Why do some Marxists still support N. Korea?

[DasFapital]

Its seems odd considering the government hasn't even endorsed an official Marxist stance in 20 years.

[X5N]

Same reason some Marxists support Assad or Qaddafi. Murderous regimes aside, they're fighting against imperialism!!!111!!1

[Deicide]

Delusion.

[Blanquist]

Why did Marxists support Stalin or Mao?

[X5N]

Why did Marxists support Stalin or Mao?

See:


Delusion.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It depends on what they're specifically defending. Should the country of North Korea be defended against imperialism at all costs? I would say they do. That having been said, I do not believe this is the same as endorsing the North Korean state. Of course there is the possibility that such an alliance will mean supporting the state in some fashion, but that is really beside the point. Of course, the regime itself is completely irredeemable and therefore must be taken down. But allowing imperialism to strengthen its hegemony in any part of he globe is much worse.

[Questionable]

It's kind of a lose-lose situation. US imperialism can make big promises about establishing democracy, but well know North Korea would just be a cash puppet if it fell to them, no better than what it is now. Still, it would probably be easier for the working class to break away from the Juche Regime than a US occupation, so I support the lesser evil in hopes that the workers will gain consciousness and rise up.

[Althusser]

Because Kim Jong Il invented the cheeseburger. In all seriousness though, that Maoist Rebel News guy on youtube supports North Korea. He has a shirt that says "I want to be North Korean." He's also in full support of the Assad regime because the Syrian rebels just recently allied themselves with Israel or something. What was the American based communist group that wrote that eulogy for Kim Jong Il when he died?

[Questionable]

Because Kim Jong Il invented the cheeseburger.

No, dude. It's called the "Double Bread With Meat."

[wsg1991]

i do prefer Assad or gaddafi on any Imperialist puppet , and because they are anti-western power .
but that doesn't mean i actually support them ,
Libyans haven't any real reason to overthrew gaddafi

[Mista Commie]

Why did Marxists support Stalin or Mao?

You are SO funny! :rolleyes:

Instead of being a demagouge, stick to the topic. Anyways, I would support North Korea over imperialism any day. I do not think that the Kim dynasty are true socialists, but if they were taken over by the imperialists, akin to South Korea, it would not be good.

[X5N]

Libyans haven't any real reason to overthrew gaddafi

Really now?

[wsg1991]

Really now?

give me one

btw i live in a close country ( Tunisia ) ,
choose your arguments carefully

[X5N]

give me one

btw i live in a close country ( Tunisia ) ,
choose your arguments carefully

The fact that he was an awful dictator who violently suppressed dissent?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Enver Hoxha was pretty critical of Libya, saying Gaddafi started Progressive, however made a turn for opportunism. He also spewed Islamist dogma, which Hoxha didn't hold in high regard. Besides that, he said life became marginally better thanks to revenue from the oil fields.

[Comrade Samuel]

Why did Marxists support Stalin or Mao?

Why did you make a post with only 7 words that you know would start a flame war is an even better question.

OP I don't really think Marxists support North Korea, Syria or the former government of libya and those who actualy believe that being anti-imperialist alone is a redeeming quality of these reactionary shit holes are the deranged ones here.

[Sir Comradical]

For Orthodox-Trotskyists, the DPRK should be defended because it's a deformed workers' state which is based on collectivised property relations and the defeat of the capitalist class. The leadership is not a class rather a parasitic caste that must be overthrown by the Korean workers and peasants themselves. For most Marxist-Leninists the DPRK is socialist and the analysis ends there.

[workerist]

i think b.r. myers argues convincingly that n.korea has more in common with 'national socialism' than anything socialist or marxist. the communist rhetoric and symbols are mere window-dressing, their real ideology is race-based and very xenophobic, inherited from japanese fascism. i haven't read myers book 'the cleanest race' yet but that is supposed to be the thesis.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

As others have already commented, the anti-imperialism stance seems to trump the fact that it is a brutal dictatorship which has nothing but words / names and heavy propoganda to support the idea that's it's at all socialist.
We keep acting like it's just a case of the 'lesser of two evils' (sure the regime sucks, but we're against american imperialism, so if I had to choose, I'd support them). Is it not possible to be firmly against both? Can't we support the workers of the DPRK against both imperialism and the current regime? Both are / would be acting against the interests of the workers and against the concept of socialism and communism. At least that's my take on it.

[Ismail]

Every source which mentions the subject notes that racism is a big issue in the DPRK. Even in the 1950's and 60's East German ambassadors cabled back home that the xenophobic atmosphere reminded them of the Nazi period.

Of course the DPRK doesn't conduct genocide or anything, so it's just an indication of the right-wing line the country took in domestic affairs, trying to synthesize Korean mysticism and tradition with a nationalist deviation from Marxism-Leninism through Juche. Today the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin are pretty much ignored.

Hoxha did not have kind words for Kim Il Sung, who adopted opportunistic foreign policy lines in an effort to present himself as a successor to Tito in the "Non-Aligned Movement." Still, the DPRK does enjoy things like free health care, education, and other progressive rights. The fall of the DPRK to American imperialism (or submission to Chinese capitalism) would see those gains quickly disappear. It is also a fact that neither the USA nor China are fond of the present government and want it to "reform" to match their interests.


