitude. It smacks of Sorelianism, in fact.


I think that is a pretty simplistic (bordering on a cop-out) explanation to a situation which is almost ineffable. I think a much more interesting interpretation would be the post 1968, reinvention of capital, into what I have heard termed as cultural capitalism. Also the technological advancements and the increase in the role of finance capital since his time has made him work "imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism" almost obsolete. Regardless, I don't need a man from 1917 to tell me what I can clearly see in front of my eyes today.

I still don't quite understand how any of this has made the fundamental concept of imperialism obsolete. I find the paradigm to be quite useful in explaining what goes on in the world today, and I don't think that this paradigm is necessarily incompatible with cultural capitalism.

[marl]

It's already been brought up that the DPRK isn't "anti-imperialist" because they support imperialists outside of the US!

That's anti-Western opportunism.

[Koba Junior]

It's already been brought up that the DPRK isn't "anti-imperialist" because they support imperialists outside of the US!

Could you elaborate? This doesn't tell anyone very much.

[Rooster]

What stage occurs beyond imperialism, then?

You are aware that the book that you are referring to was originally entitled Imperialism: The Latest Stage of Capitalism?

[Koba Junior]

You are aware that the book that you are referring to was originally entitled Imperialism: The Latest Stage of Capitalism?

The original title, Империализм, как Высшая Стадия Капитализма (Imperializm, kak Vysshaja Stadija Kapitalizma), translates to "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism."

[Rooster]

The original title, Империализм, как Высшая Стадия Капитализма (Imperializm, kak Vysshaja Stadija Kapitalizma), translates to "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism."

Yeah, but the original title was The Latest Stage of Capitalism as based on Hilferding's work Finance Capital, the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development. Look here:


In early 1917 the book was printed under the title Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalismhttp://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/IMP16.html

[Koba Junior]

Yeah, but the original title was The Latest Stage of Capitalism as based on Hilferding's work Finance Capital, the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development. Look here:

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/IMP16.html


Interesting, but from where does this information come? I noticed they neglected to include the original Russian title.

[Homo Songun]

Indeed it is, but capital manifests itself differently given different material conditions.
Why do you keep talking about capital 'manifesting' in this way? It is fundamentally false!


When capital feels threatened it slips to fascism, when secure it takes the various forms of liberal democraciesThis is an example of the animistic fallacy. Capitalism doesn't proceed as if it has an innate intelligence guiding it.


Anti-imperialism, in my opinion, is reactionary since it is fundamentally based on the bourgeois concept of the sovereignty of the nation-state.Practically speaking I don't care what an anti-imperialist's motivations are, all else being equal. They can be "fundamentally" based on any number of things. To the degree that they can be united with in opposing imperialism they are objectively progressive and not reactionary. But this "bourgeois concept" you speak of isn't the originating motivation of any Marxist I know. Rather it is simply that overthrowing imperialism is "of importance for the proletariat inasmuch as it saps radically the position of capitalism by converting the colonies and dependent countries from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution", as Stalin put it. After all, Marx himself said that "property relations involve the exploitation of some nations by others", did he not?

----



What stage occurs beyond imperialism, then? I am not sure exactly. I have never done much reading about it and have never come across any names or whatever, but that is hardly the point. Capital is much more resilient and malleable than Lenin, Trotsky, or anyone could have predicted. Capital is constantly reinventing itself and finding new ways to stave off its own demise. I would have to say, although he addressed it, to think that Lenin's critique is still applicable today is ridiculous; the material conditions have changed too much.Where are you getting the idea that the resourcefulness of capitalism presents a problem for Lenin's theory? To the contrary, it is the starting point. The only sense in which the statement could be true would be true if capitalism transcended the basic laws under which it operates. Are you seriously claiming this? If so it would have to be argued for, not simply asserted.

Maybe it would help to turn this question around and examine the theories that claim a higher-than-highest stage of capitalism.

Kautsky argued (on the eve of WW1, ironically) that the era of inter-imperialist rivalry was closing, and that, in his words, "the transfer of trust methods to international politics" would usher in a super-imperialist cartel for the orderly division of profits between all of the imperialist powers. Of course, if this were true, we couldn't even speak of any conflict between the DPRK and the United States, since after all we all know the DPRK isn't socialist (:rolleyes:), and thus would be a part of the cartel in question!

