Why are some people here DPRK sympathisers?

[TheEmancipator]

A sincere question. They abandoned the guise of Marxist-Leninism (not that they ever put it into practice) years ago and are essentially a one-man tyranny. I'd just like to know how in any way any leftist could justify support for North Korea.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As far as I know, Jucheists are restricted. At most, many comrades here are sick of ridiculous imperialist propaganda about the DPR Korea, and oppose an imperialist war against it. That doesn't mean that we're "DPRK sympathisers".

[Old Bolshie]

A sincere question. They abandoned the guise of Marxist-Leninism (not that they ever put it into practice) years ago and are essentially a one-man tyranny. I'd just like to know how in any way any leftist could justify support for North Korea.

Tell me, which one of the Marxist-Leninist regimes didn't become a one-man tyranny?

[marxleninstalinmao]

As far as I know, Jucheists are restricted. At most, many comrades here are sick of ridiculous imperialist propaganda about the DPR Korea, and oppose an imperialist war against it. That doesn't mean that we're "DPRK sympathisers".

The intelligent ones among us are not just sympathizers but active supporters of the socialist state that is the DPRK. The reasons for that should be self evident: every citizen has a home and an education completely free of charge, and employment stands at 100%. It is a prime example, along with Cuba, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it has achieved all this despite constant provocation from the USA and it's imperialist lackies, and sanctions delivered therein.

[marxleninstalinmao]

A sincere question. They abandoned the guise of Marxist-Leninism (not that they ever put it into practice) years ago and are essentially a one-man tyranny. I'd just like to know how in any way any leftist could justify support for North Korea.

Read my reply to the other guy and then open a book or something (or at least admit you are the anti-communist that you are)

[Tim Cornelis]

The intelligent ones among us are not just sympathizers but active supporters of the socialist state that is the DPRK. The reasons for that should be self evident: every citizen has a home and an education completely free of charge, and employment stands at 100%. It is a prime example, along with Cuba, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it has achieved all this despite constant provocation from the USA and it's imperialist lackies, and sanctions delivered therein.

An insane supporter of an insane party (CPGB (M-L)) of an insane regime. You are so delusional, trying to argue against you would be a tiring and useless exercise.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

The reasons for that should be self evident: every citizen has a home and an education completely free of charge, and employment stands at 100%.

Having quite a few friends who lived in/had their parents living in 'socialist' Hungary, DDR, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, I'm always quite sceptical of this claim.

[Sentinel]

If someone wants to continue discussing the DPRK with 'marxleninstalinmao', they can be found in OI. While the Board rules allow for critical support of that state in an 'anti-imperialist' sense, advocating it as a prime example of socialism in this way is something entirely different - and not ok here.

[Nevsky]

I think marxleninstalinmao watched too much "Maoist Rebel News".

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Read my reply to the other guy and then open a book or something (or at least admit you are the anti-communist that you are)

Of course, if anyone should criticize such state capitalist regimes for what they were, they must be anti-communist right?

OT: I think it generally goes alongside their embracing of anti-imperialism to the extent that support is offered to any sort of regime or group that resists in some way American dominance. Obviously, I disagree with this strategy. I personally see relatively few (at least outside of hardcore anti-revisionist forums) who are willing to defend Best Korea because it currently has socialism (MLSM and r/communism not withstanding).

[Prometeo liberado]

I support DPRK if only because PETA makes them seem warm a cuddly.

Or the other way around......IDK.

[hashem]

some people support Kim dynasty in north Korea for same reason that some people support Neo Nazis or KKK.

they are very few people who hold such positions. i think we shouldnt pay too much attention to them. sometimes ignoring stupid ideas is more effective than criticizing them.

[goalkeeper]

The intelligent ones among us are not just sympathizers but active supporters of the socialist state that is the DPRK. The reasons for that should be self evident: every citizen has a home and an education completely free of charge, and employment stands at 100%. It is a prime example, along with Cuba, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it has achieved all this despite constant provocation from the USA and it's imperialist lackies, and sanctions delivered therein.

if all the dictatorship of the proletariat offers is some shit job with a crappy education no thanks

[Red Nightmare]

The only reason I could see for them being supportive of the DPRK is as a bulwark against capitalist imperialism, like the Workers' World Party does. Other than that a leftist would have to be insane to support such an autocratic and anti-worker regime.

[TheEmancipator]

Tell me, which one of the Marxist-Leninist regimes didn't become a one-man tyranny?

Tito can hardly be called a tyrant, nor people like Sankara, if you call these guys Marxist-Leninist but otherwise a very fair point.

Anyway, I can't see how North Korea are some kind of bastion against imperialism when they have an irredentist foreign policy (as do SK of course). Seems to me like some people support it against the USA for the sake of being anti-establishment without any consideration for humanity or History.

[Old Bolshie]

Tito can hardly be called a tyrant, nor people like Sankara, if you call these guys Marxist-Leninist but otherwise a very fair point.

Tito hardly can be described as a ML. Nonetheless, he also concentrated absolute political power in his hands within an authoritarian regime, held it from the moment he took over the country until his death, repressed political opponents within his regime. No different from any other ML leader.

Although I'm not too much familiar with Thomas Sankara I know that he also assumed authoritarian control over his country and even banned the Unions.

[tuwix]

A sincere question. They abandoned the guise of Marxist-Leninism (not that they ever put it into practice) years ago and are essentially a one-man tyranny. I'd just like to know how in any way any leftist could justify support for North Korea.

Well, if bourgeois propaganda says that is communist country and North Korean propaganda says it is socialist country and someone considers himself or herself a communist then there could emerge a thought that it is a communist paradise. But don't be stupid. It is just more hell than paradise.

[Art Vandelay]

The WWP and PSL both highlight the DPRK as examples of socialism, if I am not mistaken.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The WWP and PSL both highlight the DPRK as examples of socialism, if I am not mistaken.

Yea well not everyone is a member of the PSL.

[Art Vandelay]

Yea well not everyone is a member of the PSL.

Edit.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, but we do have mods from those parties, which is interesting to say the least. Mods who I like and are good mods, but having said that, they follow a similar line to the guy who was just restricted.

Fair enough, as long as you don't accuse anyone of associating with those dullards.

[Red Commissar]

I'm rather amused that the restricted user's only suggestion that North Korea is a socialist state is because of a perceived employment situation and universal education. Putting aside whether the above is accurate (especially the former), why does this come up so much? Same logic followed with Libya and Syria. I mean yeah they are laudable like in the case of Venezuela, heck I mean I can excuse it on Cuba but NK of all places?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, but we do have mods from those parties, which is interesting to say the least. Mods who I like and are good mods, but having said that, they follow a similar line to the guy who was just restricted.

Similar but not, as far as I know, the same; my knowledge of the WWP and PSL line is limited, but they seem to "support" the DPR Korea critically, and they do not seem to support the monarchy, Songun and so on. Actual Marcyists are free to correct me concerning their party line, of course, but I think there is a substantial difference between supporting the planned economy and the (perceived) lack of the bourgeoisie in the DPRK and flat-out cheerleading for the glorious comrade Kim the Third.

[Deliverous]

The intelligent ones among us are not just sympathizers but active supporters of the socialist state that is the DPRK. The reasons for that should be self evident: every citizen has a home and an education completely free of charge, and employment stands at 100%. It is a prime example, along with Cuba, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it has achieved all this despite constant provocation from the USA and it's imperialist lackies, and sanctions delivered therein.

What does 'every citizen has a home and an education completely free of charge, and employment stands at 100%' have to do with Socialism in the fundamental analysis? I support Cuba. But North Korea stands as a dictatorship absolutely unconcerned with the emancipation of the working class.

There is a difference between defending a society from imperialism and explicitly supporting a society on the basis that it is Socialist.

[Delenda Carthago]

I support the total anihilation of DPRK. Every living creature on that insane regime must be terminated. These people eat their children and they execute football players when they lose in World Cup. Plus, they are insane and they are starting wars out of nowhere. Kills them!


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/anarky_6075.gif

[Tenka]

I support the total anihilation of DPRK. Every living creature on that insane regime must be terminated. These people eat their children and they execute football players when they lose in World Cup. Plus, they are insane and they are starting wars out of nowhere. Kills them!


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/anarky_6075.gif

Indeed when will the madness end? They're all brainwashed anyway by the Absolute Monarchy Dictatorship of Kims and if we obliterate the entire country and everything in it we will be FREEING people!!

Some people actually believe this stuff.
YfHeQsNlUWg

I do not support DPRK as a "Socialist State" or whatever nonsense that not even they believe, but I have passive support for them derived mostly from U.S.A. and the South being annoying propagandist arseholes and the cities of DPRK being full of wonderful housing estates that I'd hate to see anything bad happen to.

[teflon_john]

The WWP and PSL both highlight the DPRK as examples of socialism, if I am not mistaken.

nope, the PSL defends the DPRK from an anti-imperialist and non-opportunistic standpoint. i believe that the WWP holds the same position.

we are critical of many of the political features of the DPRK, but we are more interested in trying to understand the conditions that gave rise to them rather than joining the chorus of condemning the caricature of the DPRK that the ruling class has invented, which better known as "North Korea".

[one10]

The DPRK is probably the closest thing to Nazi Germany in the modern world. Have any of you read about their prison/concentration camps and their "three generations of punishment" policy? If you are found guilty of committing a crime worthy of life sentence in the DPRK (such as trying to escape from North Korea), you and your entire family are sent to a prison camp to serve life, as well as any 2 generations born in the camp. The thought of children being born into a life of imprisonment is just repulsive.

I could care less what their views on imperialism and the western world are, I show absolutely no support for any country committing those types of violations against it's people. They deserve to be punished by death for the unjustifiable and horrifying acts committed against it's people.

Words can't describe how inhumane and appalling the DPRK is.
It's a shame that the WWP stands in solidarity with the DPRK, it makes the left look bad.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There is nothing shameful about not falling for hysterical bourgeois propaganda; if the WWP and PSL simply accepted every ridiculous claim about the DPR Korea as true, as you seem to, that would indicate a touching, but ultimately anti-Marxist, trust in bourgeois sources.

[p0is0n]

Speaking of DPRK sympathizers, I ran into this video recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr4ghNn8vX0

"Long live Kim Il-Sung", yeah ok.

It seems to me that DPRK apologism and/or sympathy exists in the States more than it does in Europe. I can't think of any European party other than CPGB or whatever the fuck they're called. Then again, I'm not very well read on parties. On second thought I believe I remember the Communist Party here in Sweden marching with North Korean flags on May 1st some years ago. They also had Venezuelan flags in the same train, interestingly enough.

Looking through Maoist Rebel News video comments always manages to ruin my evenings... These certain types of 'communists' really do a good job at making the left look like a lunatic sect...

[one10]

There is nothing shameful about not falling for hysterical bourgeois propaganda; if the WWP and PSL simply accepted every ridiculous claim about the DPR Korea as true, as you seem to, that would indicate a touching, but ultimately anti-Marxist, trust in bourgeois sources.

I was born and raised in Miami, FL by 2 conservative Cuban exiles. This place is filled with unreliable bourgeois sources and anti-communist propaganda. I'm sure if I trusted bourgeois sources and believed everything my family says about communism, I wouldn't have the views and beliefs that I've had for the last 8 years.

I know that much of the claims made against the DPRK are exaggerated by western propaganda, but that does not mean that a Marxist shouldn't be skeptical towards the content of such claims. DPRK's extreme secrecy and policies point to such claims being at the very least half-truths.

A majority of the world was oblivious to the attrocities being committed by the Nazis in Germany, who is to say that similar crimes can't be committed today?

I don't see a reason why anyone on the left should support North Korea. The WWP are quick to support any government that is anti-imperialist and has problems with the US, that is anti-Marxist.

Didn't they demonstrate support for Saddam Hussein as well?

[Art Vandelay]

nope, the PSL defends the DPRK from an anti-imperialist and non-opportunistic standpoint. i believe that the WWP holds the same position.

we are critical of many of the political features of the DPRK, but we are more interested in trying to understand the conditions that gave rise to them rather than joining the chorus of condemning the caricature of the DPRK that the ruling class has invented, which better known as "North Korea".

I'm sorry but that just is not the case; they uphold North Korea as an actually existing socialist state.


Like Cuba, North Korea had a revolution and embarked on a path of socialist construction. The United States wants to overturn the tremendous social gains of both countries. - PSLWeb.org; What is a Revolution?


The destruction of the socialist camp between 1989 and 1991 brought disastrous changes for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR, and profound challenges for the socialist governments of North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and (then) Yugoslavia. - PSLweb.org; Who we are and what we stand for.


The identification of communism with a state power expanded later to its political association with the governments in Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba, along with newly founded revolutionary governments in Africa that were also trying to take a socialist road. - PSLWeb.org; Socialism and the legacy of the Soviet Union.


The U.S. media selectively blame the socialist government in north Korea, as though its ideology is responsible for any hardships faced by its people. They don’t deem it necessary to mention that the socialist DPRK guarantees all its people an education, health care and housing, as well as a job. - Workers.org; Puncturing the Lies and hypocrisy about North Korea.


The training and intense discipline that make these spectacular displays possible is unparalleled in the world, and symbolizes the determination of the Korean people to work together in unison to build their nation and their socialist society. - Workers.org; Socialist Korea looks ahead.

It really says alot about these parties level of political education, when a CWI members knows more about their line after a cursory glance at their parties websites, then the members on this site.

[Lucretia]

nope, the PSL defends the DPRK from an anti-imperialist and non-opportunistic standpoint. i believe that the WWP holds the same position.

we are critical of many of the political features of the DPRK, but we are more interested in trying to understand the conditions that gave rise to them rather than joining the chorus of condemning the caricature of the DPRK that the ruling class has invented, which better known as "North Korea".

This is not true. Virtually all Marxists argue for the defense of the DPRK from imperialism. The PSL and WWP identify the DPRK as a socialist government.

[Lucretia]

There is nothing shameful about not falling for hysterical bourgeois propaganda; if the WWP and PSL simply accepted every ridiculous claim about the DPR Korea as true, as you seem to, that would indicate a touching, but ultimately anti-Marxist, trust in bourgeois sources.

What is anti-Marxist is adjudicating the veracity of a claim solely on the basis of the source providing it. It is, however, a nice way of painting yourself into an insular little echo-chamber of like-minded people, having shut out any contrary information as coming from "anti-Marxists."

[Yuppie Grinder]

Because some people are morons.

[teflon_john]

The PSL and WWP identify the DPRK as a socialist government.

please, please, pleeeeaaase provide evidence to back this claim up. i'm begging you.

[TheEmancipator]

There is nothing shameful about not falling for hysterical bourgeois propaganda


Please stop playing the "bourgeois propaganda" card, its really just complete BS that some of us spout out when we don't have evidence to back up our claims. It really makes one look stupid. Just like the "revisionist" card Stalinists play.

Most people who support NK (and I'm not talking about some American imperialist debate, I'm talking about North Korea) are either attention seeking or completely blinded by an almost religious fervor in this twisted Marxist-Leninist state. I'd truly wish to debate them in what aspects they feel North Korea is a socialist bastion against American Imperialism...

[Goblin]

Which country would you rather sympathise with? The DPRK, or the imperialist super power, the USA?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Please stop playing the "bourgeois propaganda" card, its really just complete BS that some of us spout out when we don't have evidence to back up our claims. It really makes one look stupid. Just like the "revisionist" card Stalinists play.


But it is. If I say the Kim's order the military to extract foetuses for them to eat - as long as it remains on the topic of the DPRK - it will be received quite well, as though I had some sort of true inside sources and tremendous documentation to back it up. The fact is that the DPRK situation is such that any claims whichever way they swing should be taken with a grain of salt and never accepted at face value; yet we are in the position where anything the DPRK says is lies, and anything detractors say thereabout is automatically true, no scepticism present. It is important to remain vigilant against unfounded rubbish in all situations.


Most people who support NK (and I'm not talking about some American imperialist debate, I'm talking about North Korea) are either attention seeking or completely blinded by an almost religious fervor in this twisted Marxist-Leninist state. I'd truly wish to debate them in what aspects they feel North Korea is a socialist bastion against American Imperialism... You aren't likely to find too many of them here, who fulfil the requirements you there set out. They seem to keep to youtube and go around favourite-ing videos of DPRK and Iran militaries.

[Lucretia]

please, please, pleeeeaaase provide evidence to back this claim up. i'm begging you.

I will simply refer you to their (your?) own website (http://www.pslweb.org/party/who-we-are/), wherein they clearly state that North Korea is a socialist state under a socialist government. I'm not sure what additional evidence you need to convince you of this.

Perhaps a characterization of the DPRK economy as "socialist economic planning" in a letter expressing condolences to the people of the DPRK for the death of their "great leader"? You can find that here: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/north-koreans-mourn-death-of.html

The fact that you represent yourself as being a member of the PSL, yet don't know this, is kinda sad. At the very least it shows just how little effort that group seems to place on cadre education, which I think is reflected in the piss-poor theory they generate.

EDIT: And just to make clear that we're not referring to something analogous to Trotsky's occasional use of "socialist" (more often "socialistic") as a shorthand way to refer to the state and planning techniques premised upon socialist property relations that were suitable for transitioning to a socialist society, not the society itself, I will refer to you to the PSL's description of Cuba as a "socialist society" (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14253&news_iv_ctrl=1501), and Russia as a "previous socialist society" (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/russian-elections-result-in.html).

[Art Vandelay]

please, please, pleeeeaaase provide evidence to back this claim up. i'm begging you.

I posted 5 quotes from the PSL and WWP websites clearly showing that they characterize the DPRK as a socialist state.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I was born and raised in Miami, FL by 2 conservative Cuban exiles. This place is filled with unreliable bourgeois sources and anti-communist propaganda. I'm sure if I trusted bourgeois sources and believed everything my family says about communism, I wouldn't have the views and beliefs that I've had for the last 8 years.

Fair enough. But surely, you should apply the same criteria to propaganda about the DPR Korea?


I know that much of the claims made against the DPRK are exaggerated by western propaganda, but that does not mean that a Marxist shouldn't be skeptical towards the content of such claims. DPRK's extreme secrecy and policies point to such claims being at the very least half-truths.

That sounds unreasonable; a lack of evidence is usually understood as counting against a claim, not for it. Of course, if one starts from a position that the DPR Korea is evil, etc. etc., then yes, it "all fits". But that is viciously circular.


A majority of the world was oblivious to the attrocities being committed by the Nazis in Germany, who is to say that similar crimes can't be committed today?

That is hardly convincing; atrocities could have happened, so we should act as if we know that they've happened? That is grossly irresponsible.


I don't see a reason why anyone on the left should support North Korea. The WWP are quick to support any government that is anti-imperialist and has problems with the US, that is anti-Marxist.

Didn't they demonstrate support for Saddam Hussein as well?

I have no idea; you'll have to take it up with an actual member of these parties. That said, that the DPR Korea is socialist seems to follow from the ideological positions associated with S. Marcy and the majority in the WWP and perhaps the PSL (it was always my impression that the PSL is a more traditional Marxist-Leninist party than the WWP, but I admit that I am not as familiar with the WWP/PSL line as I would like to be), so it really doesn't seem to be a case of supporting "any government that... has problems with the US" (the PR China did not!).