Enver Hoxha was pretty critical of Libya, saying Gaddafi started Progressive, however made a turn for opportunism. He also spewed Islamist dogma, which Hoxha didn't hold in high regard. Besides that, he said life became marginally better thanks to revenue from the oil fields.Yes, here's the quote, from his diary in 1980:

"As is known, in 1969 there was a revolt in Libya, too; the dynasty of King Idris was overthrown and a group of young officers, headed by Qaddafi who poses as anti-imperialist, came to power. We can describe this revolt, this movement, as progressive at first, but later it lost its impact and at the moment it has fallen into stagnation. Qaddafi who came to power and claims to be the head of Islam, exploited the Moslem religion to present Libya as a 'progressive' country and even called it 'socialist', but in reality the great oil wealth of the country is being exploited for very dubious adventurous and sinister aims. Of course, for purposes of demagogy and because the income from the sale of oil is truly colossal, some changes have been made in the life of the people in the cities, while the poverty stricken nomads of the desert remain a grave social problem. As we know, Qaddafi was a disciple of Nasser's in politics, ideology and religious belief, as well as in his aims."
(Enver Hoxha. Reflections on the Middle East. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1984. pp. 362-363.)

[eyeheartlenin]

For Orthodox-Trotskyists, the DPRK should be defended because it's a deformed workers' state which is based on collectivised property relations and the defeat of the capitalist class. The leadership is not a class rather a parasitic caste that must be overthrown by the Korean workers and peasants themselves. For most Marxist-Leninists the DPRK is socialist and the analysis ends there.

The Trotskyist position only makes sense if one believes there is a functioning society in the Korean "Democratic" "People's" Republic. What I read a couple of years ago about the DPRK gave me the impression that the North Korean countryside had collapsed economically, because of the famine there; if there is no economic interchange between town and country(side), it seems to me that situation means there is not a functioning society (except, of course, that the repressive organs are undoubtedly still going strong in North Korea; cops and bureaucrats are probably the only North Koreans who can count on eating regularly). If there is not a functioning society, then, I would think, there is nothing to defend. I particularly think that rhetoric about "free health care, education and other progressive" achievements is surreal, when one is talking about a place where ordinary people have to face chronic famines. Surely, the right to survive is the first right to be concerned about. North Korea stands out as the biggest current embarrassment for "socialism."

[Ismail]

It's only "surreal" if God was punishing the DPRK for something and us mortals could do nothing to stop him. Since the famines presumably don't originate from a divine being, and in fact the DPRK's originate from sanctions and the withholding of food aid for political reasons (a practice condemned by Jimmy Carter among others), I wouldn't consider it surreal. Education is free; children go to school for absolutely no cost. Health care is free, even if the quality of that health care is in many cases quite bad because of aforementioned sanctions. Certainly in the capital both education and health care work reasonably well when the situation the whole country faces is taken into account.

The famine of the late 90's is over. Food is still scarce in the countryside, but conditions overall are better than, say, the Congo or Nigeria or something.

[Sasha]

The famine of the late 90's is over. Food is still scarce in the countryside, but conditions overall are better than, say, the Congo or Nigeria or something.

yet a lot worse than in the way more logical comparison south-korea...
and not suprisingly (at least it shouldn't be to those who claim to adhere strictly to materialistic analysis like self titled "marxists") the level of class struggle, class consiousness and class organisation is way higer in the south too (probably the worst "US imperialist puppet state" currently in existence). So i really would like to see some basis for the claims of those that "the DPRK's regime is the lesser of the two evils" as thats a fundamentally un-marxist postion to have for self-proclaimed marxists.

[Tim Cornelis]

There is two points these so-called "anti-imperialists" overlook in their support for North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, and so forth. They argue that if any of these regimes is overthrown by imperialists a puppet regime will take its place which would be even worse. But this is nonsense. All the imperialists have to do is open up the country to foreign investments, and allow for a more "freer" market economy. This does not necessitate a puppet regime.
Second, most regimes these self-proclaimed "anti-imperialists" support are either backed by imperialist powers (e.g. Russia and China) or are imperialist themselves (e.g. Zimbabwe).
"Anti-imperialists" thereby often support imperialism themselves.


The famine of the late 90's is over. Food is still scarce in the countryside, but conditions overall are better than, say, the Congo or Nigeria or something.

Better in terms of what?

[Sasha]

There is two points these so-called "anti-imperialists" overlook in their support for North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, and so forth. They argue that if any of these regimes is overthrown by imperialists a puppet regime will take its place which would be even worse. But this is nonsense. All the imperialists have to do is open up the country to foreign investments, and allow for a more "freer" market economy. This does not necessitate a puppet regime.
Second, most regimes these self-proclaimed "anti-imperialists" support are either backed by imperialist powers (e.g. Russia and China) or are imperialist themselves (e.g. Zimbabwe).
"Anti-imperialists" thereby often support imperialism themselves.


"anti-imperialism" is often just a nicer way of saying orientalism...

[Comrades Unite!]

My opinion on your question is that some of our Comrades will defend ANYTHING that is titled Communist or Socialist.
For example: Maoist Rebel News 2 tried to defend some of Pol Pot's actions.

Another example from MRN2 would be his constant support of North Korea(Personally I think they're fucked either way,If somebody such as the US decide to ''liberate'' them they will then become a puppet for the US who will no doubt look for something.And the current regime are extremely oppressive I seen videos of people that managed to escape with they're children but the parents were caught and brought back and the children found out later they're father starved and mother was shot)

Really they are deluded idiots.