Negri's "Empire" recapitulates Kautsky's ideas. He also thinks the UN and the nonprofit industrial complex are somehow the 'democratic' opposition to the global 'cartel' of imperialist states. Lawl.

None of these alternatives' basic unsatisfactoriness disproves that Lenin's theory has been superseded of course. But it sure as hell doesn't prove it.

What other theories are out there?


cultural capitalismWhat on Earth is that?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Then hit CTRL and F and search for the word "juche." It's not like I haven't mentioned my criticism of the Workers' Party through their ideology several times.
Just did this all the way to the current post. Like I said, you don't criticize them at all, you just say you have criticism of them but don't even say any criticism of them.



Getting Ron Paul elected wouldn't do a damn thing to end American imperialism, although I have toyed with the idea of getting someone absolutely incompetent elected to force the country into economic collapse. Before you jump down my throat about that, I'd like to explain to you that the idea is a joke.I don't know Ron Paul seems like the guy who really actually wants to pull the U.S. out of all of these places, you should reconsider your vote Mr. Lesser of two evils. But what's funny is you apparently think North Korea is going to do a damn thing to end U.S. imperialism. What happens when the "anti-imperialist" capitalists gain the upper hand and become the imperialists themselves?


As for anti-imperialism, the United States of America are the epicenter of global capitalism and the foremost imperialist power in the entire world. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, wherein economic and military conquest are utilized to stave off capitalist crisis through the exploitation of weaker nations and economies. In other words, imperialism is life-support for capitalism, and America is the keystone of global capitalism. To weaken that keystone means to cause the collapse of world capitalism. To weaken that keystone, then, is to combat the efforts of the imperialist powers to stave off the inevitable crises of capitalism, the advent of which would weaken capitalism worldwide and create conditions favorable to the radicalization of the proletariat and the implementation of socialist revolution. That is to say that to implicitly endorse imperialism, as you are doing by dismissing the problem out of hand, is to endorse counter-revolutionary efforts. But perhaps the D.P.R.K. would somehow rise to the top of world capitalism and resume global exploitation of the working class in the vacuum left by the destruction of American imperialism?
Yeah exactly, what do you think is going to happen when all of the "anti-imperialists" that are nationalist capitalist dictatorships gain the upper hand? Capitalism apparently goes into crisis in the current world-powers, the anti-imperialist states don't do anything, and the proletariat create socialist revolution! Really, that's the plan of supporting brutal capitalist dictatorships? Because apparently forcing an economic crisis on a country will create a socialist revolution. *cough* Bullshit *cough*.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I watched the whole thing but I'm still left wondering, is this what's North Korea is really like? I just would like to see it with my own eyes.

Edit: God damn't I wish I could talk to average working class North Koreans and ask them about how life, work, and so on is. Not some silly doc perspective but real on the ground shit.

Edit edit: my favorite part was Anarchy in the DPRK, because I am an antichrist, I am an anarchist, don't know what I want but I know how to get it, I wanna destroy passerby, cuzzz I wanna be Anarchyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Fucking classic and brilliant and surreal.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't see it as much of a direct, outrageous trolling.

Sometimes I myself am baffled that some people on here support Stalin's regime, the failed "socialist" states (on the matter of Cuba, the only thing noteworthy and good about it is that it has brought a substantial standard of living to the Cuban people, particularly right after the Batista regime; but nothing about it is socialist)

You act as though 'living standards' are but a sidenote.

Isn't the whole idea of politics, economics, ideology etc. that we organise society, social structures, institutions, economic relationships, trade and power along lines that allow for the highest standard of living across society, as well as the ability of individuals to (to a greater degree, at least) self-determine their own economic position within society?

Whilst i'm not a supporter of Cuba as such, and whilst there are a great many criticisms that can be made of its non-Marxist and somewhat dictatorial approach to political and economic organisation, criticising it on the basis that it has "only" raised living standards and is not explicitly Socialist (though, to be honest, it does pay a great deal of lip service to Socialism, red flags and all, if that's what you're looking for) seems to be a wholly anti-Marxist line to take. Surely criticise Cuba for its unequal power relationships, the unequal spread of rises in living standards and wealth, not for it actually raising living standards per capita!