What is anti-Marxist is adjudicating the veracity of a claim solely on the basis of the source providing it.

That would be anti-Marxist. But I have suggested nothing even remotely similar; all I have implied is that these claims should be approached carefully and without the ridiculous moral indignation that often surrounds them. And yes, if there is no evidence for a claim, and there does not seem to be any substantial evidence for claims about "punishing three generations" and the like, and the claim is obviously propagandistic, it needs to be rejected just as we would reject the various apparitions of the virgin Mary.


It is, however, a nice way of painting yourself into an insular little echo-chamber of like-minded people, having shut out any contrary information as coming from "anti-Marxists."

Except that I have never claimed that those who believe these claims about the DPRK are necessarily anti-Marxists; what I have said is that blindly trusting bourgeois, particularly imperialist, sources is anti-Marxist.

Nor am I particularly fond of the DPR Korea; while I do consider it a deformed workers' state, the deformation really seems to have reached grotesque proportions in this case, and there is a clear proto-capitalist element. That said, my eyes tend to glaze over unverified reports about how evil the next victim of US imperialism is.


Please stop playing the "bourgeois propaganda" card, its really just complete BS that some of us spout out when we don't have evidence to back up our claims.

And, what, bourgeois propaganda does not exist? There really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Give me a break. I am not the one who needs to provide evidence here, by the way; those that make outlandish claims about the DPRK are.


It really makes one look stupid. Just like the "revisionist" card Stalinists play.

Again a perfectly valid Marxist tactic - opposition to the very real phenomenon (as the existence of various eurocommunist parties should attest to) of revisionism - is described as "Stalinist". Good grief.

[TheEmancipator]

Which country would you rather sympathise with? The DPRK, or the imperialist super power, the USA?

I don't "sympathise" with any nation-state in an international war. Anybody who starts pitting two nations together and tells someone they must pick a side knows next to nothing about geopolitics and common sense. Do not simplify such an issue, because the vast majority of people who use their critical mind would side with the US in such a simplified world. Simplification is exactly what the US government wants.

Anybody who thinks the revolution can be led on a nation-state level doesn't understand the mechanics of what we are trying to historically achieve.


But it is. If I say the Kim's order the military to extract foetuses for them to eat - as long as it remains on the topic of the DPRK - it will be received quite well, as though I had some sort of true inside sources and tremendous documentation to back it up.

The fact is that the DPRK situation is such that any claims whichever way they swing should be taken with a grain of salt and never accepted at face value; yet we are in the position where anything the DPRK says is lies, and anything detractors say thereabout is automatically true, no scepticism present. It is important to remain vigilant against unfounded rubbish in all situations.

Of course, I will maintain a critical mind, but I do not see how North Korea can be justified as some kind of beacon against imperialism when they themselves are irredentist.



You aren't likely to find too many of them here, who fulfil the requirements you there set out. They seem to keep to youtube and go around favourite-ing videos of DPRK and Iran militaries.Except some of the apologism on here smells like sympathy for the NK regime, which as has been elaborated is the closest regime to Nazi Germany there is.




And, what, bourgeois propaganda does not exist? There really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Of course it exists, but that doesn't mean we should answer everything that is wrong with a proclaimed communist state as "bourgeois propaganda". It's immature at best, religious denial at worst


Give me a break. I am not the one who needs to provide evidence here, by the way; those that make outlandish claims about the DPRK are.OK, what outlandish claims? I haven't made any outlandish claims, save the fact that North Korea is not even a Marxist-Leninist state and yet still it receives backing from several left-wing organizations and members here.


Again a perfectly valid Marxist tactic - opposition to the very real phenomenon (as the existence of various eurocommunist parties should attest to) of revisionism - is described as "Stalinist". Good grief.Nice strawman. Except I was saying Stalinists always play the revisionist card too much, not that all revisionists were Stalinists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Of course it exists, but that doesn't mean we should answer everything that is wrong with a proclaimed communist state as "bourgeois propaganda". It's immature at best, religious denial at worst

Who has done that? In this very thread, I mentioned Songun, the seemingly dynastic succession to the highest state posts, and the prominent proto-capitalist elements.


OK, what outlandish claims? I haven't made any outlandish claims[...]

Yes, you have. Earlier, you wrote:


Except some of the apologism on here smells like sympathy for the NK regime, which as has been elaborated is the closest regime to Nazi Germany there is.

And I was originally responding to this post:


The DPRK is probably the closest thing to Nazi Germany in the modern world. Have any of you read about their prison/concentration camps and their "three generations of punishment" policy? If you are found guilty of committing a crime worthy of life sentence in the DPRK (such as trying to escape from North Korea), you and your entire family are sent to a prison camp to serve life, as well as any 2 generations born in the camp. The thought of children being born into a life of imprisonment is just repulsive.

(emphasis mine in all cases)


Nice strawman. Except I was saying Stalinists always play the revisionist card too much, not that all revisionists were Stalinists.

Obviously most revisionists are not "Stalinists"; in fact, the eurocommunists and similar currents usually make much of their self-proclaimed anti-Stalinism. But to be honest, I don't usually see Marxists-Leninists overplaying "the revisionist card" - mostly because I agree with them about the revisionist status of Khrushchevites, eurocommunists, humanists and so on. I think any consistent Marxist should.

[Lucretia]

That would be anti-Marxist. But I have suggested nothing even remotely similar; all I have implied is that these claims should be approached carefully and without the ridiculous moral indignation that often surrounds them. And yes, if there is no evidence for a claim, and there does not seem to be any substantial evidence for claims about "punishing three generations" and the like, and the claim is obviously propagandistic, it needs to be rejected just as we would reject the various apparitions of the virgin Mary.

Well, duh. Of course claims should be analyzed critically and evidence assessed. But you seemed to be not just saying this, but also saying that Western sources are not to be believed at all when it comes to factual content of their reporting on North Korea. Whenever I have seen such arguments on this forum, it has invariably been in the context of claiming that only reports straight from the North Korean government (or those repeating their claims) should be believed, and that we should disregard as bourgeois propaganda (not "critically assess") any reports from Russia, Australia, the United States, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, and even China, if we want to ascertain what is going on inside the country.

[TheEmancipator]

Who has done that? In this very thread, I mentioned Songun, the seemingly dynastic succession to the highest state posts, and the prominent proto-capitalist elements.

Those saying that they "support NK in their struggle against the USA". The way I see it it is two militarist regimes in need of a conflict to keep the war propaganda and wealth going.

[QUOTE] Yes, you have. Earlier, you wrote:

How is this outlandish? Cult of the Leader, state-capitalist, militarist, regime fuelled by propaganda and a hatred Us vs Them culture - do you actually deny these things, or is it "bourgeois propaganda" again...



Obviously most revisionists are not "Stalinists"; in fact, the eurocommunists and similar currents usually make much of their self-proclaimed anti-Stalinism. But to be honest, I don't usually see Marxists-Leninists overplaying "the revisionist card" - mostly because I agree with them about the revisionist status of Khrushchevites, eurocommunists, humanists and so on. I think any consistent Marxist should.

Mind boggling these people who think Stalin's brand of Marxist-Leninism is even close to Orthodox Marxism. Stalin is the biggest Marxist revisionist of them all! His works are a series of conclusions he draws up from the Manifesto and Capital without any solid theoretical analysis. And then you're surprised when these "revisionist" Marxists start calling him a traitor...

And the reason eurocommunists and those evil humanists oppose Stalinist methodology is mainly due to the human cost of his brutal regime rather than his failed socialist plan.

Oh wait, that's probably bourgeois propaganda too isn't it?

[teflon_john]

I will simply refer you to their (your?) own website (http://www.pslweb.org/party/who-we-are/), wherein they clearly state that North Korea is a socialist state under a socialist government. I'm not sure what additional evidence you need to convince you of this.

Perhaps a characterization of the DPRK economy as "socialist economic planning" in a letter expressing condolences to the people of the DPRK for the death of their "great leader"? You can find that here: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/north-koreans-mourn-death-of.html

The fact that you represent yourself as being a member of the PSL, yet don't know this, is kinda sad. At the very least it shows just how little effort that group seems to place on cadre education, which I think is reflected in the piss-poor theory they generate.

hahaha, are you for real? like the closest you can get is the sentence "The destruction of the socialist camp between 1989 and 1991 brought disastrous changes for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR, and profound challenges for the socialist governments of North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and (then) Yugoslavia."

again i really don't see how this (or the passing reference in the article from two years ago) is a definitive critique stating that the DPRK in 2013 is, without a doubt, a capital-s (pun intended) Socialist state and the PSL upholds it as such. maybe to some creepy obsessed nerds on revleft this condescending jab is enough suffice, but in this case...who cares really? keep digging, friend.

[Lucretia]

hahaha, are you for real? like the closest you can get is the sentence "The destruction of the socialist camp between 1989 and 1991 brought disastrous changes for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR, and profound challenges for the socialist governments of North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and (then) Yugoslavia."

again i really don't see how this (or the passing reference in the article from two years ago) is a definitive critique stating that the DPRK in 2013 is, without a doubt, a capital-s (pun intended) Socialist state and the PSL upholds it as such. maybe to some creepy obsessed nerds on revleft this condescending jab is enough suffice, but in this case...who cares really? keep digging, friend.

I've provided quotes to your own group's literature in which they call the Eastern bloc countries, including the DPRK, "socialist governments" with "socialist planning." Then, to clarify that this was not being done in the same way that Trotsky and Lenin sometimes used the word "socialist" to indicate mechanisms to be used to complete a theretofore incomplete transition to a socialist society, I cited your group's literature in which they called Cuba and Russia "socialist societies."

Are you suggesting that, while the PSL claims that Cuba is a "socialist society," that it thinks the DPRK is qualitatively different and is not therefore a "socialist society"? Where does the PSL suggest this in any of their writings? What, do they think, is different about Cuba that it qualifies as a "socialist society" in a way that the DPRK isn't? In other words, what programatically do they think DPRK workers should pursue in order to achieve the "socialist society" that the Cubans enjoy -- but apparently, by your estimation of the PSL's line, the DPRK does not? The PSL has no answer for any of these questions, because it doesn't do theory. It praises dictators and slings around revolutionary-sounding rhetoric about "socialism" and "socialist societies" haphazardly, unsystematically, as a kind of well-meaning expression of solidarity with "victims of imperialism," but in a ways that functionally do little more than to paper over its absence of a revolutionary Marxist political program. It's a classic example of how without revolutionary theory, one cannot develop revolutionary activity.

Since you appear completely unaware of what is in your own group's literature, I am not expecting any cogent reply to these questions or admissions that you are, clearly and unquestionably, wrong in your assessment of the PSL's line. But maybe one day when you've actually seriously thought about your political convictions, you can come back to this thread and think about these questions and their implications.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, duh. Of course claims should be analyzed critically and evidence assessed. But you seemed to be not just saying this, but also saying that Western sources are not to be believed at all when it comes to factual content of their reporting on North Korea.

My original post mentions how "falling for propaganda" and "simply accepting every... claim"; I might have expressed myself poorly, but my point was not that any report from bourgeois sources should be dismissed out of hand. Of course, those reports that are a priori unlikely and for which there is no real evidence should be, just as equivalent reports from the DPR Korea should.


Those saying that they "support NK in their struggle against the USA". The way I see it it is two militarist regimes in need of a conflict to keep the war propaganda and wealth going.

Supporting states under siege by imperialist powers is a fairly basic aspect of Marxist internationalism.


How is this outlandish? Cult of the Leader, state-capitalist, militarist, regime fuelled by propaganda and a hatred Us vs Them culture - do you actually deny these things, or is it "bourgeois propaganda" again...

I deny that the DPR Korea is state capitalist in the sense of being ruled by a "red bourgeoisie". And the Nazi regime was not state capitalist in any sense. As for the rest, it seems to be mostly correct, but also applies to, for example, the United States and so on.


Mind boggling these people who think Stalin's brand of Marxist-Leninism is even close to Orthodox Marxism. Stalin is the biggest Marxist revisionist of them all! His works are a series of conclusions he draws up from the Manifesto and Capital without any solid theoretical analysis. And then you're surprised when these "revisionist" Marxists start calling him a traitor...

Obviously enough, I don't think that Stalin was correct in general, though his work on the national question is still highly relevant. My intention was not to defend his work (I will respectively leave that to actual Marxists-Leninists) but to point out the existence of revisionist "anti-Stalinism" that is nothing but a deluded sort of bourgeois liberalism.


And the reason eurocommunists and those evil humanists oppose Stalinist methodology is mainly due to the human cost of his brutal regime rather than his failed socialist plan.

Oh wait, that's probably bourgeois propaganda too isn't it?

No, "the human cost" is of course very real, though claims about "the Holodomor" are outlandish and anti-materialist. But so was the "human cost" of the early soviet Russian republic; Marxists should criticise Stalin for his theoretical errors and the manner in which they led to the degeneration and downfall of existing socialist societies, not for "killing people".

[one10]

Fair enough. But surely, you should apply the same criteria to propaganda about the DPR Korea?

I have.

As a leftist, at times it can be difficult to seperate the lies from the truth. It's all a matter of doing your own research and drawing your conclusions from there. I spent years studying the history of Cuba and came to the conclusion that nothing evil in nature is going on in the island. There's even burgeois media that will tell you that about Cuba. Cuba has nothing to hide and once you actually look into Fidel Castro, you discover that he's one of the most charismatic and honest politicians in the world, contrary to the negative image that his critics and exiles paint of him. Even through the roughest times (the Special Period) the Cuban government always put their people first with no famine or malnutrition ever being reported.

As far as the DPRK is concerned, there is absolutely nothing that I've read or seen that proves to me that the DPRK's government is sincere. Their military first policy that prioritizes military needs over a starving population, their exaggerated and ridiculous cult of personality, their monarch style dictatorship, their oppresive militaristic government, and their devotion to secrecy all point to there being some truth to such claims.

[teflon_john]

Since you appear completely unaware of what is in your own group's literature, I am not expecting any cogent reply to these questions or admissions that you are, clearly and unquestionably, wrong in your assessment of the PSL's line. But maybe one day when you've actually seriously thought about your political convictions, you can come back to this thread and think about these questions and their implications.

again...more condescending intellectual bullying by implying that, simply because i haven't drawn the same conclusions about the PSL's line that you have, i must be a clueless dope who hasn't even read the party literature, or that if i have, i lack a serious understanding of it.

that's what's up! it seems like you pretty much live for moments like this where you can crown yourself king of theory and sole arbiter of reasoned deduction. lord knows i don't have the time or inclination to take that away from you, so cheers!

[VDS]

again...more condescending intellectual bullying by implying that, simply because i haven't drawn the same conclusions about the PSL's line that you have, i must be a clueless dope who hasn't even read the party literature, or that if i have, i lack a serious understanding of it.

I don't think anyone is being condescending towards you or intellectually bullying you. What they've quoted is plain text. It's not so much to "draw conclusions" from it. The text is there, and I think that they've made pretty solid arguments, while you've done very little to coherently make your case, at all.

[Ocean Seal]

Tell me, which one of the Marxist-Leninist regimes didn't become a one-man tyranny?
But hey, at least they claimed to be Marxist-Leninists right?

[Art Vandelay]

again...more condescending intellectual bullying by implying that, simply because i haven't drawn the same conclusions about the PSL's line that you have, i must be a clueless dope who hasn't even read the party literature, or that if i have, i lack a serious understanding of it.

that's what's up! it seems like you pretty much live for moments like this where you can crown yourself king of theory and sole arbiter of reasoned deduction. lord knows i don't have the time or inclination to take that away from you, so cheers!

You've not put forth a single argument, meanwhile I've provided 5 quotes (3 from the PSL, 2 from the WWP) clearly stating that the DPRK is 'socialist state,' which you've conveniently ignored. The fact that you don't even know your parties line is embarrassing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I have.

As a leftist, at times it can be difficult to seperate the lies from the truth. It's all a matter of doing your own research and drawing your conclusions from there. I spent years studying the history of Cuba and came to the conclusion that nothing evil in nature is going on in the island. There's even burgeois media that will tell you that about Cuba. Cuba has nothing to hide and once you actually look into Fidel Castro, you discover that he's one of the most charismatic and honest politicians in the world, contrary to the negative image that his critics and exiles paint of him. Even through the roughest times (the Special Period) the Cuban government always put their people first with no famine or malnutrition ever being reported.

As far as the DPRK is concerned, there is absolutely nothing that I've read or seen that proves to me that the DPRK's government is sincere. Their military first policy that prioritizes military needs over a starving population, their exaggerated and ridiculous cult of personality, their monarch style dictatorship, their oppresive militaristic government, and their devotion to secrecy all point to there being some truth to such claims.

No one has denied the existence of Songun and so on, including the government of the DPR Korea. But this does not mean that a priori improbable claims about how the DPRK imprisons families for three generations can be accepted without evidence. Particularly when there are obvious reasons for secrecy and so on.

Nor should a communist assessment of a figure depend on their popularity...

[teflon_john]

The fact that you don't even know your parties line is embarrassing.

that's strange, because i don't feel embarrassed by any of this. i'm merely one person with many life obligations and i can't necessarily dedicate myself to articulating my understanding of these party positions online. certainly this means it was a bad idea to start engaging others in a debate when i should have known i wouldn't have the energy to commit to that.

but hey, i'm a deeply flawed human with misgivings and misunderstandings like everyone else, and in the end i'm doing the best i can. i'm certainly not ashamed about receiving lessons in humility.

[Lucretia]

that's strange, because i don't feel embarrassed by any of this. i'm merely one person with many life obligations and i can't necessarily dedicate myself to articulating my understanding of these party positions online. certainly this means it was a bad idea to start engaging others in a debate when i should have known i wouldn't have the energy to commit to that.

but hey, i'm a deeply flawed human with misgivings and misunderstandings like everyone else, and in the end i'm doing the best i can. i'm certainly not ashamed about receiving lessons in humility.

Look, if you simply tried to have an honest discussion about this, and were OPEN about the fact that you didn't know exactly what the PSL's line was, people would be acting a LOT differently toward you.

Instead you come here making bogus claims, and then when people correct you on it using literature from your own party, you duck and dodge and claim that you are being bullied, instead of just admitting that you fucked up and were wrong. Now you're playing the victim game even more, with your "woe as me, I'm only a flawed human" schtick. Give me a break!

Not a good showing, comrade.

[teflon_john]

again, the admission of personal fault and backing out isn't enough. what is required then, a pound of flesh? a timestamped photo of me holding a letter stating "Senior Revolutionary Poster Lucretia is better at theory than I am."?

i'd say with some people you just can't win, but damn...here i'm not even allowed to lose.

[Lucretia]

again, the admission of personal fault and backing out isn't enough. what is required then, a pound of flesh? a timestamped photo of me holding a letter stating "Senior Revolutionary Poster Lucretia is better at theory than I am."?

i'd say with some people you just can't win, but damn...here i'm not even allowed to lose.