[Peoples' War]

A lot of the reason the DPRK is supported, has to do with the "anti-imperialist" position of some Marxists. Not actual anti-imperialism, but supporting regimes and leaders who are bourgeois themselves. I used to be unabashedly in support of the DPRK and Cuba, their regimes.

Comrade Ismail makes the point of free healthcare. Certainly, that is progressive, but not uncommon in most industrialized, and even some not so industrialized, capitalist nations.

He also makes the point of free education, however, doesn't acknowledge the fact that this education is based around indoctrination of the youth. I highly doubt the North Korean school system focuses much on the important

It is a point of fact that sanctions are definitely causing a lot of issues with famine, but it is also a point of fact that the regime is doing nothing to remedy the situation.

We can't avoid the fact that, while some of these things can look progressive and good on the outside, buzzwords like "free healthcare" and "free education" are in fact tainted when we look within. The same with blaming everything purely on sanctions.

The solution is for the state capitalist, bureaucratic dictatorship to come to an end.

Liberal-bourgeois democracy would be progress compared to the current DPRK system.

[Deicide]

Liberal-bourgeois democracy would be progress compared to the current DPRK system.

*Hides behind umberalla to avoid flying pieces of shit from the shitstorm that's about to commence*

Shhhh, you cant say that here ;)

[Ismail]

He also makes the point of free education, however, doesn't acknowledge the fact that this education is based around indoctrination of the youth. I highly doubt the North Korean school system focuses much on the importantSo you don't think the DPRK's education system trains engineers, technicians, and whatnot? "Indoctrination" doesn't amount to much since it isn't like Kim Il Sung called on the Koreans to valiantly do away with electricity and the written word or something.


It is a point of fact that sanctions are definitely causing a lot of issues with famine, but it is also a point of fact that the regime is doing nothing to remedy the situation.What can it do? It has called for peace talks with the South and for an end to the sanctions. Short of filling the entire US political landscape with secret agents, I doubt it could do much else except reform itself out of existence.


Better in terms of what?In terms of people not dying of malaria or being conscripted into civil wars, presumably. Better in terms of not being illiterate. Better, indeed, in terms of access for food for the most part as well.

[Krano]

My opinion on your question is that some of our Comrades will defend ANYTHING that is titled Communist or Socialist.
For example: Maoist Rebel News 2 tried to defend some of Pol Pot's actions.

Another example from MRN2 would be his constant support of North Korea(Personally I think they're fucked either way,If somebody such as the US decide to ''liberate'' them they will then become a puppet for the US who will no doubt look for something.And the current regime are extremely oppressive I seen videos of people that managed to escape with they're children but the parents were caught and brought back and the children found out later they're father starved and mother was shot)

Really they are deluded idiots.
MRN is a great person if you get to know him, but indeed his views are pretty messed up.

[Ismail]

Second, most regimes these self-proclaimed "anti-imperialists" support are either backed by imperialist powers (e.g. Russia and China) or are imperialist themselves (e.g. Zimbabwe).
"Anti-imperialists" thereby often support imperialism themselves.Russia and China back the DPRK as a counterweight to the USA and countries aligned with it like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. But any news article on their relations will note that the Chinese and Russians play a "moderating" role in regards to the DPRK, trying to convince it to be "realistic" and to open the country up to Chinese and Russian investments, etc.

Zimbabwe is clearly not an imperialist power, unless practically every African state can be defined as "imperialist" as well.

[Peoples' War]

So you don't think the DPRK's education system trains engineers, technicians, and whatnot? "Indoctrination" doesn't amount to much since it isn't like Kim Il Sung called on the Koreans to valiantly do away with electricity and the written word or something. I am quite sure they manage to train and educate in those fields in which it needs to continue functioning.

However, how many in NK's popualtion are "engineers, technicians, and whatnot"? It's not a majority of the people.

However, to expect them to have some great education system, just because it's free is absurd. The same way you must acknowledge that they will not teach an accurate account of history, or anything else that could turn the population against the Kim dynasty.


What can it do? It has called for peace talks with the South and for an end to the sanctions. Short of filling the entire US political landscape with secret agents, I doubt it could do much else except reform itself out of existence.Internally, it could actually institute democracy.


In terms of people not dying of malaria or being conscripted into civil wars, presumably. Better in terms of not being illiterate. Better, indeed, in terms of access for food for the most part as well.
Better =/= good.

[Ismail]

However, how many in NK's popualtion are "engineers, technicians, and whatnot"? It's not a majority of the people.Are you saying the majority of the people in any country are engineers, technicians, etc.? I don't quite get your point here.


However, to expect them to have some great education system, just because it's free is absurd.I wasn't making that claim, though the DPRK's education system was certainly not condemned in the 1950's-80's back when it had a normal economy and lots of access to outside assistance, textbooks, equipment for schools and laboratories, etc.


Internally, it could actually institute democracy.To get rid of sanctions? You might as well support Obama since, after all, he pressed for Burma to "democratize" as well, and indeed, it has less sanctions now and is opening up to US markets.

The working-class of the DPRK must emancipate itself. To expect a bourgeois government to "institute democracy" on any considerable level outside of the minimum required to be looked upon as acceptable to US imperialism is absurd.