You're being dishonest again. Your admission of fault isn't that you had no idea what the PSL line was on the DPRK, and that you wrongly attacked people for pointing it out. Which is what you SHOULD be admitting, if you were truly and honestly interested in clearing the air. Instead, your admission of fault is that you weren't prepared to make the time commitment required to show how right you are. Disingenuousness at its finest. Stop playing the victim and own up to the fact that your fuck up wasn't about time commitments, but the very way in which you've tried to conduct yourself in this "discussion." People might begin taking you seriously at that point.

[MP5]

The intelligent ones among us are not just sympathizers but active supporters of the socialist state that is the DPRK. The reasons for that should be self evident: every citizen has a home and an education completely free of charge, and employment stands at 100%. It is a prime example, along with Cuba, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it has achieved all this despite constant provocation from the USA and it's imperialist lackies, and sanctions delivered therein.

How is it Socialist much less Marxist in anyway? In Marxism the proletariat is the driving force behind the Communist revolution. In Juche the military is the revolutionary force which is totally against the whole concept of workers self emancipation. So North Korea is not Marxist in anyway really especially since it neglect's it's working class altogether while the elitist in the country live rather comfortably especially by North Korean standards.

It is basically a one man totalitarian state run by a despot who is only in charge because he inherited it. It's a monarchy in everything but name which is not exactly Socialist either :grin: . Also so what if every person in North Korea has free education and a house? In Canada everyone has the right to the use of the health care system free of charge and education is free until you leave high school. Workers rights used to be somewhat better here then in the US but that has changed. So does that make Canada Socialist as well? :rolleyes:

Also don't give me the whole it's all the fault of the big bad USA. NK does plenty of saber rattling of it's own towards South Korea and the US. Neither country is blameless but if i had a choice between living in the US and North Korea i would pick the US as much as i hate American bourgeois democracy.

[Leftsolidarity]

The WWP and PSL both highlight the DPRK as examples of socialism, if I am not mistaken.

Yes, WWP supports the DPRK as a socialist state. The PSL probably does too.

In our party's paper we have written a number of articles recently about the DPRK. Since you're wondering why communists would support the DPRK I'll post one of the main articles published recently which outlines our position regarding the DPRK and includes a message sent from our Secretariat to the Worker's Party of Korea.

http://www.workers.org/2013/04/02/not-another-war-pentagon-out-of-korea/



Not another war! Pentagon out of Korea

For a second month, tens of thousands of U.S. and south Korean troops are carrying out simulated assaults on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — north Korea.

For the first time during these annual “exercises,” designated as Key Resolve and Foal Eagle, nuclear-capable B-2 bombers flew from Missouri to south Korea and back in a simulated bombing of the north.

In February, other war “games” called Iron Fist teamed up U.S. and Japanese troops in a simulated attack on islands claimed by both Japan and China.

The Pentagon has announced it will spend a billion dollars on a “missile defense” system on the West Coast of the United States.

The Pentagon has also moved a Navy missile-defense ship from its home port in Japan to waters off the Korean peninsula.

At the same time, the U.S. propaganda machine declares all this is necessary to counter the “belligerence” of the DPRK.

As more and more U.S. ships, planes and military personnel are deployed to the area around the Korean peninsula, the possibility of yet another war is being floated.

War is something that is very real to the Korean people. They know from bitter experience that war “games” are not something that are just played on a computer — they are the prelude to mayhem and unspeakable destruction and human suffering.

Why DPRK says ‘armistice is dead’

For 60 years, the DPRK attempted to get the U.S. to sign a peace treaty that would end the state of war existing between the two countries since 1950. It also called for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Neither ever happened. Washington refused to even discuss the matter. The DPRK has now declared that the armistice agreement ending the 1950-53 shooting war is dead and that it will respond with strength if attacked.

While all this military activity is going on, massive government cutbacks in the United States speak to the back-breaking cost of this country’s military spending for previous interventions around the world. The trillions of dollars spent on building the world’s most destructive military machine have imposed a colossal debt burden on the people at home.

The only ones to benefit from this unending warfare are the military-industrial complex and the banks. The capitalist ruling class as a whole, which more and more seeks super-profits from abroad, bears the responsibility for turning the U.S. into a garrison state at odds with most of the world.

From ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt to Obama
“Speak softly and carry a big stick,” said Theodore Roosevelt in 1901. He had led the charge in grabbing Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines and Guam away from Spain, first as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and later as a grandstanding lieutenant colonel commanding U.S. troops in Cuba during the War of 1898.

Roosevelt’s role in gaining new territory for U.S. profiteers to exploit won him the presidency (1901-09).

Roosevelt’s prescription for how to camouflage imperialist aggression is still being followed by the public relations departments of the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department.

While pronouncing “caution” and “restraint” and their commitment to building a “peaceful and stable” world, they quietly go about the job of building up the world’s most fearsome arsenal of offensive weapons.

As the Pentagon winds down its military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, after reducing those countries to chaos and ashes, it is increasingly redeploying its troops and arsenal to the Pacific. Its target right now is north Korea, even as the U.S. also attempts to encircle China.

The leaders of the DPRK, however, have prepared for this moment and strengthened their defenses. They have successfully tested nuclear bombs and long-range missiles.

The north Koreans are sending a ringing message to the world that they will not bow down to the pressure of tens of thousands of U.S. troops carrying out a simulated war on their borders. For that, they are being branded in the capitalist media as war mongers.

The imperialist U.S., carrying on in Roosevelt’s footsteps, talks peace while waging war. The socialist DPRK tells the truth — to its own people and to the world.

Workers World Party message
In response to these developments, the Secretariat of Workers World Party in the United States sent the following message to the Workers’ Party of Korea on April 2:

Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un,
While the U.S. war machine carries out threatening maneuvers on your borders, we of Workers World Party extend our hands in friendship and solidarity.

The facts are clear. The DPRK has every right to defend itself against attack from the U.S., which sent millions of troops to Korea during the 1950-53 war and killed millions of Korean people. No country in the world has more right to a nuclear deterrent than the DPRK — certainly not the U.S., which talks peace while carrying out military interventions on every continent.

Our solidarity is also based on appreciation for the great achievements of the Korean Revolution in changing social relations in the north. It unseated the exploiters and agents of imperialism while elevating the workers and farmers to become masters of their own fate.

We will continue to organize opposition to Washington’s belligerence, which is bankrupting the people of this country, and condemn all acts of aggression against the DPRK, be they military or diplomatic in character.

No war, no sanctions! U.S. out of Korea!

[one10]

Yes, WWP supports the DPRK as a socialist state. The PSL probably does too.

In our party's paper we have written a number of articles recently about the DPRK. Since you're wondering why communists would support the DPRK I'll post one of the main articles published recently which outlines our position regarding the DPRK and includes a message sent from our Secretariat to the Worker's Party of Korea.

http://www.workers.org/2013/04/02/not-another-war-pentagon-out-of-korea/



Not another war! Pentagon out of Korea

For a second month, tens of thousands of U.S. and south Korean troops are carrying out simulated assaults on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — north Korea.

For the first time during these annual “exercises,” designated as Key Resolve and Foal Eagle, nuclear-capable B-2 bombers flew from Missouri to south Korea and back in a simulated bombing of the north.

In February, other war “games” called Iron Fist teamed up U.S. and Japanese troops in a simulated attack on islands claimed by both Japan and China.

The Pentagon has announced it will spend a billion dollars on a “missile defense” system on the West Coast of the United States.

The Pentagon has also moved a Navy missile-defense ship from its home port in Japan to waters off the Korean peninsula.

At the same time, the U.S. propaganda machine declares all this is necessary to counter the “belligerence” of the DPRK.

As more and more U.S. ships, planes and military personnel are deployed to the area around the Korean peninsula, the possibility of yet another war is being floated.

War is something that is very real to the Korean people. They know from bitter experience that war “games” are not something that are just played on a computer — they are the prelude to mayhem and unspeakable destruction and human suffering.

Why DPRK says ‘armistice is dead’

For 60 years, the DPRK attempted to get the U.S. to sign a peace treaty that would end the state of war existing between the two countries since 1950. It also called for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Neither ever happened. Washington refused to even discuss the matter. The DPRK has now declared that the armistice agreement ending the 1950-53 shooting war is dead and that it will respond with strength if attacked.

While all this military activity is going on, massive government cutbacks in the United States speak to the back-breaking cost of this country’s military spending for previous interventions around the world. The trillions of dollars spent on building the world’s most destructive military machine have imposed a colossal debt burden on the people at home.

The only ones to benefit from this unending warfare are the military-industrial complex and the banks. The capitalist ruling class as a whole, which more and more seeks super-profits from abroad, bears the responsibility for turning the U.S. into a garrison state at odds with most of the world.

From ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt to Obama
“Speak softly and carry a big stick,” said Theodore Roosevelt in 1901. He had led the charge in grabbing Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines and Guam away from Spain, first as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and later as a grandstanding lieutenant colonel commanding U.S. troops in Cuba during the War of 1898.

Roosevelt’s role in gaining new territory for U.S. profiteers to exploit won him the presidency (1901-09).

Roosevelt’s prescription for how to camouflage imperialist aggression is still being followed by the public relations departments of the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department.

While pronouncing “caution” and “restraint” and their commitment to building a “peaceful and stable” world, they quietly go about the job of building up the world’s most fearsome arsenal of offensive weapons.

As the Pentagon winds down its military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, after reducing those countries to chaos and ashes, it is increasingly redeploying its troops and arsenal to the Pacific. Its target right now is north Korea, even as the U.S. also attempts to encircle China.

The leaders of the DPRK, however, have prepared for this moment and strengthened their defenses. They have successfully tested nuclear bombs and long-range missiles.

The north Koreans are sending a ringing message to the world that they will not bow down to the pressure of tens of thousands of U.S. troops carrying out a simulated war on their borders. For that, they are being branded in the capitalist media as war mongers.

The imperialist U.S., carrying on in Roosevelt’s footsteps, talks peace while waging war. The socialist DPRK tells the truth — to its own people and to the world.

Workers World Party message
In response to these developments, the Secretariat of Workers World Party in the United States sent the following message to the Workers’ Party of Korea on April 2:

Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un,
While the U.S. war machine carries out threatening maneuvers on your borders, we of Workers World Party extend our hands in friendship and solidarity.

The facts are clear. The DPRK has every right to defend itself against attack from the U.S., which sent millions of troops to Korea during the 1950-53 war and killed millions of Korean people. No country in the world has more right to a nuclear deterrent than the DPRK — certainly not the U.S., which talks peace while carrying out military interventions on every continent.

Our solidarity is also based on appreciation for the great achievements of the Korean Revolution in changing social relations in the north. It unseated the exploiters and agents of imperialism while elevating the workers and farmers to become masters of their own fate.

We will continue to organize opposition to Washington’s belligerence, which is bankrupting the people of this country, and condemn all acts of aggression against the DPRK, be they military or diplomatic in character.

No war, no sanctions! U.S. out of Korea!


I almost threw up when I read Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un. Disgraceful.

[Leftsolidarity]

I almost threw up when I read Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un. Disgraceful.

Nice contribution to the discussion. You won some cool kid points with that zinger.

[TheEmancipator]

Nice contribution to the discussion. You won some cool kid points with that zinger.

How is he our equal if he proclaims himself as Dear Leader, and his Juchism makes him a living god in his country?

Or are we just throwing the word "comrade" around when we feel like it now?

[melvin]

there is no such thing as a "one man tyranny". that's just the standard media portrait of all enemy states.

[Lucretia]

How is he our equal if he proclaims himself as Dear Leader, and his Juchism makes him a living god in his country?

Or are we just throwing the word "comrade" around when we feel like it now?

Why not throw around the word comrade? They already throw around the word socialist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, WWP supports the DPRK as a socialist state. The PSL probably does too.

In our party's paper we have written a number of articles recently about the DPRK. Since you're wondering why communists would support the DPRK I'll post one of the main articles published recently which outlines our position regarding the DPRK and includes a message sent from our Secretariat to the Worker's Party of Korea.

http://www.workers.org/2013/04/02/not-another-war-pentagon-out-of-korea/



Not another war! Pentagon out of Korea

For a second month, tens of thousands of U.S. and south Korean troops are carrying out simulated assaults on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — north Korea.

For the first time during these annual “exercises,” designated as Key Resolve and Foal Eagle, nuclear-capable B-2 bombers flew from Missouri to south Korea and back in a simulated bombing of the north.

In February, other war “games” called Iron Fist teamed up U.S. and Japanese troops in a simulated attack on islands claimed by both Japan and China.

The Pentagon has announced it will spend a billion dollars on a “missile defense” system on the West Coast of the United States.

The Pentagon has also moved a Navy missile-defense ship from its home port in Japan to waters off the Korean peninsula.

At the same time, the U.S. propaganda machine declares all this is necessary to counter the “belligerence” of the DPRK.

As more and more U.S. ships, planes and military personnel are deployed to the area around the Korean peninsula, the possibility of yet another war is being floated.

War is something that is very real to the Korean people. They know from bitter experience that war “games” are not something that are just played on a computer — they are the prelude to mayhem and unspeakable destruction and human suffering.

Why DPRK says ‘armistice is dead’

For 60 years, the DPRK attempted to get the U.S. to sign a peace treaty that would end the state of war existing between the two countries since 1950. It also called for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Neither ever happened. Washington refused to even discuss the matter. The DPRK has now declared that the armistice agreement ending the 1950-53 shooting war is dead and that it will respond with strength if attacked.

While all this military activity is going on, massive government cutbacks in the United States speak to the back-breaking cost of this country’s military spending for previous interventions around the world. The trillions of dollars spent on building the world’s most destructive military machine have imposed a colossal debt burden on the people at home.

The only ones to benefit from this unending warfare are the military-industrial complex and the banks. The capitalist ruling class as a whole, which more and more seeks super-profits from abroad, bears the responsibility for turning the U.S. into a garrison state at odds with most of the world.

From ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt to Obama
“Speak softly and carry a big stick,” said Theodore Roosevelt in 1901. He had led the charge in grabbing Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines and Guam away from Spain, first as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and later as a grandstanding lieutenant colonel commanding U.S. troops in Cuba during the War of 1898.

Roosevelt’s role in gaining new territory for U.S. profiteers to exploit won him the presidency (1901-09).

Roosevelt’s prescription for how to camouflage imperialist aggression is still being followed by the public relations departments of the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department.

While pronouncing “caution” and “restraint” and their commitment to building a “peaceful and stable” world, they quietly go about the job of building up the world’s most fearsome arsenal of offensive weapons.

As the Pentagon winds down its military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, after reducing those countries to chaos and ashes, it is increasingly redeploying its troops and arsenal to the Pacific. Its target right now is north Korea, even as the U.S. also attempts to encircle China.

The leaders of the DPRK, however, have prepared for this moment and strengthened their defenses. They have successfully tested nuclear bombs and long-range missiles.

The north Koreans are sending a ringing message to the world that they will not bow down to the pressure of tens of thousands of U.S. troops carrying out a simulated war on their borders. For that, they are being branded in the capitalist media as war mongers.

The imperialist U.S., carrying on in Roosevelt’s footsteps, talks peace while waging war. The socialist DPRK tells the truth — to its own people and to the world.

Workers World Party message
In response to these developments, the Secretariat of Workers World Party in the United States sent the following message to the Workers’ Party of Korea on April 2:

Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un,
While the U.S. war machine carries out threatening maneuvers on your borders, we of Workers World Party extend our hands in friendship and solidarity.

The facts are clear. The DPRK has every right to defend itself against attack from the U.S., which sent millions of troops to Korea during the 1950-53 war and killed millions of Korean people. No country in the world has more right to a nuclear deterrent than the DPRK — certainly not the U.S., which talks peace while carrying out military interventions on every continent.

Our solidarity is also based on appreciation for the great achievements of the Korean Revolution in changing social relations in the north. It unseated the exploiters and agents of imperialism while elevating the workers and farmers to become masters of their own fate.

We will continue to organize opposition to Washington’s belligerence, which is bankrupting the people of this country, and condemn all acts of aggression against the DPRK, be they military or diplomatic in character.

No war, no sanctions! U.S. out of Korea!


Out of curiosity, what is the WWP position on such developments as Songun, special economic zones and so on? It seems that some comrades think that your party supports the DPR Korea completely and without reservation, but the statement you quote seems to base itself on anti-imperialism and a recognition of the progressive nature of the mode of production in Korea.

Also, this might sound petty, but it has honestly been bothering me quite a while, what happened to the apostrophe in the name of the WWP?


I almost threw up when I read Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un. Disgraceful.

How would you start the message? "Dear Nazi Pig"? Members of revolutionary socialist parties are usually called comrades, even if you feel that their party is revisionist, dogmatic, in gross error, or simply bizarre.

[Old Bolshie]

But hey, at least they claimed to be Marxist-Leninists right?

Yes, that's why I called them Marxist-Leninist regimes and not Stalinists which would be more appropriate.

[MP5]

there is no such thing as a "one man tyranny". that's just the standard media portrait of all enemy states.

Well what would you call it? It's basically a monarchy that uses the military to suppress the people and to show how big and strong their leader is :rolleyes:

If that is not a one man run totalitarian state i don't know what is.

[La Guaneña]

The DPRK is probably the closest thing to Nazi Germany in the modern world. Have any of you read about their prison/concentration camps and their "three generations of punishment" policy? If you are found guilty of committing a crime worthy of life sentence in the DPRK (such as trying to escape from North Korea), you and your entire family are sent to a prison camp to serve life, as well as any 2 generations born in the camp. The thought of children being born into a life of imprisonment is just repulsive.

I could care less what their views on imperialism and the western world are, I show absolutely no support for any country committing those types of violations against it's people. They deserve to be punished by death for the unjustifiable and horrifying acts committed against it's people.

Words can't describe how inhumane and appalling the DPRK is.
It's a shame that the WWP stands in solidarity with the DPRK, it makes the left look bad.

It's because of posts like these and the amount of rep they get that the bourgeois propaganda card is played so often. Just read this shit out loud in the voice of the Fox News host of your preference. Class war is not a struggle for being well-spoken by the news.

[Red Commissar]

Well what would you call it? It's basically a monarchy that uses the military to suppress the people and to show how big and strong their leader is :rolleyes:

If that is not a one man run totalitarian state i don't know what is.

I don't think Kim Jong-Un has the same influence in the state his grandfather had, or other similar figures before that. There's a lot of power held by a group of privileged individuals, in particular the military (ie the military's not necessarily doing anything Kim wants). Power dynamics are a bit more dispersed in NK, even if Kim Jong-Un is the face of the government.

This is not saying that NK isn't totalitarian, but just that I doubt Kim Jong-un's position is as strong as it's made out to be.

[Comrade Nasser]

Let's all move to NK!!!!!!!!!!

But seriously no. I just don't like Kim Jong Un.

[Leftsolidarity]

How is he our equal if he proclaims himself as Dear Leader,

"Dear Leader" is a endearing term used to describe a leader that the people support. I don't see anything wrong with that.


and his Juchism makes him a living god in his country?



It doesn't. Juche has nothing to do with making someone a living god.

[Leftsolidarity]

Out of curiosity, what is the WWP position on such developments as Songun, special economic zones and so on? It seems that some comrades think that your party supports the DPR Korea completely and without reservation, but the statement you quote seems to base itself on anti-imperialism and a recognition of the progressive nature of the mode of production in Korea.



I don't know how well I could describe our offical line on those things exactly but I do know that we defend their right to defend themselves and completely understand why military defense would be in their top prioities. As to the SEZ's, I don't know all that much but they do need to find a way to survive as an isolated socialist country.

I don't think there's really anything that'd I feel comfortable saying we support "without reservation" cuz we can still find certain things that we may not agree with 100% but will still support them anyways. Our support for the DPRK is based on anti-imperialism and that we view them as a socialist state. We do whole-heartedly support them but we can recognize that nothing is absolutely perfect and there will be issues and contradictions.



Also, this might sound petty, but it has honestly been bothering me quite a while, what happened to the apostrophe in the name of the WWP?


Ya know, I think I heard some older comrades talking about that a few months ago and I think it has something to do with another party or paper used the same name with an apostrophe so we took ours out. That may be completely untrue but I think that's what I overheard.

[Art Vandelay]

"Dear Leader" is a endearing term used to describe a leader that the people support. I don't see anything wrong with that.

So you then support the idea that anyone can be a 'leader' under socialist society, but also support the idea the Kim Jong Un is not only supported by the proletariat of the DPRK, but also considered 'dear' by them? This isn't even to comment on the fact that the DPRK, lacks any sense of democracy that a socialist 'state' would, or the fact that the election of its head of state seems to follow the tradition of a monarchy, but I just want this very clear. Cause as much as I like you as an individual, I can't help but find these political positions abhorrent and reactionary.

[Leftsolidarity]

So you then support the idea that anyone can be a 'leader' under socialist society, but also support the idea the Kim Jong Un is not only supported by the proletariat of the DPRK, but also considered 'dear' by them? This isn't even to comment on the fact that the DPRK, lacks any sense of democracy that a socialist 'state' would, or the fact that the election of its head of state seems to follow the tradition of a monarchy, but I just want this very clear. Cause as much as I like you as an individual, I can't help but find these political positions abhorrent and reactionary.

Why wouldn't we have leaders in socialist society? There are leaders in all types of societies. I do think Kim Jong Un is supported by the proletariat of the DPRK and that "dear" would be approprate wording. The DPRK doesn't lack democracy. Many decisions are made on the local levels through worker's assemblies. Kim Jong Un actually has less power as the head of state of the DPRK than Obama does in the USA. As to the hereditary leader thing, this was actually really interesting when I was given insight by someone I know who is really into Korean history. Kim Il Sung had some famous statement about how even if he dies the spirit of the revolution and the fight for socialism would continue with his children and with that child's child, etc. until victory. Very paraphrased btw. So it is a symbolic carrying on of the fighting spirit of the revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But surely, even if Kim Jong Un is adored by most people in the DPR Korea (and this is very difficult to prove, or disprove), the formalisation of this support into a cult of personality (and a cult of personality seems to exist in the DPRK) is indicative of deep structural faults in North Korean society? Cults of personalities are usually used by bureaucratic strata in order to win over the population.

[Narodnik]

Why wouldn't we have leaders in socialist society?
There is a leader who has the authority of opinion on his side, and there is a leader who has the authority of hierarchical power on his side. Following the first one is voluntary and he mantains his authority and leadership by mantaining support, but followint the latter necessitates use of some form of coersion to prevent dissent. The second type of leader is, IMO, incompatible with socialist society, whereas the first type of leader, being that he reflects the opinion of those who agree with him, can function as an elected, mandated and recallable delegate of those people.

[redshoesrock]

There is a great article on Counterpunch (and also reprinted by the PSL) detailing the craziness going on. The Cliffs Notes version: America, by itself and also through its puppet South Korea, is riling things up, so North Korea feels they have to rile things up so they don't look weak. Which causes America/South Korea to ramp things up so *they* don't look weak, which makes North Korea...you get the idea.

"What's Annoying the North Koreans?" by GREGORY ELICH

Relations between the United States and North Korea have reached a nadir, and in most Western media reports it is the seemingly irrational harsh rhetoric emanating from North Korea that is to blame. Inexplicably, we are told, North Korea has chosen to raise tensions.
What is missing from this image of hostile North Korean behavior and blameless American victimhood is context. As is often the case, the media present events in an isolated fashion as if arising suddenly and without cause.
One does not have to look very far back in time to discern what is troubling the North Koreans. In recent months, the Obama Administration has taken a number of steps that the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name for North Korea) has perceived as threatening.
The first step on the path to worsened relations came in October 2012, when the United States granted South Korea an exemption under the Missile Control Technology Regime, permitting it to extend the range of its ballistic missiles so that they could cover the entire territory of the DPRK. As a result, there was one set of terms that applied to every nation which had joined the treaty, and a different set applying only to South Korea, clearly for the purpose of targeting its neighbor to the north.
That same month, U.S. and South Korean military officials met for the annual Security Consultative Meeting, where they agreed to sweeping changes in their alliance. Most importantly, they developed a plan that they termed “tailored deterrence,” which calls for joint South Korean-U.S. military operations against North Korea in a number of scenarios, including minor incidents. Any “provocation” by North Korea is to be met with disproportionate force, and according to a South Korean military official, “this strategy will be applied in both peacetime and wartime.”
An essential component of tailored deterrence is a “kill chain” for tracking and striking North Korean missile sites, in which American satellites and drones detect targets and South Korean missiles and warplanes take them out. The plan calls for a preemptive attack based on the perception of an imminent launch of North Korean missiles. Deputy Commander of the UN Command Korea Lt. General Jan-Marc Jouas explains that North Korean missiles could be rapidly targeted “before they are in position to employ.” To put it plainly, an attack could be launched on missile sites based on supposition, even when North Korean missiles are not in a position to fire.
On December 12, 2012, the DPRK launched an earth observation satellite into orbit, triggering condemnation by the Obama Administration, which charged that the flight was a disguised ballistic missile test. UN resolutions forbade North Korea from testing ballistic missiles, but Pyongyang argued that sending a satellite into space is not the same thing as testing a ballistic missile test. Missile technology experts tend to agree, pointing out that the missile the DPRK launched lacked the performance to serve as an ICBM and its flight path took a sharp turn to avoid flying over Taiwan and the Philippines, an action that is counter-productive for a ballistic missile test.
South Korean naval vessels managed to salvage debris from the North Korean missile. Analysis showed that a small engine with a low 13 to 14-ton thrust powered the second stage. Munich-based aerospace engineer Marcus Schiller reported that a low-thrust, long-burn time second stage, such as the North Koreans used, is precisely the design needed for a satellite launcher. Such a design is needed to attain a high enough altitude to place a satellite into orbit. That design, however, is inappropriate for a ballistic missile test, as it would cost more than 1,000 kilometers in range. To test a ballistic missile, the second stage should have the opposite design, having a high-thrust and short burn-time. Schiller concludes that Western media reports that North Korea’s satellite launch served as a ballistic missile test “are not true.”
Michael Elleman, security analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, notes that the results of a satellite launch “have limited application to ballistic missiles,” as only a fraction of issues can be tested. “Other requirements, most notably re-entry technologies and operational flexibility requirements, cannot be adequately addressed by satellite launches.” Elleman reports that for these and other reasons, North Korea’s satellite missile launches “are not a substitute for ballistic missile testing.”
Interestingly, on the same day that North Korea lofted its satellite into space, India, another nuclear power, test fired a ballistic missile without American officials voicing a complaint. The United States is not lacking in aerospace engineers, and U.S. officials were surely aware that North Korea’s satellite launch could not be technologically construed as a disguised ballistic missile test. It appears that the Obama Administration deliberately chose to misrepresent the nature of the launch in order to further its own political ends.
The satellite launch provided the Obama Administration with an opportunity to tighten the noose around North Korea, and after extensive negotiations it managed to push a resolution through the United Nations Security Council. As U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained it, the Obama Administration’s intent was “to continue to increase the pressure on the North Korean regime. And we’re looking at how best to do that, both bilaterally and with our partners going forward. Until they get the message, we’re going to have to continue to further isolate this regime.”
With the passage of UN Security Council resolution 2087 on January 22, 2013, new sanctions were imposed on North Korea, despite the fact that the international outer space treaty grants the right to explore space to “all states without discrimination of any kind.”
North Korea reacted angrily to being singled out as the only nation on earth denied the right to launch a satellite. The DPRK was disinclined to acquiesce in the imposition of additional sanctions, when its economy was already reeling from existing sanctions. A DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesman pointed out that by ramming the resolution through the Security Council, the United States had violated the UN Charter, which states “the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”
Speaking at the United Nations, DPRK delegate So Se Pyong declared, “There were no less than 2,000 nuclear tests and at least 9,000 satellite launches in the world since the UN came into existence, but never has there been even a single resolution of its Security Council that banned nuclear test and satellite launch.” Adding that the United States has carried out more nuclear tests and satellite launches than any other nation, the delegate said that the United States should not be allowed to block North Korea from exercising its right “to use space for peaceful purposes,” nor to use the United Nations “as a tool for executing its hostile policy toward the DPRK.”
To no one’s surprise, North Korea chose to express its resistance to the aggressiveness of U.S. policy by conducting its third nuclear test on February 12, 2013. Several days later, in an apparent reference to Iraq and Libya, North Korean media recalled the fates that had befallen those nations that had abandoned their nuclear weapons programs in response to U.S. pressure. Those examples, it added, “teach the truth that the U.S. nuclear blackmail should be countered with substantial countermeasures, not with compromise or retreat.”
One day after the nuclear test, the South Korean Ministry of National Defense announced that it had deployed cruise missiles capable of striking anywhere in North Korea and that it would accelerate development of ballistic missiles of similar range. Furthermore, implementation of the kill chain would be sped up. xii Originally planned for completion in 2015, the kill chain is now on track to be in place by the end of this year.
While discussions were underway in the United Nations Security Council on imposing additional sanctions on North Korea, the European Union forged ahead with its own set of measures, including a prohibition on trade with North Korean public entities and trade in DPRK public bonds. It also placed a ban on European banks opening in the DPRK and North Korean banks establishing a branch in the EU.
It took more than three weeks to negotiate a United Nations Security Council resolution in response to the North Korean nuclear test. The most contentious issue was whether or not to include Chapter 7, Article 42, which would have authorized military enforcement. The United States and South Korea both argued strongly for its inclusion. Another difficult issue was inspection of North Korean cargo ships, and there was extensive discussion before the United States and China agreed on the extent of inspections.
The Chinese refused to agree to military enforcement, rightly fearing that it would increase the risk of war. Nor would they go along with some of the harsher measures that the United States had included as a wish list in its draft. Military enforcement would have been particularly dangerous, given the history of how Article 42 has served as a path for the United States to wage war.
Although the United States did not get everything it wanted, the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2094 on March 7, 2013 saw it achieve many of the aims it had advocated. The resolution requires all nations to inspect North Korean ships and planes that are suspected of carrying prohibited goods. Strong restrictions are placed on North Korean banking operations. Nations are ordered to prevent North Korean individuals from transferring bulk cash, including diplomatic personnel, who are to be subjected to “enhanced vigilance” in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. xvii By targeting North Korean diplomats for surveillance, searches and detention, the United States aims to cut off one of the few remaining means the DPRK has for engaging in international monetary transactions. UN and United States banking sanctions have made most international banks unwilling to transact with North Korea, forcing the DPRK to conduct much of its foreign trade on a cash basis.
It is the measure restricting business with North Korean banks that promises to inflict the most harm on the North Korean economy. “Going after the banking system in a broad brush way is arguably the strongest thing on the list,” observes former U.S. State Department official Evans J. R. Revere. “It does begin to eat into the ability of North Korea to finance many things.” Primarily normal trade, it should be noted.
Just days later, the U.S. Department of Treasury followed up with its own sanctions, prohibiting transactions between North Korea’s Foreign Trade Bank and U.S. individuals and businesses, and placing a freeze on assets held under U.S. jurisdiction. The Foreign Trade Bank, the Treasury Department points out, is “North Korea’s primary foreign exchange bank.” The ban effectively prevents banks and businesses in other nations from trading with the Foreign Trade Bank, lest they be excluded from contact with the U.S. financial system. “When there’s a foreign bank that U.S. banks aren’t doing business with, banks in other countries start to avoid transactions with it,” remarks a financial specialist. “They’re worried about suffering the consequences themselves.” Typically, international trade is based on the dollar, requiring transactions to process through the U.S. financial system. For that reason, “Chinese banks aren’t going to be able to help North Korea out,” adds the financial analyst.
For its part, South Korea has adopted policies that increase the danger of war. According to a South Korean military official, “Commanders have been given the authority to act first at discretion in the event of a North Korean provocation to inflict a retaliation that is more than ten times as harsh as the level of provocation.” Director of Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kim Yong-hyon states that in response to an incident South Korean armed forces “will resolutely punish not only the origin of the provocation but also its commanding forces.” It does not require much imagination to recognize how such a policy has the potential of transforming a minor skirmish into a war.
The United States and South Korea have recently signed a counter-provocation plan, in which U.S. forces are pledged to provide support when South Korean forces attack a North Korean target. The plan spells out actions that are to be taken in response to various scenarios. According to a South Korean military official, it takes into account the South Korean policy “which calls for launching counterstrikes at not only the origin of provocation, but also forces supporting it and its commanders.” In some scenarios “U.S. weapons could be mobilized to strike back at North Korea’s territorial waters and soil.” The counter-provocation plan requires South Korea to consult with the United States before taking action, but if Seoul requests assistance the United States cannot refuse to take part in military operations.
In a mighty demonstration meant to intimidate North Korea, the United States and South Korea began their annual Key Resolve military exercise on March 11, overlapping with the two-month Foal Eagle military exercise that began on March first. During the exercise, nuclear-capable B-52 bombers took off from Guam and dropped practice munitions in South Korea. U.S. commanders knew this action would inflame North Korean sensibilities, given the stinging memory North Koreans have of the Korean War, when U.S. bombers carried out a scorched earth policy and razed every North Korean town and city to the ground.
The United States further ratcheted up pressure on the DPRK by sending the nuclear-powered submarine USS Cheyenne, equipped with Tomahawk missiles, to participate in Foal Eagle. Soon thereafter, B-2 Stealth bombers flew over South Korea in military exercises. “As the B-2 has radar-evading stealth function, it can penetrate the anti-aircraft defense to drop conventional and nuclear weapons,” commented a military official. “It is the strategic weapon most feared by North Korea.” The B-2, it should be noted, is the only plane capable of delivering the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, which can bore through 200 feet of concrete before detonating. The plane can also carry multiple nuclear weapons. Continuing to escalate the show of force, the United States next sent advanced F-22 Stealth fighter planes to South Korea. The South Korean government asked the United States not to show the planes in public because it would be an unneeded provocation to North Korea. That request went unheeded by the United States.
In a boost to South Korea’s arsenal, the United States has approved the sale of 200 bunker buster bombs, suitable for targeting North Korean underground facilities. Plans call for the bombs to be deployed by the end of the year. xxx South Korea also plans to purchase 200 air-launched Taurus cruise missiles from Europe, which are capable of penetrating up to six meters of reinforced concrete.
As part of its planning for future contingencies, the United States has formed a military organization responsible for entering North Korea and seizing nuclear facilities and weapons in the event of a crisis in the DPRK. In that scenario, U.S. forces would also arrest “key figures” and gather classified information. Which North Korean individuals would be subject to arrest by U.S. forces has not been disclosed. The force would be comprised of U.S. armed forces, intelligence operatives and anti-terrorism personnel. A mock drill implementing the plan was part of the recently concluded Key Resolve exercises. xxxii
Having done everything to provoke the North Koreans, the Obama Administration has seized the opportunity to point to their reaction as justification for deploying a wish list of anti-missile hardware. The Pentagon announced that it would station an additional 14 interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska and would proceed with its plan to place a second anti-missile radar in Japan. xxxiii A Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery is slated to be trotted out on Guam for its first deployment, xxxiv and the sea-based SBX-1 X-Band Radar platform is moving closer to the western Pacific, in what the Navy says may be the first of other naval deployments.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the show of military force was planned in advance, in what the Obama Administration termed “the playbook.” The United States acted with the deliberate intention of threatening North Korea. According to the article, the administration decided to place the playbook on “pause” only when the media revealed the deployment of two guided missile destroyers to the western Pacific, and it was felt that perhaps this news risked pushing the North Koreans too far. The deployment of destroyers, it was said, was not meant to be publicized. The next steps in the playbook have been put on hold for the time being. It has also been reported that the United States will delay a test flight of a Minuteman ICBM by one month, in order not to raise tensions.
The perception that the Obama Administration wishes to convey to the American and world public, then, is that the United States is acting responsibly in order to defuse the situation. A high-ranking defense official, however, says, “There was no White House secrecy order” regarding the deployment of the destroyers. Furthermore, recently deployed military hardware are not withdrawing, while the large-scale combined U.S.-South Korean Foal Eagle military exercise on North Korea’s doorstep continues without letup.
Despite claims that it is toning down its actions, the Obama Administration is doing the opposite. U.S. officials say they do not intend to reengage with the DPRK. xxxviii Tailored deterrence and the kill chain are on accelerated schedules, placing the Korean Peninsula on the knife edge of war. Meanwhile, the United States is working hard to persuade other nations to sanction the DPRK’s Foreign Trade Bank and is considering other ways in which it can bring about North Korea’s economic collapse. An unnamed U.S. State Department official remarked that there was still room for enlarging sanctions. “I don’t know what will succeed, but we haven’t ‘maxed out’; there is headroom, and we have to give it a try.”
U.S. officials have asked the European Union to sanction the Foreign Trade Bank, and further discussions are expected along those lines. xl Japan and Australia have already agreed to join the United States in sanctioning the bank, and Treasury Department official David Cohen and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have both asked China to do the same. xli President Obama made a personal phone call to Chinese President Xi Jinping, urging him to sanction the Foreign Trade Bank, and U.S. officials continue to pressure China, insisting that if China does not “crackdown” on North Korea, the U.S. will increase its military forces in Asia.
That outcome, the Chinese surely recognize, would be aimed at them as well as North Korea. The choice that the Obama Administration is offering is that the Chinese can either watch the United States expand its militarization of the region and tighten its encirclement of China, or cave in to American pressure and cooperate in bringing economic ruin to North Korea. It is probable that in choosing the latter option, the Chinese would discover that the United States has no intention of slowing down its Asia pivot and its military presence in the region would grow regardless.
A diplomatic source reveals that whether or not China agrees to go along with U.S. demands, the effect on North Korea’s economy may be the same. “What the U.S. government is seeking is to put psychological pressure on Chinese banks. If U.S. banks avoid transactions with Chinese banks that have ties with blacklisted North Korean banks or other entities, it could lead to effects similar to those from secondary boycott sanctions.”
Without question, North Korean officials and media have been issuing fire-breathing proclamations, and they have taken actions such as severing the military hotline with South Korea, announcing their intention of restarting the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, and temporarily closing the Kaesong Industrial Complex, which appear to recklessly exacerbate tensions. Yet, there is logic to their behavior. The Obama Administration has never been willing to negotiate with North Korea, and it clearly aims to effect regime change as it piles sanctions upon sanctions and develops military plans that threaten the DPRK’s existence. In effect, U.S. actions have encouraged North Korea to develop a nuclear weapons program as its only realistic deterrent against attack, given the outmoded technology of its conventional weaponry.
However, North Korean officials know that the U.S. knows that they do not yet have a usable nuclear weapon, nor do they have a suitable delivery vehicle. The DPRK has limited options, and for now North Korean officials apparently feel they have only two choices. They can either meekly accept round after round of punishment while helplessly witnessing the mounting damage to their economy and threats to their nation, or they can ramp up their rhetoric as a means of sending a message to the United States. That message is that if the United States hits North Korea it will get a stronger response than it expects, and it should think twice before striking, and the more the United States applies pressure, the more the DPRK will resist.
Unfortunately, this produces a feedback loop, where the more the United States punishes the DPRK, the stronger the North Koreans resist, and the more they resist, the more punishment comes their way. The only apparent way out of this impasse is a peace process, but the Obama Administration remains adamantly opposed to negotiations.
International Affairs analyst Chen Qi of Tsinghua University points out that the United States “did not respect the security concerns of the DPRK and that is the reason why the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula has not been solved.” Chen suggests, “Washington may not want Pyongyang’s nuclear issue to be solved because it offers an excuse for the U.S. to deploy anti-missile systems and hold military drills in the region, which are in line with its military rebalance to East Asia.” U.S. officials, it should also be kept in mind, have never hidden their desire to bring about regime change in North Korea, regardless of the dangers of that policy.
A change in U.S. policy may never come about unless South Korea firmly leads the way, and that is an unlikely prospect at the present. Such a change may have to wait five years, when the next presidential election takes place in South Korea. That is a long time, given U.S. plans to heighten tensions on the Korean Peninsula. If South Korea does not show leadership for an alternative approach before then, the question is how long tensions can simmer without boiling over into a dangerous crisis.