[GerrardWinstanley]

North Korea is a horrendous country, but I would defend it from United States threats of intervention and sanctions, which I feel has a lot to answer for in keeping the country in poverty, NK's development of a nuclear deterrent, strengthening the regime and undermining valuable efforts made towards the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula desired by both sides.

[Peoples' War]

Are you saying the majority of the people in any country are engineers, technicians, etc.? I don't quite get your point here.My point is: what are the rest of the people doing, since they aren't in these positions you deem as educated.


I wasn't making that claim, though the DPRK's education system was certainly not condemned in the 1950's-80's back when it had a normal economy and lots of access to outside assistance, textbooks, equipment for schools and laboratories, etc.Obviously this would hinder education, yes. However, my point is that they could also do things about this. Via China, and via not indoctrinating it's youth.


To get rid of sanctions? You might as well support Obama since, after all, he pressed for Burma to "democratize" as well, and indeed, it has less sanctions now and is opening up to US markets.No no, not to get rid of sanctions. For the sake of instituting democracy. I'm well aware that it won't happen, but it isn't because it's "bourgeois", but because of the form of government the bourgeois has currently. it WILL take a revolution, and whether that revolution is socialist, or for bourgeois-democracy, it would be progress.

[Ismail]

My point is: what are the rest of the people doing, since they aren't in these positions you deem as educated.Presumably out in the fields growing food or working in factories in urban areas. You know, like any normal society. Or, as has been noted by watchers of Korean affairs, constructing new buildings as of late.


Obviously this would hinder education, yes. However, my point is that they could also do things about this. Via China, and via not indoctrinating it's youth.I'm pretty sure the DPRK imports things from China already. Probably not many textbooks since I doubt "DENG XIAOPING'S AWESOME THEORIES JUSTIFYING FULL-SCALE CAPITALISM" is very acceptable to the government. In fact one of Kim Jong Il's few attempts to pose as a "Marxist" was a short indirect critique of Dengism.

"As for the influence exerted by the development of productive forces in capitalist society, we must not approach it from only one side. The development of the productive forces in capitalist society intensifies the bipolar differentiation, which results from the increasing imbalance between rich and poor. It sharpens class contradictions, while at the same time; it provides the monopolists with increasing possibilities to spend part of their high profits on soothing class contradictions."
(Kim Jong Il, Socialism is a Science, 1994.)

[wsg1991]

The fact that he was an awful dictator who violently suppressed dissent?

no that happened after the protests
why did they protest in the first place ?

have you any idea about their living standard ?
i don't see how a population with very low education system such as Libyans , will ask for democratic change

[Comrades Unite!]

MRN is a great person if you get to know him, but indeed his views are pretty messed up.

Hello

I sort of know him, I've talked to him many times and I've talked to him with other through his blog tv show.

I think he can be an utter arse-licker of anything titled Socialist but he can be a cool person.

His views are certainly all over the place and the only reason I know who he is is because he calls himself a Maoist yet he rarely does videos on Maoism however he seems like a cool person so no personal hating from me.

[Tim Cornelis]

In terms of people not dying of malaria or being conscripted into civil wars, presumably. Better in terms of not being illiterate. Better, indeed, in terms of access for food for the most part as well.

Deaths by malaria can not entirely be attributed to the economic system. The severity of the problem, sure. There are more reported deaths due to malnourishment in North Korea than Nigeria and Congo. Nigeria, though corrupt and authoritarian, does not have concentration camps, nor is it totalitarian for that matter.

I'd rather live in Nigeria than North Korea.


Russia and China back the DPRK as a counterweight to the USA and countries aligned with it like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. But any news article on their relations will note that the Chinese and Russians play a "moderating" role in regards to the DPRK, trying to convince it to be "realistic" and to open the country up to Chinese and Russian investments, etc.

Right, so North Korea is backed by imperialists.


Zimbabwe is clearly not an imperialist power, unless practically every African state can be defined as "imperialist" as well.

From another thread I started:

I found this group on revleft, Solidarity with Zimbabwe (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=333), who describe the group as:


We support Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's recapturing of land by and for the African people that was stolen from them by the European Colonialists.

We may have some criticisms of Mugabe and ZANU-PF.

We oppose the Movement for "democratic" change and condemn them as working in the interests of Imperialism.

Chimurenga!

And I can't help but wondering, are they serious, or is it like a mock group like Marxism-Leninism-Jonesism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=696)?

Are they completely mad? Are we now supporting any vicious dictator because of anti-colonial rhetoric?

Zimbabwe has an unemployment rate of more than 80 percent (more than 90% a few years ago), before 2010 hyperinflation was destroying the economy, and why?

Because Zimbabwe participated in the Congo war to reap financial benefits, i.e. imperialism!


there are signs that Harare is pouring money into the war with the hope of reaping longer-term financial rewards from its relationship with DR Congo.

Diamonds are mined in rebel-held territory (image caption)

Some observers have suggested that the main beneficiaries will be a group of people associated with the army and the government rather than the national economy.

In September, Zimbabwe announced joint business ventures with DR Congo including diamond and gold dealing, to add to the war chest of both countries.

"Instead of our army in the DRC burdening the treasury for more resources, which are not available, it embarks on viable projects for the sake of generating the necessary revenue," Defence Minister Moven Mahachi said.