[TheEmancipator]

"Dear Leader" is a endearing term used to describe a leader that the people support. I don't see anything wrong with that.

OK, you are just in total denial. Could you please prove to me that a majority in DPR Korea wants Kim Jong Un as Dear Leader of North Korea? Despite the fact that the only reason he's on his throne is because he inherited it from his father?


Why wouldn't we have leaders in socialist society? There are leaders in all types of societies. I do think Kim Jong Un is supported by the proletariat of the DPRK and that "dear" would be approprate wording. The DPRK doesn't lack democracy. Many decisions are made on the local levels through worker's assemblies. Kim Jong Un actually has less power as the head of state of the DPRK than Obama does in the USA. As to the hereditary leader thing, this was actually really interesting when I was given insight by someone I know who is really into Korean history. Kim Il Sung had some famous statement about how even if he dies the spirit of the revolution and the fight for socialism would continue with his children and with that child's child, etc. until victory. Very paraphrased btw. So it is a symbolic carrying on of the fighting spirit of the revolution.

Complete denial, just accepting the bile that comes out of the DPr Korea or your "WWP" party then accusing others of listening to bourgeois propaganda too much.

Anybody who supports such a political system is nothing short of reactionary. I'm surprised you're not restricted yet others of more tolerant mind are. It goes to show that if you belong to one of these ludicrous parties such as the PSL or WWP you are given a blank cheque yet if you are of independent mind you are walking on ice in this forum.

[kasama-rl]

There is a leader who has the authority of opinion on his side, and there is a leader who has the authority of hierarchical power on his side. Following the first one is voluntary and he mantains his authority and leadership by mantaining support, but followint the latter necessitates use of some form of coersion to prevent dissent. The second type of leader is, IMO, incompatible with socialist society, whereas the first type of leader, being that he reflects the opinion of those who agree with him, can function as an elected, mandated and recallable delegate of those people.

I'll leave aside the use of "his" here, and assume Narodnik means people of both sexes.

But if you think through any complex process (like for example revolutionary war) you see that you need leaders who are rooted in popular support based on their programmatic ideas, and then they (and the movement) also needs the authority of structures.

In other words, how does a political movement have tactics? Is every micro-decision debated? Or do groups of trusted recognized leaders make all kinds of micro decisions (in the course of conflict) that are carried out because of previously gained respect (and resulting authority)? Don't we need disciplined structures, where people are required to carry out decisions?

Anyone who argues against "authority of hierarchical power" needs to answer such basic questions.

For example: Is it ok to scab (i.e. if a worker doesn't like a strike, is it ok to break the strike and go into work?) And if it is not ok to scab (and it isn't!), what is wrong with exercising authority and power over that worker (i.e. by preventing them from scabbing, by telling them to conform to the strike regardless of their views etc.)

Or just take the example of a battle: where people are sent to kill and die. (For example the Long March in china where there was virtually a battle a day... or the battle of Stalingrad in WW2... or any other historical battle of revolutinary struggle).

How do you propose leadership be exercised? Do you think each soldier should debate whether to advance or retreat? Should there be discipline (even harsh discpline) in battle (where deserters face maximum punishment)? And how would such discipline be enforced? Obviously (in a revolutionary movement) discipline like that is mainly voluntary (i.e. soldiers want to be there, they believe in the cause, they are eager to accept the discipline), but there are moments in battle where people panic or succumb to fear. don't revolutionary forces need (precisely) "the authority of hierarchical power" to win in war?

In stalingrad, literally a million people died in battle, half on the socialist side. How is it possible to wage such a battle without "the authority of hierarchical power" being exercised by leadership cores?

[By the way, on the larger questions of this thread: I think we should be firm, consistent and militant in opposing U.S. bullying of smaller states. And we should do this without implying that the DPRK is socialist (which it isn't), or that we want a society like theirs (which we dont). As for the nature of the DPRK, I think it is a monarchy modeled on Japanese emperor worship -- where there is only the most thin and poorly maintained pretense of socialism. Really it is a hypernationalist monarchy which survives by suppressing and hyping its people. And, frankly, any glimpse of the hyper-intense conformism imposed on northern Korean people should, on some level, give any genuine socialist a sense of "uh, let's not go there." It is itself a marker of reactionary societies where no ongoing revolutionary dynamic and criticism is integral to social life.]

[Leftsolidarity]

OK, you are just in total denial. Could you please prove to me that a majority in DPR Korea wants Kim Jong Un as Dear Leader of North Korea? Despite the fact that the only reason he's on his throne is because he inherited it from his father?



Do you know what denial means? I didn't deny anything in that statement. I simply said the definition as to what a "dear leader" is.

Could you prove to me that the masses of the DPRK hate Kim Jong Un or the Worker's Party of Korea?




Complete denial, just accepting the bile that comes out of the DPr Korea or your "WWP" party then accusing others of listening to bourgeois propaganda too much.



What's with you and saying I'm in denial? I have really only been stating very basic facts and positions. When did I accuse anyone of listening to too much bourgeois propaganda? If you can't have an intelligent conversation without repeating stupid things like "You're in denial" or putting words in my mouth, I just won't reply to you anymore.

But what you're saying is that we shouldn't get any of our info on the DPRK from the actual source and people or even from other socialist parties (like WWP) who has had a number of people visit the DPRK, meet Kim Il-Sung, and see the people themselves?

Instead, we should just trust the bourgeois press to report fairly and non-biased on the DPRK which they continually lie about, demonize, and make threats against. Why not listen to the bourgeois press in the strongest imperialist nation in the world about an isolated socialist country which they've been trying to destroy since it was formed? I'm sure they must fact check their articles first :rolleyes:


Anybody who supports such a political system is nothing short of reactionary. I'm surprised you're not restricted yet others of more tolerant mind are. It goes to show that if you belong to one of these ludicrous parties such as the PSL or WWP you are given a blank cheque yet if you are of independent mind you are walking on ice in this forum.]


I find anytime someone calls the DPRK reactionary for it to be silly. What's reactionary about it? What old ruling class does it symbolize? What past social relations does it seek to bring about? From what I can tell, they've only progressed their social relations. You might not like them, but they're not reactionary.

lol it goes to show what? You have like 100 posts, how could you know much about anything of how this forum is run? Go ahead and think what you want, though, it's not like WWP/PSL don't pretty much only get shit on on this forum. You're only completely wrong.

[Lucretia]

Why wouldn't we have leaders in socialist society? There are leaders in all types of societies.

A leader that oppresses broad swathes of his own people, yet is referred to as dear. Curious, isn't it? We can only assume that this leader is dear for the several privileged layers of society that form concentric circles immediately around him and the top hangers-on in his party. To the masses, whom we are to suppose from the posts here are selflessly embracing poverty in the name of their love for Juche, I'm sure the Kims are not quite so precious.

[Art Vandelay]

Why wouldn't we have leaders in socialist society? There are leaders in all types of societies.

I more meant leaders in a formal sense. Unfoubtably there will always be 'leaders' in any society (charismatic and intelligent people who others are drawn to), however socialism is a stateless and classless society and certainly won't have a 'head of state.'


I do think Kim Jong Un is supported by the proletariat of the DPRK and that "dear" would be approprate wording. The DPRK doesn't lack democracy. Many decisions are made on the local levels through worker's assemblies.

And yet they get no say in the leader of their country? Or the people who make up the top levels of their parties and military. Sounds like perhaps there allowed to make some rather minuscule decisions (this would be taking your word for it that 'many decisions are made on the local levels,' which I'm entirely convinced of) and yet none of the bigger, more important ones.


Kim Jong Un actually has less power as the head of state of the DPRK than Obama does in the USA. As to the hereditary leader thing, this was actually really interesting when I was given insight by someone I know who is really into Korean history. Kim Il Sung had some famous statement about how even if he dies the spirit of the revolution and the fight for socialism would continue with his children and with that child's child, etc. until victory. Very paraphrased btw. So it is a symbolic carrying on of the fighting spirit of the revolution.

Hardly justification for a hereditary passing down of the head of state no?

I mean this is really insane for me, given the fact that were talking about a country who claims to follow Juche, an ideology which posits the military as revolutionary layer in socialist society and a country which removed all references to communism from its constitution in 2009. They don't want a socialist society, that would cause the destruction of their capitalist state after all.

[Narodnik]

In other words, how does a political movement have tactics? Is every micro-decision debated?
Well those conducting the micro-decision shou


For example: Is it ok to scab (i.e. if a worker doesn't like a strike, is it ok to break the strike and go into work?) And if it is not ok to scab (and it isn't!), what is wrong with exercising authority and power over that worker (i.e. by preventing them from scabbing, by telling them to conform to the strike regardless of their views etc.)
You shouldn't can't force a worker to strike, if he were to go strikebreaker, the striking workers have every right to defend themselves, even more so being that the strike is primarily a defensive action against the thievery conducted by the capitalist.


Do you think each soldier should debate whether to advance or retreat?
It should be debated in advance, with the soldiers agreeing as to under which condition is a retreat a valid option and commiting to that agreement.


Obviously (in a revolutionary movement) discipline like that is mainly voluntary (i.e. soldiers want to be there, they believe in the cause, they are eager to accept the discipline), but there are moments in battle where people panic or succumb to fear.
Choosing between a libertarian option of there being leaders by example, boosting the militia morale by speach and acts of bravery, and a authoritarian option of the leader threatening you to stay in the battle my view is that the first option is the right one, and I also think it also the more effective one, being that zeal is great motivator, and in any case certainly greater then offering someone who has succumbed to fear of dying by the hand of the enemy a fear of dying by your hand.


don't revolutionary forces need (precisely) "the authority of hierarchical power" to win in war?
I don't think so. I'd say it's needs numbers, fire power, basic training and tactics, and fervour in the ranks, all of which I think are achievable.

[Leftsolidarity]

I more meant leaders in a formal sense. Unfoubtably there will always be 'leaders' in any society (charismatic and intelligent people who others are drawn to), however socialism is a stateless and classless society and certainly won't have a 'head of state.'



That would be our tendency difference. I view socialism as the transitional stage between capitalism and communism where there is still a state.




And yet they get no say in the leader of their country? Or the people who make up the top levels of their parties and military. Sounds like perhaps there allowed to make some rather minuscule decisions (this would be taking your word for it that 'many decisions are made on the local levels,' which I'm entirely convinced of) and yet none of the bigger, more important ones.





The way it was explained to me (as I am no expert on the DPRK) by those who know a lot about the DPRK, is that lower assemblies usually choose a representative to go represent them in the higher levels and so on but on a local level the lower assemblies control a lot of what goes on while the upper levels focus more on national issues. Also, like I said before, Obama has more power as head of state than Kim Jong Un does.



Hardly justification for a hereditary passing down of the head of state no?



It's not really my decision to make. Self-determination and all. Just insight as into why things are the way they are and why the masses might not be oppose to it.


I mean this is really insane for me, given the fact that were talking about a country who claims to follow Juche, an ideology which posits the military as revolutionary layer in socialist society and a country which removed all references to communism from its constitution in 2009.

There is a lot more to Juche than that. It is mostly about how a people under seige of imperialism trying to build socialism need to focus on what works in their situation as they are fighting for national liberation at the same time. I don't know the ins and outs of Juche as I've only read a little Kim Il Sung but I know that it's not at all what it's made out to be here.


They don't want a socialist society, that would cause the destruction of their capitalist state after all.

The working class chose the Worker's Party of Korea to be their party which formed a worker's state where the worker's control the means of production. There is no capitalist class in the country to hold state power so it couldn't be a capitalist state.

They aren't perfect or free from error but they aren't a capitalist state.

[Tim Cornelis]

Can we restrict Leftsolidarity?

Fortunately, more often than not, such idiots, at a moment in their life, realise the collective fooling those regimes put up and abandon their ridiculous politics. Unfortunately, they usually turn rightwards (or sometimes left-liberal), like virtually all 1960s "anti-revisionist Maoists."

Why do people even bother debating with these delusional lunatics?

[Leftsolidarity]

Can we restrict Leftsolidarity?



Because I refuse to condemn a worker's state under seige of imperialism which is a legitiment ideological stance within the communist movement?



Fortunately, more often than not, such idiots, at a moment in their life, realise the collective fooling those regimes put up and abandon their ridiculous politics. Unfortunately, they usually turn rightwards (or sometimes left-liberal), like virtually all 1960s "anti-revisionist Maoists."

Why do people even bother debating with these delusional lunatics?[/

I see you're very good at holding a polite and intelligent debate between positions.

[Tim Cornelis]

Because I refuse to condemn a worker's state under seige of imperialism which is a legitiment ideological stance within the communist movement?

Yeah, a fucking workers' state you fucking idiot is a state run by workers not by some crazy dynastic military junta, you dumb shit. How do you not forget to breath? For fuck sake.



I see you're very good at holding a polite and intelligent debate between positions.

Etiquette, apparently you think defending a murderous, oppressive, tyrannical, psychotic regime is a-okey, but saying some naughty words is make you sad face. Go fuck yourself.

Because such is fucking useless with idiots like you detached from reality. Debating with juche apologists is like debating creations, it is impossible to reason with unreason. It is impossible to use logic with those who don't have it.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yeah, a fucking workers' state you fucking idiot is a state run by workers not by some crazy dynastic military junta, you dumb shit. How do you not forget to breath? For fuck sake.



Etiquette, apparently you think defending a murderous, oppressive, tyrannical, psychotic regime is a-okey, but saying some naughty words is make you sad face. Go fuck yourself.

Because such is fucking useless with idiots like you detached from reality. Debating with juche apologists is like debating creations, it is impossible to reason with unreason. It is impossible to use logic with those who don't have it.

When all else fails revert to flaming?

I'm not discussing with you any further.

[Ravachol]

Ah, the smell of uniting the left in the evening!

[Tim Cornelis]

When all else fails revert to flaming?

I'm not discussing with you any further.

I was way ahead of you if you'd have the brain power to process words.

[Art Vandelay]

That would be our tendency difference. I view socialism as the transitional stage between capitalism and communism where there is still a state.

Which is fine there are plenty of people I disagree with on that, however it doesn't stop some of your convictions to be downright reactionary, not to mention the same position that got someone restricted in this thread.


The way it was explained to me (as I am no expert on the DPRK) by those who know a lot about the DPRK, is that lower assemblies usually choose a representative to go represent them in the higher levels and so on but on a local level the lower assemblies control a lot of what goes on while the upper levels focus more on national issues.

And what sources are there to back this up? I'm far from someone who accepts 'bourgeois media' at face value, but the burden of proof falls on the person claiming socialism is in existence currently (in the dprk no less).


Also, like I said before, Obama has more power as head of state than Kim Jong Un does.

Yes cause comparing a government to what is the most reactionary state in the world is an argument.


It's not really my decision to make. Self-determination and all. Just insight as into why things are the way they are and why the masses might not be oppose to it.

Self determination we are in agreement about, however you would once again have to prove that the current state of affairs is indeed the result of the self determination of the NK proletariat (a dubious task no doubt).


There is a lot more to Juche than that. It is mostly about how a people under seige of imperialism trying to build socialism need to focus on what works in their situation as they are fighting for national liberation at the same time. I don't know the ins and outs of Juche as I've only read a little Kim Il Sung but I know that it's not at all what it's made out to be here.

Fair enough, I'm sure the average caricature of Juche is probably about as accurate as the PSL and WWP's. The truth is always more nuanced.


The working class chose the Worker's Party of Korea to be their party which formed a worker's state where the worker's control the means of production. There is no capitalist class in the country to hold state power so it couldn't be a capitalist state.

Capitalism is entirely capable of existing without the bourgeoisie. Yugoslavia would be a great example during the Cold War.


They aren't perfect or free from error but they aren't a capitalist state.

The 1st statement is true, but the 2nd is completely false.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Capitalism is entirely capable of existing without the bourgeoisie. Yugoslavia would be a great example during the Cold War.

I am not sure; individual capitalism seems to have been partially restored in Yugoslavia somewhere between the fifties and the early seventies, though in a nominally "socialist" form that was in contradiction to the content (hence the rapid deterioration of economic conditions). Industry was denationalised in the fifties (amusingly, industry in Croatia was renationalised by the fascist Tuđman regime), and control was transferred to "labour collectives", usually chaired by the former owners of the enterprises in question, that usually passed any motion supported by their chairmen. Police repression to strengthen the position of the chairmen was not unheard of, either. In the sixties, foreign enterprises were allowed to own up to 49% (if I recall correctly) of Yugoslav companies, small commodity production was firmly privatised, and market mechanisms replaced the previous planning (though even that planning was inconsistent at best).

I think the fact that "labour collective" chairmen exercised a de facto ownership of enterprises (unlike Soviet managers who, even during the most vigorous capitalist upswings in Soviet history, could still be hired, fired, and overruled by the state) makes them a bourgeois or quasi-bourgeois class.

Of course, capitalist relations are possible without individual capitalists if the state assumes their function - this is what Lenin termed "state capitalism". But surely, this is a necessary step on the road to socialism? State capitalism in this sense, combined with a vigorous and thorough proletarian democracy, grows into socialism as the state becomes more and more identified with the working masses. I don't think the DPRK should be criticised for being state-capitalist in this sense; it should be criticised for a lack of proletarian democracy, a bureaucratic deformation that has postponed the transition into socialism (or the lower stages of communism; the terms are not important here) indefinitely.