The official Herald newspaper said two companies based in Zimbabwe and DR Congo would be granted licences to buy and sell diamonds and gold, and would set up offices manned by military officers.

In October, Zimbabwe's state-run Agricultural and Rural Development Authority was awarded more than 500,000 hectares of farming land in DR Congo.

The chairman of the authority, Dr Joseph Made, said the land would be used for maize, soya beans and livestock, and would create "enormous business opportunities for Zimbabwean companies."

John Makumbe, a political scientist at the University of Zimbabwe and fierce critic of the government said: " Zimbabwe seems intent on raiding the DRC and making it an economic colony."

Mr Makumbe, who heads the local branch of the anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, believes that any economic gains are unlikely to trickle down to the Zimbabwean people.

"It won't be Zimbabwe as a nation that benefits. Instead a number of individuals in the political elite will enrich themselves."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/611898.stm

Zimbabwe has a higher income inequality than the United States and Qatar.

Mugabe is also a rampant homophobe who used the magnificent logic: "pigs and dogs are not homosexual, so why should humans". Yes, we should all take the example of dogs and pigs. :rolleyes:

Yet these lunatics support him because he is somehow "anti-imperialist". It seems the most vocal anti-imperialist have no clue of what it entails.


We support Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's recapturing of land by and for the African people that was stolen from them by the European Colonialists.

Roughly 80% of the land owned by whites was bought after Mugabe took office, with government approved certificates. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXDaRrUz_lU&feature=relmfu) While obviously private property is not justified, the claim that the white farmers all stole the land they owned does not stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, no ethnicity has a claim to property based on their ethnicity, which is fundamentally racist. Land redistribution should be done on the basis of class, not race.

What exactly does Mugabe do that warrants our approval?

It is truly beyond me how some who claim to be revolutionary socialists and anti-imperialists are in bed with bourgeois dictators and imperialists like Gadaffi (participated in Liberian civil war for natural resources) and Mugabe.

Lastly, the movement for democratic change is more "socialist" than Mugabe has ever been. It is a member of the "socialist" international of social-democratic parties. Contrary to Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangiray supports gay rights.


On October 25, 2011, Zimbabwe's Justice Minister and ZANU-PF member Patrick Chinamasa rejected calls by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai to enshrine gay rights in a new constitution. Homosexual acts are currently illegal in Zimbabwe, as in most African countries where many people view gay rights as un-Christian and un-African. (wikipedia)

Zimbabwe was the most advanced country in Africa, even more so than South Africa, with a modern military, good economy, but this started to fade a decade after Mugabe's rule and completely collapsed around 2000 when Mugabe lost it. Zimbabwe could have been so much more, but Mugabe fucked it up, and he fucked it up bad.

While Morgan Tsvangirai is certainly no revolutionary socialist, he is better than Mugabe in any conceivable way.

EDIT:


no that happened after the protests
why did they protest in the first place ?

Prior to the protests Gadaffi violently oppressed 'his' people. They protested against Gadaffi because they disagreed with him, his policies, and/or his oppression.


have you any idea about their living standard ?
i don't see how a population with very low education system such as Libyans , will ask for democratic change

That's ridiculous beyond anything. The Mayans in Chiapas in Mexico are one of the most uneducated masses in the world, yet have demanded the most democratic form of decision-making in the world. You sound like an elitist and conspiracy theorist: "these people are too stupid to make demands by themselves, so there must have been external powers paying them" or whatever reason you believe they took to the streets.

[Ismail]

The DPRK is supported by Russian and Chinese imperialism, ergo US imperialism against it is apparently irrelevant. Never mind that both Russia and China both dislike the actual government and want to manipulate it for their own ends. Iraq was supported by Russian imperialism, I guess we should have pretended that it was thus an inter-imperialist conflict between the USA and Iraq rather than a case of the USA invading a country oppressed by imperialism.

I mean the DPRK could go the Albanian route and outlaw foreign investments and non-barter international trade in its Constitution (as Albania did in 1976), but apparently that'd invite even more condemnation here.

Ironically Kim Il Sung, as Hoxha noted, was seeking credits from the West. Many in 1992-1994 thought that he was going to "open up" somewhat to the USA, but then he died.

But many posters here are explicit about what should be done: the government should become a bourgeois democracy and become, in effect, a neo-colony of the USA since this will somehow advance the class struggle.

[wsg1991]

That's ridiculous beyond anything. The Mayans in Chiapas in Mexico are one of the most uneducated masses in the world, yet have demanded the most democratic form of decision-making in the world. You sound like an elitist and conspiracy theorist: "these people are too stupid to make demands by themselves, so there must have been external powers paying them" or whatever reason you believe they took to the streets.

this people are not the kind who asks for democratic change , Libyans education system is so corrupted and so low that most of them can hardly understand a second language , as that idea is absent in other arabs country , where this democracy idea come from ???