But even in the context of a bureaucratic degeneration, I think an all-round state ownership of the economy (which, to be fair, is rapidly being eroded in the DPR Korea and in Cuba) is something worth defending against the sort of "progressive" movements that want a return to individual capitalism.


I find anytime someone calls the DPRK reactionary for it to be silly. What's reactionary about it? What old ruling class does it symbolize? What past social relations does it seek to bring about? From what I can tell, they've only progressed their social relations. You might not like them, but they're not reactionary.

Is it not, however, possible to talk of a political counterrevolution, as well as the social one? I recall Marcy himself using the term in reference to the so-called Prague Spring; and I would argue that the consolidation of Kimilsungism in Korea constituted such a counterrevolution.

[TheEmancipator]

Ah, the smell of uniting the left in the evening!

I don't see this as uniting the Left. I see this as denouncing a quasi-fascist military dictatorship, which, for the last fucking time, doesn't even acknowledge communism as their goal anymore. Stop the ridiculous apologism just because North Korea is "anti-USA" or has a hammer and sickle in its governing party's flag.

The apologism is sickening, and you wonder why the lumpenproletariat don't take us seriously when we start praising Kim Jong Un and adressing him as comrade and Dear Leader in the same sentence!


I recall Marcy himself using the term in reference to the so-called Prague Spring

Prague Spring? Counter-revolution? Not quite, even if the bourgeoisie were behind certain factions of it, if anything I see it as a continuation of the Bolshevik revolution, but like most continuations of the Bolshevik revolution, it was crushed by Russian counter-revolutionary nationalism. You only have to look at the results today...

Then again, Marcy know next to nothing on revolution, as he like the Maoist Third Worldists thinks such a revolution will happen in the form of a war between nation-states. Which coming back to our subject is probably why people seem to support North Korea and some even Iran!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't see this as uniting the Left. I see this as denouncing a quasi-fascist military dictatorship, which, for the last fucking time, doesn't even acknowledge communism as their goal anymore. Stop the ridiculous apologism just because North Korea is "anti-USA" or has a hammer and sickle in its governing party's flag.

Actually, they have hammer, brush and, if I recall correctly, a hoe? Something to that effect at least. The emblem is supposed to represent the union of the workers, of peasants, and the intelligentsia, which is itself indicative of revisionism.

But how is Korea "quasi-fascist"? What amuses me is that of all the people that have posted on this thread, only comrade Leftsolidarity has shown any substantial support for the DPR Korea. But there is criticism and there is criticism - talking about "quasi-fascism" and three generations being imprisoned in camps and whatnot is overdoing it. Pointing this out is not "apologism" - I mean, good grief, I support a political revolution in North Korea, but I have been labeled an "apologist" because I don't toe the ridiculous bourgeois "in North Korea chilrun are ground up into sausages and fed to Kim Jong Un, that's why he's so fat, we must bomb them to free the chilrun" line.


Prague Spring? Counter-revolution? Not quite, even if the bourgeoisie were behind certain factions of it, if anything I see it as a continuation of the Bolshevik revolution, but like most continuations of the Bolshevik revolution, it was crushed by Russian counter-revolutionary nationalism. You only have to look at the results today...

As you might have noticed, I am not Marcy, nor do I support his theories; I mentioned this example because I wanted to avoid a drawn-out discussion about the term. But the "Prague Spring" seems to have included a further decentralisation of the Czechoslovak economy, corresponding to the economic programme of Khrushchevite and Titoist revisionism.


Then again, Marcy know next to nothing on revolution, as he like the Maoist Third Worldists thinks such a revolution will happen in the form of a war between nation-states. Which coming back to our subject is probably why people seem to support North Korea and some even Iran!

I am sure there is more to the theory of global class war than that, even though I do not support it, and obviously the mode of production in the DPR Korea is not at all similar to that in Iran.

[Ismail]

Prague Spring? Counter-revolution? Not quite, even if the bourgeoisie were behind certain factions of it, if anything I see it as a continuation of the Bolshevik revolution, but like most continuations of the Bolshevik revolution, it was crushed by Russian counter-revolutionary nationalism. You only have to look at the results today... There was no "continuing" of any revolution in regards to Dubček and Co. The Soviet revisionists praised Dubček up until he began seeking Western capital and was unable to control the more "radical" (in the same sense as Yeltsin and Co. were "radicals" vis-à-vis Gorbachev) factions of the party and intelligentsia which wanted bourgeois democracy and a practically open market economy. The Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia to keep its economy facing eastwards to satiate the needs of Soviet social-imperialism.

And what of "the results today"? Yugoslavia with its "market socialism" had widespread unemployment. I can't imagine unabashed market reforms in Czechoslovakia done 20 years earlier would have helped the working-class anymore than said reforms did from 1989 onwards. Let us not forget that the only thing Prague Spring inspired was Glasnost and Perestroika, which Gorbachev attributed to Dubček's prior efforts (while by the 80's Dubček himself was upholding Sweden as a supposedly great example of socialism.)

[Willin']

Capitalists support NK,so that they can make socialists/communists look bad.




░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░▒█████████████████ █████████▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░█░▓░░░░░░░░░▒▓▒▒▒▒▒ ▓▒▒░░▒▒▒▓▓▓████▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░██▒░░░░░░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░ ░░░▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓███▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░▓█░░░░░░░▓▓░░▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒░▓██░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▒█▒░░░░░▓▓░▒▓▓░░░░░░░░ ░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒░░██▓░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░██░░░░░▓░░▓░▒▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▓ ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░▓█▓░░░░░
░░░░░░░▓█░░░░▒░▓▒░▓▒░░░░░░░░▓░ ░░░░░░▓▒▒░░░▓▒░░░░░▓█░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░█▓░░░░▒░▓░▓▒░░░░░░░░░░▓ ░░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░▓░░░░░█▒░░░░
░░░░░░▒█░░░░░░▓░▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░▒ ░░░░░░░▓░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░█▒░░░░
░░░░░░██░░░░░░░░▒░░▓██░████▒░░ ░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▓░░░░
░░░░░▓█░░░░░░░░░░███████▒███░░ ░░░░░░▒░░▒▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░░▓█░░░░░
░░░░██▓░▒░░░░░▒▒▒█▓▓████▓░░░██ ▒░░░░░░░▓███████▓░░░░░░██▓░░
░░░██▓▓▓▓▓▓░░█▓░▓██████████░░█ █░░░░▓▒█████████▓▒▓▓▓▓█░▓█▓░
░░██▓░░░▓▓▓▓▒░░▓░▒▒░░░▓░░▒████ ▓░░░░█████▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░▓█░░
░▓█▒▒░░███████▓░░░░░░██░░░░▒█▒ ░░░░░░▒█░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▒▒░█▓░
▒█▒▓░░█▓░░░░░████▒▒███░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░█████░▓░▓█▓
▓█░▓░▓█░░░▓▓░░░▒████░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░█░░░░░██▒██░░░█▓▒░▒█▓
█▓░▓░█▒░░░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░██▓░░░▒███▒▒▒░░░▒░▒█▓
▒▓░▓░█░░▒██▒███░░░░░░░░░░▒▒███ ▒░░░░░░░▓██░░░░░░░▓█░░░▒░▒█▓
░█░▓░█▒████░░▒███░░░░▓▒▒▒▒▓█░░ ░░░░░░░░░▓██░░░░░░▓█░░▒▒░▓█▒
░█░▓░▓█░░░█▓░░░▒███▓░░░░░░▓█░█ ███▒░░░░░███▓▒░░░░██▓░░░▓██░
░▒▓▒░░█░░░██▒░░░▒█▓███▓░░░▒█▓█ ▒░▓▒░░░░██░░░░▓▒░▓███░▓▒░█▓░
░░█░▓▒░░░░▒███▒░▒█░░▒▓████▒░░░ ░░░░░█▓██░░░░░░░██▓█░░░▓█░░░
░░██░░▓░░░░▓████▒█▓░░░░░▒████▓ ░░░░▒█▓░░░░░░▓██▓▓██░░░█▒░░░
░░░██▓░░░░░░█▓░████▒░░░░░█▓▒▓█ ██████▒▒▒▒▓████▒▒█░██░░▒█░░░
░░░░██░░░░░░▒█▒░▒█████▒░░█░░░░ ░░████████▒▒█▒░░█░██░░▓█░░░░
░░░░░██░░░░░░▓█░░█▒███████░░░░ ░░▓▓░░░▒█░░░░▓█░▓█▓██░░▓█░░░
░░░░░▒█▒░░░░░░██░█░░░▓██████▓░ ░░▓▓░░░░█░░░▓███████░░▓█░░░░
░░░░░░█▓░░░░░░░██▓░░░░░░██████ █████████████████████░░▓█░░░
░░░░░░▓█░░░░░░░░██░░░░░░█▒░▓██ █████████████████████░░▓█░░░
░░░░░░░██░░░░░░░░██▒░░░▒█▒░░░░ ▒██████████████████▓█░░▓█░░░
░░░░░░░░█▓░░░░░░░░▓██░░██░░░░░ ░█▒░▒▒▒███████▒█▒█▓█▓░░▓█░░░
░░░░░░░░▒██░░░░░░░░░██▓█░░░░░░ ░█▒░░░░█▒░░▓█░▓█░█▓█░░░▓█░░░
░░░░░░░░░░██░▓▒░▒▓░░░▒███▒░░░░ ░█▒░░░░█░░░█▒░█░██▓░░░▓█░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░██░░█░░▒▓░░░▒████▓▓ ░█▒░░░█░░▓█░▓████▒░░░░▓█░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░▒██▓░▒▓░░▓▓░░░░▒███ ███████████████▓░░░░░░░▒█░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░██▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░█▒░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓██░░▓▓░░▓▓░░░░ ░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░▓░░░▓░░█▒░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███▓░░▒▓▒░▒▓▓ ▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓░░░░▓░░█▒░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓██▓░░░▒▒▒▓ ▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒░░░░▒▓░░░█▒░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒███░░░░░ ▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒█░░░░░█▒░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒██▓░░░ ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░▒█░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒██▓░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▓░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒██ ███▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒ ▒▒████▓░░░░░░░░░░░░▓██░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░▒▓█████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███▒░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░▓██████▓▓▒░░░░░

[Narodnik]

NK is capitalist.

[Nevsky]

I am quite surprised that people here seriously defend the DPRK's current regime and the Juche-doctrine. What the hell is progressive about the DPRK? Nothing, it is actually a reactionary, evolaist dream land. You've got hero/leader worship, strict hierarchic power structure, no progressive art, patriotic music. I mean what the fuck, they even removed those portraits of Marx and Lenin, didn't they? How are they a progressive worker's state?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hx78HDw8Jw

Is this how a progressive worker's state sounds like?

[Old Bolshie]

I mean what the fuck, they even removed those portraits of Marx and Lenin, didn't they?


This was actually the most decent thing that North Korea ever done in its history. Associating Marx or Lenin with this pseudo-socialist regime was disgraceful for both.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why do people even bother debating with these delusional lunatics?

Because we make up the vast majority of the revolutionary left.

Seriously, the International Communist Movement is Marxist Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, and the annoying sectarian ants on the ass of the revolutionary movement. Now you can disagree with us, but to say that our views don't merit debate is absurd, because you don't have the position to redefine the revolutionary left in your own image.

[Rurkel]

I mean what the fuck, they even removed those portraits of Marx and Lenin, didn't they?
Removing portraits of Marx and Lenin isn't that horrible.
Replacing Marx and Lenin with Kims, however, is.


Because we make up the vast majority of the revolutionary left.
I'm pretty sure that Tim Cornelis meant "those who accept the DPRK as something good in itself".

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Removing portraits of Marx and Lenin isn't that horrible.
Replacing Marx and Lenin with Kims, however, is.


I'm pretty sure that Tim Cornelis meant "those who accept the DPRK as something good in itself".

Yea but he also felt the need to include Maoism in his little rant

A tendency that opposes North Korea in every way possible, only supporting it against imperialism because we feel that imperialism would endanger the possibility of a revolution within North Korea

Of course not everyone has to be a Maoist, there is room for debate and debate can only make us stronger

But he said that we shouldn't be allowed to participate in the debate because we aren't lefists.

The fact that he doesn't think I'm a leftist is hilarious. Who is a leftist then? Everyone who agrees with Tim? So is the left composed of one person on the internet? Then I suppose the millions of working people struggling against capital are all just worthless scum then.....

[TheEmancipator]

Actually, they have hammer, brush and, if I recall correctly, a hoe? Something to that effect at least. The emblem is supposed to represent the union of the workers, of peasants, and the intelligentsia, which is itself indicative of revisionism.

Do you mean that in a pejorative way? The intelligentsia is one of the oppressed classes most of the time. They are just idealists instead of materialists. And the peasants are pretty much de facto involved with the proletariat, call it revisionism if you want. If anything that's the only symbology that NK has got right, but its obviously not representative of their militarist rule.


But how is Korea "quasi-fascist"? What amuses me is that of all the people that have posted on this thread, only comrade Leftsolidarity has shown any substantial support for the DPR Korea. But there is criticism and there is criticism - talking about "quasi-fascism" and three generations being imprisoned in camps and whatnot is overdoing it. Pointing this out is not "apologism" - I mean, good grief, I support a political revolution in North Korea, but I have been labeled an "apologist" because I don't toe the ridiculous bourgeois "in North Korea chilrun are ground up into sausages and fed to Kim Jong Un, that's why he's so fat, we must bomb them to free the chilrun" line.The only person going into propagandistic exaggerations is you and your potrayal of DPR Korea as a simple revisionist M-L state. It is a humanitarian disaster, unlike nations such as Cuba and the USSR, who always provided for their people despite the corruption, the tyranny, the total disregard for both Marxist and generally leftist principles.

North Korea is incomparable to any regime other than Nazi Germany. Such a cult of the leader hasn't been seen since, and there is close to no proven policy that favours a progressive emancipation that characterises the left.


As you might have noticed, I am not Marcy, nor do I support his theories; I mentioned this example because I wanted to avoid a drawn-out discussion about the term. But the "Prague Spring" seems to have included a further decentralisation of the Czechoslovak economy, corresponding to the economic programme of Khrushchevite and Titoist revisionism.Decentralisation is a necessary step in any revolution, one cannot simply organise an entire socialist programme from a nation state perspective. For me, the abolition of nation-state centralised government is essential for the revolution to succeed, and corresponds to the slow decay the State itself.


I am sure there is more to the theory of global class war than that, even though I do not support it, and obviously the mode of production in the DPR Korea is not at all similar to that in Iran.The reason I drew up Iran is because the same people licking the backside of Kim-Jong Un tend to also engage in apologism of Iran's theocratic regime. They just engage in an anti-US rhetoric which is childish at best.


There was no "continuing" of any revolution in regards to Dubček and Co. The Soviet revisionists praised Dubček up until he began seeking Western capital and was unable to control the more "radical" (in the same sense as Yeltsin and Co. were "radicals" vis-à-vis Gorbachev) factions of the party and intelligentsia which wanted bourgeois democracy and a practically open market economy. The Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia to keep its economy facing eastwards to satiate the needs of Soviet social-imperialism.

So you admit that it is a clear case of Soviet imperialism. So what if they were bourgeois liberals? They were not a majority until Soviet shot them all up in the name of "Communism". They were just the loudest. Most of Czechoslovakia wanted to keep the socialist model.


And what of "the results today"? Yugoslavia with its "market socialism" had widespread unemployment. I can't imagine unabashed market reforms in Czechoslovakia done 20 years earlier would have helped the working-class anymore than said reforms did from 1989 onwards. Let us not forget that the only thing Prague Spring inspired was Glasnost and Perestroika, which Gorbachev attributed to Dubček's prior efforts (while by the 80's Dubček himself was upholding Sweden as a supposedly great example of socialism.)You've misunderstood me I think. The result today is that Czechoslovakia is now two capitalist nations when if the Prague Spring had succeeded it could have been the beacon for socialism around the world, and ultimately the Prague Spring would've (hopefully) spread to Moscow to rid themselves of the bureaucratic and dysfunctional Party.

[Ismail]

So you admit that it is a clear case of Soviet imperialism.Yes? Albanian and Chinese media even made comparisons between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Hoxha in 1969:

Of what norms can the Soviet revisionists speak [of defending in Czechoslovakia] when they have long since buried these norms in their own party, when they have transformed them from Marxist-Leninist norms into revisionist norms which serve their counterrevolutionary aims and line. The Soviet revisionists speak of democratic centralism; they speak of Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism, but in reality they are hypocritical; they speak of conscious party discipline, but in reality it is a fascist discipline; they speak of proletarian morality, but in reality it is a bourgeois morality; they speak of freedom of thought, but every free expression of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist thought leads one to jail, to committal to mental hospital or concentration camp. Irrespective of the disguises, the present day norms in the CPSU are anti-Leninist, bourgeois, reactionary, fascist norms....

Why then does the Soviet leadership precisely now show itself so worried about the question of the leading role of the party and come out forcefully against pluralism? They do this not only to find additional justification for the legalisation of their aggression in Czechoslovakia. There are other deep reasons. The Brezhnev-Kosygin clique is very much worried about the defence of its dominating position from the great dangers threatening it both inside and outside the party. There is not and there can be no unity in the Soviet revisionist party. Revisionism is certain division. In the Soviet Union as well as in any other revisionist country, there exists the factional struggle for power between the revisionist groups and trends, as is clearly confirmed by N. Khrushchev's overthrow and the other changes in Soviet leadership. This disintegration process will irrevocably deepen. The course of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union cannot but lead to the revival of the various bourgeois and nationalist groups. This prepares the objective conditions for the birth, sooner or later, also of the bourgeois many party system. The Brezhnev-Kosygin revisionist clique, with a view to preserving its dominating position, is trying and will try with all its might without hesitating to use even means of violence, to curb this process....

To justify this cynical and fascist policy, the Soviet revisionists are now seeking to convince none other than their own allies from the revisionist camp that the independence, self-determination, sovereignty of the parties and peoples of various countries have no value whatsoever, that they must submit to the interests of the so-called socialist community, in other words, to the interests of the chauvinist great power of the Soviet Union, that for the sake of these interests this power can violate these principles when, where, and in what way, it likes...

Fully defeated also, was the "legal" argument of the Soviet revisionists to justify their aggression in Czechoslovakia. The "famous" letter of some Czechoslovak personalities allegedly addressed to the Soviets and to some other Warsaw Treaty countries "to ask for their aid in suppressing counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia" was absolutely proved to be a fraud. Nobody came out to confirm being the author of that letter. The Soviet troops were not invited either by the Czechoslovak Government, or by the President of the Republic, by the parliament or the Central Committee of the Party. Even Hitler in his time acted with some tact: at least he obtained by force the signature of the President Hacha, when he occupied Czechoslovakia.Lin Biao that same year:


Since Brezhnev came to power, with its baton becoming less and less effective and its difficulties at home and abroad growing more and more serious, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique has been practicing social-imperialism and social-fascism more frantically than ever. Internally, it has intensified its suppression of the Soviet people and speeded up the all-round restoration of capitalism. Externally, it has stepped up its collusion with U.S. imperialism and its suppression of the revolutionary struggles of the people of various countries, intensified its control over and its exploitation of various East European countries and the People s Republic of Mongolia, intensified its contention with U.S. imperialism over the Middle East and other regions and intensified its threat of aggression against China. Its dispatch of hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Czechoslovakia and its armed provocations against China on our territory Chenpao Island are two foul performances staged recently by Soviet revisionism. In order to justify its aggression and plunder, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique trumpets the so-called theory of “limited sovereignty”, the theory of “international dictatorship” and the theory of “socialist community”. What does all this stuff mean? It means that your sovereignty is “limited”, while his is unlimited. You won’t obey him? He will exercise “international dictatorship” over you--dictatorship over the people of other countries, in order to form the “socialist community” ruled by the new tsars, that is, colonies of social-imperialism, just like the “New Order of Europe” of Hitler, the “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere” of Japanese militarism and the “Free World Community” of the United States. Lenin denounced the renegades of the Second International [as] “Socialism in words, imperialism in deeds, the growth of opportunism into imperialism". (Lenin, Collected Works, Chinese ed., Vol. 29, p. 458.) This applies perfectly to the Soviet revisionist renegade clique of today which is composed of a handful of capitalist-roaders in power. We firmly believe that the proletariat and the broad masses of the people in the Soviet Union with their glorious revolutionary tradition will surely rise and overthrow this clique consisting of a handful of renegades.
So you admit that it is a clear case of Soviet imperialism. So what if they were bourgeois liberals? They were not a majority until Soviet shot them all up in the name of "Communism". They were just the loudest. Most of Czechoslovakia wanted to keep the socialist model.And yet what occurred during Dubček's time in power? It certainly wasn't any strengthening of "socialism."

[TheEmancipator]

Yes? Albanian and Chinese media even made comparisons between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Hoxha in 1969:
Lin Biao that same year:

And you think Stalin would not have done the same? He was the one who dictated the strict anti-separatist policy in the Eastern Bloc in the first place.


And yet what occurred during Dubček's time in power? It certainly wasn't any strengthening of "socialism."

No, maybe not in the orthodox sense of socialism but it was a phase necessary for socialism to progress. Again, Dubcek, "revisionist" he may be, was the main leader behind it precisely because he was a communist and the people of Czechoslovakia had faith in the Bolshevik revolution.

[Leftsolidarity]

Which is fine there are plenty of people I disagree with on that, however it doesn't stop some of your convictions to be downright reactionary, not to mention the same position that got someone restricted in this thread.


While I disagree with the restriction of the other poster in this thread, it's not really the same position. The restriction stuff is "uncritical support" or something stupid like that which kind just means if you make a convincing enough argument that the DPRK isn't a totalitarian hell hole and is something we should support, you can be restricted.



And what sources are there to back this up? I'm far from someone who accepts 'bourgeois media' at face value, but the burden of proof falls on the person claiming socialism is in existence currently (in the dprk no less).



I'll see what sources I can dig up.



Yes cause comparing a government to what is the most reactionary state in the world is an argument.


From the comments in this thread, I'd think that people here seem to think that the DPRK is more reactionary than the USA and less democratic. That example is just showing that people can talk about "dictator Kim Jong Un" even though the head of state here has more control than him. So the need to go off about how much of a despot Kim Jong Un is doesn't really make sense to me (i dont think he's even a despot, though) because we got a much worse situation here.



Self determination we are in agreement about, however you would once again have to prove that the current state of affairs is indeed the result of the self determination of the NK proletariat (a dubious task no doubt).





I think that has been affirmed during the establishment of the DPRK and the struggle since.

[Prof. Oblivion]

While I disagree with the restriction of the other poster in this thread, it's not really the same position. The restriction stuff is "uncritical support" or something stupid like that which kind just means if you make a convincing enough argument that the DPRK isn't a totalitarian hell hole and is something we should support, you can be restricted.



I'll see what sources I can dig up.



From the comments in this thread, I'd think that people here seem to think that the DPRK is more reactionary than the USA and less democratic. That example is just showing that people can talk about "dictator Kim Jong Un" even though the head of state here has more control than him. So the need to go off about how much of a despot Kim Jong Un is doesn't really make sense to me (i dont think he's even a despot, though) because we got a much worse situation here.



I think that has been affirmed during the establishment of the DPRK and the struggle since.

Honestly I find such a juridical interpretation of structures confusing on a Marxist forum.

[Ismail]

And you think Stalin would not have done the same? He was the one who dictated the strict anti-separatist policy in the Eastern Bloc in the first place.The rise of Dubček was a consequence of the rise of Soviet revisionism to begin with. It was the revisionists who elevated right-wingers like Imre Nagy and Gomułka to leadership positions as persons who were "repressed under the period of the cult of the individual" and whatnot. It was these same revisionists who praised Dubček's rise to power until they realized, as with Nagy, that he was acting contrary to their interests.

I don't know what you mean by "anti-separatist policy" under Stalin. Tito was trying to annex Albania and obtain hegemony in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece. After his nationalist policies were denounced he allayed any uncertainties among genuine communists as to where his loyalties lay when he claimed the New Deal was a fruitful step towards socialism in the USA, that "evolutionary" and not revolutionary socialism was being pursued by the peoples of the world, and a myriad of other things. Tito later became one of Kim Il Sung's (and Ceaușescu's) closest allies.

This is quite different from the logic of Soviet social-imperialism, which naturally led to intervention in Czechoslovakia for no other reason than to reassert Soviet revisionist hegemony. The revisionists had no problem with right-wing leaderships (the aforementioned Gomułka initiated the reversion of the vast majority of the Polish countryside to individual peasant agriculture, a situation unchanged by his successors) and in fact after 1955 praised Yugoslav "socialism" and attacking Stalin for his supposedly "sectarian" and "suspicious" policy in regard to it.


Again, Dubcek, "revisionist" he may be, was the main leader behind it precisely because he was a communist and the people of Czechoslovakia had faith in the Bolshevik revolution.Dubček, Ota Šik, and other leading figures of the Prague Spring openly abandoned Marxism by the 80's. They were no more "communists" than Gorbachev and Co. who drew direct inspiration from them.

I don't know where you're getting this "faith in the Bolshevik revolution" stuff from. The intelligentsia during the Prague Spring certainly didn't show any signs of it; besides types like Václav Havel there was the fact that many attacked the USSR from the right, calling for the defense of Israel against "Arab aggression." In politics there were calls for social-democracy and other non-Marxist trends to become more active in public life, in economics as noted there were calls for decentralization and market reforms, etc.

At least when Trots point to Hungary they can be like "OH MY GOD WORKERS' COUNCILS" whereas with Czechoslovakia there wasn't anything "revolutionary" going on outside of maybe the odd study circle with no significant impact on events. Of course the Soviet invasion was still an invasion and the Albanians and Chinese called on the Czechoslovaks to resist it, but this doesn't mean Dubček was somehow a Marxist.

[MP5]

I don't know how well I could describe our offical line on those things exactly but I do know that we defend their right to defend themselves and completely understand why military defense would be in their top prioities. As to the SEZ's, I don't know all that much but they do need to find a way to survive as an isolated socialist country.

I don't think there's really anything that'd I feel comfortable saying we support "without reservation" cuz we can still find certain things that we may not agree with 100% but will still support them anyways. Our support for the DPRK is based on anti-imperialism and that we view them as a socialist state. We do whole-heartedly support them but we can recognize that nothing is absolutely perfect and there will be issues and contradictions.


So just because they are anti-imperialist we should support them? Even though they totally neglect their people to support a bloated military industrial complex and even though they are not in anyway Socialist? NK is not a Socialist or a Marxist country so why should we support them?

[Leftsolidarity]

So just because they are anti-imperialist we should support them?

That should be a no-brainer.


Even though they totally neglect their people to support a bloated military industrial complex and even though they are not in anyway Socialist? NK is not a Socialist or a Marxist country so why should we support them?

I disagree and already outlined why in my previous posts.

[Ismail]

Even though they totally neglect their people to support a bloated military industrial complex
The DPRK annual defence budget is dwarfed by that of its neighbours at US$2 billion in 2005 compared with Japan’s US$45 billion and South Korea’s US$21 billion. In addition, per capita spending on its huge armed forces has to cover food, clothing, housing and health supplies as well as every aspect of what would normally come from a civilian infrastructure in a developed state – telecommunications, transport, food supplies and agricultural production. This is because the social infrastructure barely functions and the civilian industrial fabric has all but disappeared since the economic meltdown of the 1980s...

The incapacity of the North Korean army is an important reason why the DPRK tried to build a nuclear weapon. Its nuclear test in October 2006 demonstrated that it could use nuclear weapons as a deterrent and did not have to rely on decrepit military infrastructure and its poorly paid and malnourished armed forces. Relatively cheap investment in nuclear fission means that the DPRK would not have to find billions of dollars to support its hungry and economically unproductive army.

No serious military analyst anywhere in the world views the DPRK as an offensive military threat to its neighbours or to any other state This is partly because of the weak military capacity of the DPRK and partly because of the lack of a military strategy that argues for either offensive attack against its neighbours or pre-emptive defence.Source (https://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/commentary/the-dprk-is-not-a-strong-military-power-by-hazel-smith--professor-of-international-relations--warick-university).

It's not strange for the DPRK to have a fixation on military spending considering the whole "we're still in a technical state of war with the South" and "the USA keeps on doing joint military exercises with the South and maintains a troop presence there." Reagan cited Nicaragua significantly increasing its military under the FSLN as "evidence" of its supposed preparations for "communist aggression" abroad, rather than a reaction to the Contras and fear of US intervention in support of them. Albania, Yugoslavia and Romania similarly raised their military spending when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia.

Of course the focus of the military as the center of political life, Songun, etc. is unjustifiable.

[DasFapital]

The DPRK practices nothing more than rampant nationalism. Some segments of the "left" offer support on the basis of anti-imperialism and while I definitely don't support the US presence on the Korean Peninsula and I also don't resort to the black and white, enemy of an enemy is my friend nonsense that anti-imperialists seem to spout. Also, I am entertained we actually have a member of the CPGB (M-L) on this site. Harpal Brar is my favorite internet comedian right after MaoistRebelNews.

[La Guaneña]

There are some points I would like to make.

1 - Denouncing the DPRK for keeping a military first priority while not looking at the cause of this militarist sense is just being really naive or pretending to be naive. The USA occupies the korean peninsula for more than 50 years now, doing military exercises regularly. We must also not forget the very real nuclear threats practiced in the 50's against civilian korean population.

Not keeping a strong and active military would be a stupid idea right there, and anyone who denounces that is denouncing the DPRK's right to self-defence in favour of US imperialism.

2 - Denouncing the DPRK for not "providing" is also very petty, and again being naive or pretending to do so. The USA waged open chemical and biological warfare against Korea and China, literally levelled the whole country in the 50's, and now uses every means possible to keep the Korean State as isolated as possible from foreign trade. The active military also counts in this, as keeping over a milion soldiers ready for battle takes many resources.

3 - Spreading information such as "three generations of punishment", orwellian bullshit, talking about how all Koreans are little brainwashed children used as sockpuppets by the Kims or such other borderline racist crap. Frankly, talking about that "horrible totalitarian propaganda" and spouting out that kind of talk is just pathetic.

We all know literally as much as the other about how the DPRK actually works, but turning on the bullshit filter is something I'd expect to see more around here. Has the cold war taught no lessons at all?

[Captain Ahab]

Why do North Korea apologists constantly disregard the testimonies by numerous defectors over the horrid conditions in the gulags and state oppression? Or is this all "bourgeois lies"?

Perhaps Democratic Kampuchea was also a victim of bourgeois lies and deserves revaluation.

[Lucretia]

There are some points I would like to make.

1 - Denouncing the DPRK for keeping a military first priority while not looking at the cause of this militarist sense is just being really naive or pretending to be naive. The USA occupies the korean peninsula for more than 50 years now, doing military exercises regularly. We must also not forget the very real nuclear threats practiced in the 50's against civilian korean population.

Not keeping a strong and active military would be a stupid idea right there, and anyone who denounces that is denouncing the DPRK's right to self-defence in favour of US imperialism.

2 - Denouncing the DPRK for not "providing" is also very petty, and again being naive or pretending to do so. The USA waged open chemical and biological warfare against Korea and China, literally levelled the whole country in the 50's, and now uses every means possible to keep the Korean State as isolated as possible from foreign trade. The active military also counts in this, as keeping over a milion soldiers ready for battle takes many resources.

3 - Spreading information such as "three generations of punishment", orwellian bullshit, talking about how all Koreans are little brainwashed children used as sockpuppets by the Kims or such other borderline racist crap. Frankly, talking about that "horrible totalitarian propaganda" and spouting out that kind of talk is just pathetic.

We all know literally as much as the other about how the DPRK actually works, but turning on the bullshit filter is something I'd expect to see more around here. Has the cold war taught no lessons at all?

Pointing out some of the major structural causes for the sorry state of the DPRK at this point in its history, while it might to some degree explain the reactionary nature of the regime, actually undermines the claim that it is somehow presiding over a "socialist" country. Yes, because we all know that socialism could be established in a single country, surrounded by far wealthier geopolitical rivals, on a patch of peninsular land that is notoriously rugged and infertile. Talk about anti-materialist analysis.

However, I do think the totalitarian model of understanding Stalinism in general, or the DPRK in particular, is seriously misguided and ignores the extent to which power within the ruling class in these societies is dispersed underneath the unitary veil of a "great leader" or "national father" myth. The fact that the DPRK is now being "led" by somebody who is not even 30 shows just how much political scaffolding lies hidden underneath these images of monolithism.

[La Guaneña]

Pointing out some of the major structural causes for the sorry state of the DPRK at this point in its history, while it might to some degree explain the reactionary nature of the regime, actually undermines the claim that it is somehow presiding over a "socialist" country. Yes, because we all know that socialism could be established in a single country, surrounded by far wealthier geopolitical rivals, on a patch of peninsular land that is notoriously rugged and infertile. Talk about anti-materialist analysis.

However, I do think the totalitarian model of understanding Stalinism in general, or the DPRK in particular, is seriously misguided and ignores the extent to which power within the ruling class in these societies is dispersed underneath the unitary veil of a "great leader" or "national father" myth. The fact that the DPRK is now being "led" by somebody who is not even 30 shows just how much political scaffolding lies hidden underneath these images of monolithism.

Comrade, I would like to keep clear that I do not consider the DPRK a socialist country, especially since I have never read much on how class relations go in inside it.

I was just making a defense againt cheap shots that are reproductions of bourgeois ideology to justify imperialism coming from fellow leftists.

Other than that, I can say I agree with your post.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do you mean that in a pejorative way? The intelligentsia is one of the oppressed classes most of the time. They are just idealists instead of materialists. And the peasants are pretty much de facto involved with the proletariat, call it revisionism if you want. If anything that's the only symbology that NK has got right, but its obviously not representative of their militarist rule.

The intelligentsia is not a class but a special stratum in society; as for their oppression, to the extent that it exists (there are, of course, quite a few hired pens of the bourgeois dictatorship) it tends to be minor in comparison to the oppression of the proletariat.

And the socialist movement is the movement of the proletariat, not of the intelligentsia. And not of the peasantry, though the peasantry is the natural class-ally of the proletariat. The symbolism is revisionist because it suggests the Khrushchevite conception of the "party of the whole people" instead of a proletarian party.

And calling the intelligentsia in toto "idealist" is as much of an exaggeration as calling the workers "materialist"; obviously many workers have idealist notions, from religion to reformism, and every scientist is a materialist when it comes to their own field.


The only person going into propagandistic exaggerations is you and your potrayal of DPR Korea as a simple revisionist M-L state. It is a humanitarian disaster, unlike nations such as Cuba and the USSR, who always provided for their people despite the corruption, the tyranny, the total disregard for both Marxist and generally leftist principles.

The DR Ethiopia was also widely characterised as a "humanitarian disaster" and, as in the DPR Korea, the revisionist government was blamed for every material circumstance (as "Stalin" is blamed for the famine in Ukraine). The Workers' Party of Ethiopia was also mostly led by military and police figures, members of the old Derg. The army also held a prominent position in most revisionist states. Therefore, the notion that the DPR Korea is some sort of aberration is simply not true.


North Korea is incomparable to any regime other than Nazi Germany. Such a cult of the leader hasn't been seen since, and there is close to no proven policy that favours a progressive emancipation that characterises the left.

State ownership is itself a progressive policy; it is the highest form of social ownership and a prerequisite of any socialist development. And yes, the DPR Korea is exactly like Nazi Germany - excepting such little differences as finance capital, racism, imperialism, violently reactionary social policies, and so on, and so on.


Decentralisation is a necessary step in any revolution, one cannot simply organise an entire socialist programme from a nation state perspective. For me, the abolition of nation-state centralised government is essential for the revolution to succeed, and corresponds to the slow decay the State itself.

Obviously, your theories to the contrary notwithstanding, the dictatorship of the proletariat can and has been organised on a centralised basis. And decentralisation, under Khrushchev and so on, obviously corresponds to capitalist upswings.


The reason I drew up Iran is because the same people licking the backside of Kim-Jong Un tend to also engage in apologism of Iran's theocratic regime. They just engage in an anti-US rhetoric which is childish at best.

Who does? As noted before, of the people who have posted on this thread only comrade Leftsolidarity expresses substantial support for the DPR Korea, and I am quite sure they do not support Iran in that manner.

[Ismail]

The DR Ethiopia was also widely characterised as a "humanitarian disaster" and, as in the DPR Korea, the revisionist government was blamed for every material circumstance (as "Stalin" is blamed for the famine in Ukraine). The Workers' Party of Ethiopia was also mostly led by military and police figures, members of the old Derg. The army also held a prominent position in most revisionist states. Therefore, the notion that the DPR Korea is some sort of aberration is simply not true.What separates the DPRK from Ethiopia is that the Derg basically claimed that its existence was a temporary phenomenon until the aforementioned Workers' Party could be formed. A similar thing occurred in Somalia where the Soviets likewise pushed for the junta to replace itself in favor of a party.*

In the DPRK the armed forces are considered to be the leading strata of society, with the working-class in a secondary role. The Workers' Party of Korea has been increasingly impotent in the past two decades in contrast to the military.

* Mengistu is interesting (in the same sense as Honecker and others who still claimed to be communists post-1989.) He spoke in the late 90's of meeting Fidel Castro and Kim Il Sung and praised them, while calling Gorbachev a traitor to socialism. At least that's better than, say, Todor Zhivkov who admitted that he privately ceased being a Marxist decades earlier.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What separates the DPRK from Ethiopia is that the Derg basically claimed that its existence was a temporary phenomenon until the aforementioned Workers' Party could be formed. A similar thing occurred in Somalia where the Soviets likewise pushed for the junta to replace itself in favor of a party.*

In the DPRK the armed forces are considered to be the leading strata of society, with the working-class in a secondary role. The Workers' Party of Korea has been increasingly impotent in the past two decades in contrast to the military.

Fair enough; my point was simply that the paramount position of the military is not something exclusive to the DPR Korea, even though it is (as far as I know) the only state that has enshrined this paramount position in its official ideology.