such population might want better living standards jobs ,as protests in Tunisia asked for , which is not the case , Libya has the best living standards in all africa , actually they even had foreign workers ( mainly Tunisians and Egyptians )

social services were mainly free supplies , as Libyans kitchens had a second room to store bags of supplies they get . for health services they usually came to Sfax my city , where they get their treatment in private clinics , and they can pay a lot actually , 80% of clinics' clients are Libyans



sometime they do came for a local brothel and to buy alcohol , but that doesn't qualify as a reason for a revolution

one last thing , conspiracy , i suggest you make a search about Aljazzera popularity , how it harshly declined after Libya events . in that events it took similar role to any western Media ,
poeple here rather watch France 24 now
a notable example is how they announced the fall of Tripoli several times before it actually fell , how they ignored Sert massacres , where Gaddafi tribe ( which is a major tribe Libya ) was besieged and bombarded by Nato for
more than a month , even Red cross was not allowed to go there , something similar to what happened to Fallouja

you might check Qatar ( who owns aljazeera ) intervention in Libya , Mohamed Shalgham the guy who represent Libya in UN , one of the first of Gaddafi regime who joined protests , talking about Qatar and Turkey intervention in Libya

the way Gaddafi was killed tell us that this new regime is nothing difference from the old one , it's just now filled with Islamists , and Nato puppet ( not ally like gaddafi was to Russia )

[Omsk]

Kimilsungism is a horrible 'creative aplication of Marxism" - but if some people here want to present themselves as proper Marxists, than we should look into the ideological profile of Kim Il Sung and the actual ideological forces in the country - and these forces with their ideology - are the same as the leadership of former Yugoslavia, the Tito-Kardelj clique, because from the Marxist position, their ideology is the same - the anti-class struggle politics, the rejection of the monolithic vanguard party and the capitalist frame-work for their economy, because the DPRK as Yugoslavia before it, cares about profit , and it objectively abandoned any, even deranged, form of socialism as their main ideology, because Juche doesn't only follow an un-historical-materialist concept of history and the present, but also has an anti-Marxist stance on a number of topics, going from the economy to the ideological problems of the proletariat.

The DPRK is currently in a transitionist phase - it's economy is not socialist, but the presence of the national-bourgeois is not strong enough for it to actually mobilize it's anti-working class forcess and to completely 'capitalize' the country, however when we look into the ideological situation of the DPRK we can only find revisionist and opportunism, which is completely identical to the Yugoslav one, but i doubt anyone here would maintain a position that Yugoslavia was an 'ultra-dictatorship' - because of the influence of the bourgeois media and because some of you think actual research can be replaced with news and articles. The DPRK is somewhat hostile to the US, but it has relations with Russia and China, the Eastern imperialist powers, still, this does not mean the DPRK is an imperialist power.

[Tim Cornelis]

The DPRK is supported by Russian and Chinese imperialism, ergo US imperialism against it is apparently irrelevant. Never mind that both Russia and China both dislike the actual government and want to manipulate it for their own ends. Iraq was supported by Russian imperialism, I guess we should have pretended that it was thus an inter-imperialist conflict between the USA and Iraq rather than a case of the USA invading a country oppressed by imperialism.

What I'm saying is that we should not play favourites in terms of imperialism. If we were living in 1800 we could have supported Dutch rule over Indonesia because the Dutch imperialist empire was smaller than the British imperialist empire, or we could oppose all imperialist forces.


But many posters here are explicit about what should be done: the government should become a bourgeois democracy and become, in effect, a neo-colony of the USA since this will somehow advance the class struggle.

What you imply by saying this is that any liberal democracy is by definition a "neo-colony" of the US. That's nonsense. The US government doesn't need to subjugate another country, for example East Germany is not a neo-colony of the US. Nor is Romania, or Estonia.

In North Korea the workers are subjugated to wage-labour controlled by a rigidly totalitarian state, making class struggle impossible. In a liberal democracy, while the workers are also subjugated to wage-labour, class struggle is at least possible. I would say this is a quite evident and obvious observation.


this people are not the kind who asks for democratic change , Libyans education system is so corrupted and so low that most of them can hardly understand a second language , as that idea is absent in other arabs country , where this democracy idea come from ???

This is ridiculous. When people are oppressed, they can lash out. They don't need a sophisticated understanding of political philosophy. The "demcoracy" demand was the demand of a portion of the leadership, the people simply revolted against oppression.

For example, when someone beats you up, you fight back. You don't need to grasp a "non-aggression principle" or have an understanding of why beating someone up is wrong on a philosophical level.

[eyeheartlenin]

My opinion on your question is that some of our Comrades will defend ANYTHING that is titled Communist or Socialist.
For example: Maoist Rebel News 2 tried to defend some of Pol Pot's actions.
... Really they are deluded idiots.

A couple of decades ago, in a used book store, I came across a book by left-liberals, in defense of the Pol Pot regime, defending the whole mishpókhe, the forced evacuation of hospital patients, emptying the cities, all of that horrible mess. I really wish I had bought the book, just to be able to make a list of Pol Pot's loyal fans on the US liberal left. I recall Chomsky, at a public meeting in Cambridge, Mass., ridiculing the idea that there had been mass slaughters in Cambodia, a stance he was willing to defend for some years, if memory serves.

And it is the same with today's enthusiasts for the (apparently criminally incompetent) Kim dynasty. (Who knew "socialism" entailed dynastic rule? Only the Kims and the Castros!)

I have tried to imagine what an imperialist invasion of the DPRK (which I would oppose) would look like, and the only thing I think is certain is that the foreign armies, if they were successful (which is an awfully big "if") would probably begin a program of feeding the civilian population, as soon as the situation stabilized. Which shows how horrific the "socialism" of the Kim dynasty really is.

According to Trotsky, "socialism" is only progressive, IF it represents an advance over the most vigorous period of capitalist development, which, obviously, is why societies like "Democratic" Kampuchea and the DPRK (EDIT: together with their fans) so discredit socialism.

[Ismail]

What I'm saying is that we should not play favourites in terms of imperialism. If we were living in 1800 we could have supported Dutch rule over Indonesia because the Dutch imperialist empire was smaller than the British imperialist empire, or we could oppose all imperialist forces.This is an asinine comparison. The Dutch sought out a colonial empire alongside other states. Zimbabwe intervened in the Congo for obviously self-interested reasons, but again, using this logic, every African state is imperialist and there's no contradictions between neo-colonial countries and imperialist superpowers.


What you imply by saying this is that any liberal democracy is by definition a "neo-colony" of the US. That's nonsense. The US government doesn't need to subjugate another country, for example East Germany is not a neo-colony of the US. Nor is Romania, or Estonia.Yeah, they're just used as firm US allies with reactionary, anti-communist governments and with most of their trade directed to the West.


In North Korea the workers are subjugated to wage-labour controlled by a rigidly totalitarian state, making class struggle impossible.Which is why Nazi Germany had tons of labor unrest and needed war to save it from said unrest going out of the NSDAP's control. Then again you use a liberal word like "totalitarian" which doesn't help.

Ever stopped to consider that the majority of DPRK citizens actually like their government? Whether for nationalistic reasons or otherwise, the DPRK certainly doesn't seem to suffer from having one of the world's highest rates of suicide like the South. Most outside observers agree that the majority of the DPRK's citizens are, in fact, loyal to the government.

[campesino]

why would we not support North Korea? I don't want sanctions on North Korea that makes the lives of the North Korean proletariat even worse. The west doesn't dislike North Kore because it is communist or human rights. The west dislikes North Korea Because it is independent. Sadly though the north Koreans have been letting in Foreign investment.

If it weren't for the sanctions, N. Korea would be a pretty decent place to live.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is an asinine comparison. The Dutch sought out a colonial empire alongside other states. Zimbabwe intervened in the Congo for obviously self-interested reasons, but again, using this logic, every African state is imperialist and there's no contradictions between neo-colonial countries and imperialist superpowers.

I was talking about supporting North Korea.


Yeah, they're just used as firm US allies with reactionary, anti-communist governments and with most of their trade directed to the West.

That's hardly colonial.


Which is why Nazi Germany had tons of labor unrest and needed war to save it from said unrest going out of the NSDAP's control. Then again you use a liberal word like "totalitarian" which doesn't help.

North Korea is even more rigidly controlled than Nazi Germany. Any sign of dissent is rigidly, immediately, and unconditionally, squashed.


Ever stopped to consider that the majority of DPRK citizens actually like their government? Whether for nationalistic reasons or otherwise, the DPRK certainly doesn't seem to suffer from having one of the world's highest rates of suicide like the South. Most outside observers agree that the majority of the DPRK's citizens are, in fact, loyal to the government.

Ever stopped to consider that the majority of Nazi German citizens was actually loyal to their government? Ever stopped to consider that the majority of US citizens support capitalism?

Should we therefore feel compelled to support it?

[Ismail]

Ever stopped to consider that the majority of Nazi German citizens was actually loyal to their government? Ever stopped to consider that the majority of US citizens support capitalism?

Should we therefore feel compelled to support it?Who said that we should support the DPRK?

Also I don't recall widespread labor unrest in the DPRK. I recall it in Nazi Germany and of course notable labor unrest (though entirely directed towards reformist ends) in the USA in the past few decades. The point is that people assume the DPRK is hell on earth and that everyone in it hates is and is waiting for the glorious US liberators to come in and save them.

Tell me, do you support removing all American troops from Korea and ending the sanctions? Do you support a peace treaty in which both Koreas could peacefully pursue reunification? If the USA invaded the DPRK, would you oppose said invasion?

[Comrade Mitja]

anti-imperialism,an great comperation are the uk communist party,who made an speacial video when kim ill died and gaddafi died

if you will watch this you will be exposed to an great doses of stupidities.

t8AhEiTQTJ
oh my god the stupidities it hurts my brain


nqscnaZ8kNA
ahh my brain


im ashamed that such such people are on our side

[Ocean Seal]

Oh rev left, you do know how to make shit threads about the DPRK.

Here's why. Shits boring in the west, especially the US. So internet communists don't do shit in their countries, but they at least need to think of something that makes communism seem useful. Hence anti-imperialism. Anti-imperialism allows you to sit on your ass and watch nationalists from the third world engage in a battle against the foremost capitalist powers. And if you are going to cheer for a side might as well pick one that exists hence support for the DPRK, Syria, and so on.

Anyway anti-imperialism can be a good and effective tactic for those living in the third world and leftists should criticize US involvement in the third world as it has been pretty shitty, but stop cheerleading the fucked up things that these guys do.

TL:DR
Who the fuck care whether or not you have a life size statue of Kim Jong Il in your bedroom. It doesn't make a difference whether or not you support him or are against him. It never will.

[DasFapital]

The famine of the late 90's is over. Food is still scarce in the countryside, but conditions overall are better than, say, the Congo or Nigeria or something.

Choosing between living in the Congo or North Korea is like choosing between whether to be drowned or burned alive.

[Krano]

Choosing between living in the Congo or North Korea is like choosing between whether to be drowned or burned alive.
You do know why Congo is so fucked right?

[Regicollis]

Maybe because the god-king of North Korea likes red flags too?

[DasFapital]

You do know why Congo is so fucked right?

Belgian imperialism? Sorry I'm new to this.

[Rafiq]

Belgian imperialism? Sorry I'm new to this.

Don't apologize, you're right.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Krano]

Belgian imperialism? Sorry I'm new to this.
Worldwide capitalist exploitation, important minerals from Congo are needed in the making of cellphones. Good Vice doc about it if you're interested.

kYqrflGpTRE

[Rafiq]

Not to be hostile, but what does that have to do with what he said?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[eric922]

give me one

btw i live in a close country ( Tunisia ) ,
choose your arguments carefully

Well, I hold firm to the right of revolution. The people always have a right to overthrow a State that they feel is not acting in their interests. If the majority of the people feel that their government is not acting in their interests and want to overthrow it, that is their right.

In my view, authority lacks any inherent legitimacy and must be held accountable and be justified to the people who make up the country. I know there may be several people here who might strongly disagree with that view, but that is my view. Though, to be clear I did not support the U.S./ NATO intervention, because that always seems to hurt the people who are revolting in the end.

[Hiero]

A couple of decades ago, in a used book store, I came across a book by left-liberals, in defense of the Pol Pot regime, defending the whole mishpókhe, the forced evacuation of hospital patients, emptying the cities, all of that horrible mess. I really wish I had bought the book, just to be able to make a list of Pol Pot's loyal fans on the US liberal left. I recall Chomsky, at a public meeting in Cambridge, Mass., ridiculing the idea that there had been mass slaughters in Cambodia, a stance he was willing to defend for some years, if memory serves.

And it is the same with today's enthusiasts for the (apparently criminally incompetent) Kim dynasty. (Who knew "socialism" entailed dynastic rule? Only the Kims and the Castros!)

They are different. Chomsky and others were/are definitely left-liberals. I am not sure about the excact statements he and others made about Pol Pot (Samir Amin is another who supported Democractic Kampuchea), but also the Cultural revolution in China garned some support amonts the intellectuals but the made different reasons for support, my assmption would be that Chomsky thought these movements began to decentralise power (which is sort of true). It sort of has to do with an internal conflict in Western acadamia and general western left wing intellectual life, which was dealing with set backs like the rise of Nazi Germany, the failure of 1968 France, the excesses of Stalinism etc. The socialist inspired experiments in East Asia offered hope in the form of different approach.

DPRK supporters generally accept the totalitarian nature of the DPRK and aren't so tied up in intellectual hang ups.

[Stain]

My opinion on your question is that some of our Comrades will defend ANYTHING that is titled Communist or Socialist.
For example: Maoist Rebel News 2 tried to defend some of Pol Pot's actions.

Another example from MRN2 would be his constant support of North Korea(Personally I think they're fucked either way,If somebody such as the US decide to ''liberate'' them they will then become a puppet for the US who will no doubt look for something.And the current regime are extremely oppressive I seen videos of people that managed to escape with they're children but the parents were caught and brought back and the children found out later they're father starved and mother was shot)

Really they are deluded idiots.

Wtf that's just not true. He didn't defend Pol Pol in the slightest. He clearly stated that Pol Pot was an oppertunist, not a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. And he justly pointed how US imperialism is equally responsible for the genocide.

Agree on his ideas about DPRK. That's pretty crazy.

[Ismail]

A lot of Maoists take quasi-sympathetic views on Pol Pot. The best Maoist perspective on the Khmer Rouge (and, of course, also quasi-sympathetic against the Vietnamese, etc.) is the RCPUSA's: http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm

In foreign policy "Democratic" Kampuchea was pretty much the same as the PRC, denouncing Soviet revisionism and whatnot. They also endorsed Mao's "Three Worlds Theory" although to my knowledge the only country they got along with in line with it was Yugoslavia.

Hoxha for his part wasn't impressed by the delegation he received from it.

"Cambodia was called a socialist country. On top of this 'socialist' country the 'communist party' was allegedly in force, which was led by two main persons, a certain Ieng Sary and Pol Pot. Also in this leadership was Khieu Samphan. But the highlights were the first two.

We neither met Pol Pot nor had ever heard the name. He was kept secret, and Ieng Sary we met in person several times and our impression was not good. He was not a Marxist. Many of his views were not only shallow but also wrong."
(Enver Hoxha. Ditar për çështje ndërkombëtare Vol. 12. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1985. p. 14.)

When the war between Vietnam and Kampuchea started, Hoxha sided with the former.

The DPRK by contrast supported the latter, allowed Sihanouk to reside in the DPRK as the USA was funding the Khmer Rouge's army and Sihanouk's forces against the Vietnamese-backed government of 1979-1990, etc. Just as Yugoslavia also denounced the Vietnamese and, alongside the USA, UK, etc. recognized "Democratic Kampuchea in exile" at the UN.

[DasFapital]

Know a guy who escaped the Khmer Rouge. at the age of ten he was forced into the lucrative business of gathering scrap metal from land mines.

[Eagle_Syr]

North Korea is socialist in the same sense that the United States believes in a free world.

It's a formality.