Ethiopia might have been a bad example since several Derg figures seem to have been replaced by civilian administrators in the nineties. But in, for example, Yugoslavia, by the late eighties the Yugoslav People's Army was one of the few functioning federal organs, and held immense political power.


* Mengistu is interesting (in the same sense as Honecker and others who still claimed to be communists post-1989.) He spoke in the late 90's of meeting Fidel Castro and Kim Il Sung and praised them, while calling Gorbachev a traitor to socialism. At least that's better than, say, Todor Zhivkov who admitted that he privately ceased being a Marxist decades earlier.

That said, did the Workers' Party of Ethiopia not lose nerve in the nineties and abandon Marxism-Leninism in favour of some vague "mixed economy" rubbish? Personally, Mengistu was probably one of the few really hard-line revisionist leaders, but his associates seem to have been more timid.

[Ismail]

That said, did the Workers' Party of Ethiopia not lose nerve in the nineties and abandon Marxism-Leninism in favour of some vague "mixed economy" rubbish? Personally, Mengistu was probably one of the few really hard-line revisionist leaders, but his associates seem to have been more timid.The Workers' Party of Ethiopia ceased existence in 1991 when the rebels under Zenawi took the capital. A year earlier Mengistu, due to a combination of Soviet pressure and the unceasing rebel advance, said that the government's economic policies throughout the 80's had failed in their objectives and called for a "mixed economy" and multi-party elections.

The fall of Eastern Europe shocked pretty much everyone. Albanian media began praising the Cubans and overlooking their revisionism (and in 1988 Alia even claimed that Albania was "wrong" about the GDR and that it was actually socialist all along.)

That being said, Alia did adopt a "defiant" tone throughout 1990. Case in point the 10th plenum of the Party in April that year:

Comrades,

The aim of the struggle of our people and Party has been and is to build a just and free society, in which there are neither exploiters nor exploited... for a socialist society in a free, independent and sovereign Albania. This society, for the construction of which our people have combined their energies for five decades, this society, the foundations of which were set on the blood of 28,000 martyrs and which were built with sweat, sacrifice, and all-round struggle against poverty, against backwardness, against numerous enemies and saboteurs, we must ceaselessly strengthen and raise to new heights. This is our duty, and no one can fulfil this duty other than our people, the people's power and our Party.

I emphasize this question because now, following the upheavals which have occurred in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, reaction and the international bourgeoisie are trying to impose their norms on the peoples as absolute truths, to proclaim their social order and their way of life as universal, and to interfere in the internal affairs of others, in order to dictate how and what should be done. For this purpose, they are employing political pressure and economic blockades, are setting their agents in movement, and spreading all kinds of slanders through the means of public information. Those who talk about democracy and pluralism of ideas are exerting a kind of political 'terrorism' against Marxism-Leninism...

The Yugoslavs would like disturbances to occur in Albania, because they want to divert attention of international opinion from their internal crises, and especially from the acts of violence and killings which they are perpetrating in Kosova. Others, who in most cases know nothing about the history, culture and course of development of Albania, make analogies with the countries of Eastern Europe and have invented the 'domino theory'. They expect sensations.

We have pointed out previously, too, that nothing similar to what has happened in the Eastern countries will occur in Albania... anyone, whether the external enemies or the internal enemies, or the dregs of our society, who dares to lay a finger on the freedom of the Homeland, on the people's state power and socialism will find himself confronting a people united firmly around the Party of Labour, a people determined to defend the victories achieved even with their life.

Our society is not a copy of any other country; our revolution is not imported or imposed from outside. It is inspired by Marxism-Leninism, but it has developed and is developing on our own national soil... we have tried to benefit from the experience of others. Nevertheless, we have never danced to a foreign tune, and have applied nothing mechanically, without passing it through the Albanian filter.

Our Party has always acted courageously and in a dialectical way. It has never been afraid to look the reality into the eye, to make serious analyses of the successes and the shortcomings....

However, the events in the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, which aroused great euphoria in the East and West, have not justified the hopes of those who took power there and those who supported them. It was said that everything would go well, but disillusionment and problems soon began.

The economic situation in Rumania, Poland, the GDR, Hungary, and Bulgaria has degenerated. Because of strikes and repeated economic and social organizations and re-organizations, the level of production has fallen below what it was previously, In the Soviet Union the economic situation and the standard of living are worse than they were five years ago when perestroika was announced. In all the Eastern countries the working masses are worried because, with the introduction of new economic rules imposed by international capital, those social gains which they had inherited such as guaranteed jobs, housing, pensions, etc., have been placed in jeopardy.

In no country of Eastern Europe is there political stability. Under the slogan of pluralism, various political parties, groups and associations have been created, are competing with one another, and thinking only of winning votes and occupying positions of power. In Rumania some parties are demanding that the cultivated land and that occupied with buildings should be returned to the former owners; in Poland and Hungary factories and plants which were previously state-owned are being privatized. In this climate, even fascist organizations have begun to appear, while nationalist trends and feuds on this basis have come to the fore....

The situation created is completely new, and is characterized by a general offensive of the international bourgeoisie and opportunist forces against socialist and communist values, against the practice of socialist construction, and the internationalist unity of the workers. This is the most aggressive and most dangerous attack which has been undertaken against the revolution hitherto.

It is beyond any doubt that the socialist alternative for the regulation of human society cannot be quelled, that as long as there are exploiters and exploited, there will also be struggle for the resolution of this contradiction.(From Democratization of Socio-Economic Life Strengthens the Thinking and Action of the People, 1990, pp. 30-37.)

Of course in that same plenum Alia furthered the market reforms initiated at the 8th and 9th plenums in September 1989 and January 1990, and subsequent plenums that year sealed Albania's fate. By 1992 Alia was claiming he was a "realist" and that social-democracy was the way to go. A year before he died his autobiography came out and he basically said "I'm glad to have presided over democratization, but I was right in saying that multiple parties do not equal democracy, and I do not like the way our economy has developed since then." In practice he was basically a Gorbachev if Gorby didn't have some grand "democratic" vision and solely reacted to events with capitulation after capitulation.

[Leftsolidarity]

Who does? As noted before, of the people who have posted on this thread only comrade Leftsolidarity expresses substantial support for the DPR Korea, and I am quite sure they do not support Iran in that manner.

I don't support Iran in the same manner but I do support them on the basis of anti-imperialism. Internally, yes, it is a reactionary state that I don't support but on the international level they do play a progressive role against imperialism so they should be supported on that. We should promote their right to self-determination and fight against imperialist moves against Iran.

[one10]

Comrade, I would like to keep clear that I do not consider the DPRK a socialist country, especially since I have never read much on how class relations go in inside it.

I was just making a defense againt cheap shots that are reproductions of bourgeois ideology to justify imperialism coming from fellow leftists.

Other than that, I can say I agree with your post.

The DPRK itself has removed all communist verbiage from their constitution, I don't think they consider themselves socialist.

No one is justifying imperialism here, we are simply stating that the DPRK doesn't deserve any support from the Left.

It's like showing support for Saddam Hussein back in 2003 in his fight against imperialism. I was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, but I sure as hell wasn't going to send Saddam Hussein any letters starting out with Dear Comrade Hussein,


But then again, I'm pretty sure I recall the WWP supporting Saddam back then as well.

I'll say it again, nothing indicates to me that the stories coming out of North Korea are false. One can draw their own conclusions based on what we already know.

[Leftsolidarity]

But then again, I'm pretty sure I recall the WWP supporting Saddam back then as well.




Against imperialist attack (like most groups did) but I've never heard of us supporting Saddam. If you want to show some evidence of that that be good because otherwise it seems you're just into slander.

[Art Vandelay]

While I disagree with the restriction of the other poster in this thread, it's not really the same position. The restriction stuff is "uncritical support" or something stupid like that which kind just means if you make a convincing enough argument that the DPRK isn't a totalitarian hell hole and is something we should support, you can be restricted.

I think that the restriction, to be honest, was simply that he considered the DPRK to be a socialist state, which results in a tactic support of Jucheism. I reject the word `totalitarian`since it is nothing other then a liberal buzz word, but the DPRK is so far from a socialist society, the fact that the PSL and WWP considers them as such, let alone sends letters to their homie Kim Jong Un addressing him as `dear leader`makes me question their sanity.


I'll see what sources I can dig up.

Yeah some quotes would be appreciated, but preferably not articles.


From the comments in this thread, I'd think that people here seem to think that the DPRK is more reactionary than the USA and less democratic. That example is just showing that people can talk about "dictator Kim Jong Un" even though the head of state here has more control than him. So the need to go off about how much of a despot Kim Jong Un is doesn't really make sense to me (i dont think he's even a despot, though) because we got a much worse situation here.

I`d disagree with that, personally, despite the fact that the U.S.A. is literally the belly of the beast, I`d prefer to live there then the DPRK. Regardless pointing out that there are bigger dictators in the world, isn`t really an argument though.


I think that has been affirmed during the establishment of the DPRK and the struggle since.

So as long as a struggle has popular support to begin with and hasn`t been overthrown since then, it necessarily mean the state has popular support? That is some awfully thin logic.

[Ismail]

The DPRK itself has removed all communist verbiage from their constitution, I don't think they consider themselves socialist.Amendments to the DPRK Constitution in 1992 got rid of references to Marxism-Leninism and in 2009 references to Communism but it still contains plenty of references to socialism: www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/kn00000_.html (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/kn00000_.html)

The Workers' Party of Korea also maintains "fraternal relations" with all sorts of "communist" parties, like China's CCP and Cuba's PCC, but as far as ideological matters go they're more interested in ties with Juche "study groups" abroad.

[Art Vandelay]

Against imperialist attack (like most groups did) but I've never heard of us supporting Saddam. If you want to show some evidence of that that be good because otherwise it seems you're just into slander.

A cursory glance at some articles on your website shows that they supported him on a anti-imperialist basis.

[Leftsolidarity]

A cursory glance at some articles on your website shows that they supported him on a anti-imperialist basis.

Yeah, I meant that we didn't uphold Saddam as any role model or support him on any basis other than against imperialist aggression. That's pretty much the position most left organizations took around the Iraq situation I believe.

Edit: I'm not ignoring your previous post btw. just in the middle of a party right now and don't have time to reply.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That being said, Alia did adopt a "defiant" tone throughout 1990. Case in point the 10th plenum of the Party in April that year:

[...]

(From Democratization of Socio-Economic Life Strengthens the Thinking and Action of the People, 1990, pp. 30-37.)

Of course in that same plenum Alia furthered the market reforms initiated at the 8th and 9th plenums in September 1989 and January 1990, and subsequent plenums that year sealed Albania's fate.

Ha, that reminds me of some of the Yugoslav "hard-liners" like the generals Kadijević and Adžić, who made a lot of "socialist" noise and implicitly threatened the civilian leaders with a military coup, while supporting to a large extent the market reforms (well, further market reforms, since Yugoslavia was effectively a market economy by then) of the Federal Executive Council president Marković.


I don't support Iran in the same manner but I do support them on the basis of anti-imperialism. Internally, yes, it is a reactionary state that I don't support but on the international level they do play a progressive role against imperialism so they should be supported on that. We should promote their right to self-determination and fight against imperialist moves against Iran.

Which is why I claimed that you do not support Iran "in that manner" - of course opposition to imperialism is something every serious revolutionary socialists upholds. But with the exception of certain Third-Worldists, whose status as revolutionary socialists is questionable at best, no one supports the internal regime in Iran. Most of us are for a social revolution by the people of Iran - which is why we oppose an imperialist intervention that would make that revolution difficult if not impossible. Certainly, not one member of this site likes the mullah regime.

Even on the bourgeois "left", I don't think anyone supports Iran in the same sense in which you support the DPR Kore, except Galloway. But Galloway is a violent social-reactionary in any case.

[one10]

Yeah, I meant that we didn't uphold Saddam as any role model or support him on any basis other than against imperialist aggression. That's pretty much the position most left organizations took around the Iraq situation I believe.

This all just seems like the "enemy of my enemy, is my friend" rhetoric.

I can understand opposing imperialism (like we all do) and being vocal about your opposition to US invasion of these countries, but going as far as extending your support and sympathy to those like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Un seems unecessary to me.

[Sasha]

Surely even the most dogmatic anti-imps should understand that the leading or collaberating role official CPs played in corrupt and brutal anti-worker regimes over the last few decades made words like "communism" tainted maybe beyond repair in vast parts of the world?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Surely even the most dogmatic anti-imps should understand that the leading or collaberating role official CPs played in corrupt and brutal anti-worker regimes over the last few decades made words like "communism" tainted maybe beyond repair in vast parts of the world?

"Communism" has always been a dirty word to the "respectable" left. I must confess that I don't see how your post is connected to the preceding discussion, in any case.

As for "anti-imps", when I was younger, the term meant idiots that though people like Nasrallah are great progressive leaders. But now, apparently, it means every Leninist, and everyone that does not buy the "humanitarian intervention" crap.

[one10]

"Communism" has always been a dirty word to the "respectable" left. I must confess that I don't see how your post is connected to the preceding discussion, in any case.

How is the post not connected to this discussion? It very much is.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How is the post not connected to this discussion? It very much is.

We are discussing whether we, as socialists, should support the DPR Korea in some sense. What does the term "communism" becoming "tainted" have to do with it? Are we slaves to public opinion? We will not get very far if we are; any revolutionary activity will be condemned by that public opinion, and every consistently socialist position will be attacked - whether for "utopianism", "amoralism", "despotism", "dogmatism" or something else.

[TheEmancipator]

We are discussing whether we, as socialists, should support the DPR Korea in some sense. What does the term "communism" becoming "tainted" have to do with it? Are we slaves to public opinion? We will not get very far if we are; any revolutionary activity will be condemned by that public opinion, and every consistently socialist position will be attacked - whether for "utopianism", "amoralism", "despotism", "dogmatism" or something else.

Because you'll find the vast majority of Left-Liberals would be communists if it weren't for some of our members supporting brutal tyrannical regimes all because they superficially adopted "Communism" as their goal. I struggle how anybody is supposed to take Juchist sympathisers seriously, I really do.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because you'll find the vast majority of Left-Liberals would be communists if it weren't for some of our members supporting brutal tyrannical regimes all because they superficially adopted "Communism" as their goal. I struggle how anybody is supposed to take Juchist sympathisers seriously, I really do.

Would these "left" liberals become communists, or would the sections of the labour movement that try to attract them through moralistic denunciations of "tyrannical regimes" become liberal? The history of the labour movement suggests the latter - consider the evolution of the Shachtmanite sect for example. That trajectory doesn't even have end in liberalism - former "socialists" have been known to end up as conservatives and (in the case of Sorel, Shaw and de Man), fascists.

I mean, comrade Leftsolidarity holds that their support for the DPR Korea is the result of the correct interpretation of Marxist principles. I might disagree - and I do! - and we might debate this, but what sense would it make for me, or for anyone to concede that they might be right, but that we must think of liberal opinion?

[VDS]

Would these "left" liberals become communists, or would the sections of the labour movement that try to attract them through moralistic denunciations of "tyrannical regimes" become liberal? The history of the labour movement suggests the latter - consider the evolution of the Shachtmanite sect for example. That trajectory doesn't even have end in liberalism - former "socialists" have been known to end up as conservatives and (in the case of Sorel, Shaw and de Man), fascists

What you're arguing is that because not ALL will end up where we want them, that we shouldn't try and get ANY of them where we want them?

Too many people in this country, hell too many people that I know personally are left-liberals, that are all but communists, but that aren't as a result of the seeing many on the left making excuses for and/or supporting tyrannical regimes.

Supporting Juche and being a DPRK sympathizer makes the left look like agenda pushing hypocrites that aren't grounded in reality and that place ideology above reality and real oppression (not sure if I worded this right, I hope you understand exactly what I'm saying)

Finally however, my original point. Many left-liberals wouldn't be so hesitant to cross over if the left didn't have this reputation of supporting and making excuses for regimes like the DPRK. It's alright to say "We oppose imperialism and therefore war against places like the DPRK" but it's another to sympathize and lend support, even if it's only moral support.

[one10]

What you're arguing is that because not ALL will end up where we want them, that we shouldn't try and get ANY of them where we want them?

Too many people in this country, hell too many people that I know personally are left-liberals, that are all but communists, but that aren't as a result of the seeing many on the left making excuses for and/or supporting tyrannical regimes.

Supporting Juche and being a DPRK sympathizer makes the left look like agenda pushing hypocrites that aren't grounded in reality and that place ideology above reality and real oppression (not sure if I worded this right, I hope you understand exactly what I'm saying)

Finally however, my original point. Many left-liberals wouldn't be so hesitant to cross over if the left didn't have this reputation of supporting and making excuses for regimes like the DPRK. It's alright to say "We oppose imperialism and therefore war against places like the DPRK" but it's another to sympathize and lend support, even if it's only moral support.

My exact sentiments a few posts ago. Those same Left-Liberals were opposed to the war in Iraq/oppose a war in the DPRK as many have anti-imperialists views as well, but you don't see them extending their sympathy and support for the leaders and governments of said countries.

[Rurkel]

Surely even the most dogmatic anti-imps should understand that the leading or collaberating role official CPs played in corrupt and brutal anti-worker regimes over the last few decades made words like "communism" tainted maybe beyond repair in vast parts of the world?
I don't think that DPRK plays much of a role in that, though. A regime where Marx, Engels (and even Stalin) are in special library sectors, inaccessible by ordinary people, is blatantly... not exactly socialist/communist. And most radical leftists do not support the DPRK as something good in itself. Maybe if WWP and CPGB-ML are the only left organizations (non-personal) you know, then yes, it may turn you off for good, but in that case it's your own fault.

[Lucretia]

Because you'll find the vast majority of Left-Liberals would be communists if it weren't for some of our members supporting brutal tyrannical regimes all because they superficially adopted "Communism" as their goal. I struggle how anybody is supposed to take Juchist sympathisers seriously, I really do.

In my experience, I find liberals to be the least open to revolutionary socialist ideas. Your mileage may vary.

[TheEmancipator]

Would these "left" liberals become communists, or would the sections of the labour movement that try to attract them through moralistic denunciations of "tyrannical regimes" become liberal? The history of the labour movement suggests the latter - consider the evolution of the Shachtmanite sect for example. That trajectory doesn't even have end in liberalism - former "socialists" have been known to end up as conservatives and (in the case of Sorel, Shaw and de Man), fascists.

Most of the ideologically left-liberals I know see communism as a form of liberal extremism, or at least born out of a positive deformation of liberalism (they are quite right on a historical basis). These are the guys who you usually hear the clichéd "Communism works great in theory" yet tell us we can't provide a proper path towards it. Why? Because so far all communists have supported are tinpot Marxist-Leninist tyrants who end up like the DPRK. I personally believe we can learn a lot from them while still keeping our core objective going, as well as the materialist and idealist analysis our ancestors have left us. We're supposed to be adaptable for chrissakes, we're not reactionaries! It seems like most communists are stuck in the 19th/20th century.




I mean, comrade Leftsolidarity holds that their support for the DPR Korea is the result of the correct interpretation of Marxist principles. I might disagree - and I do! - and we might debate this, but what sense would it make for me, or for anyone to concede that they might be right, but that we must think of liberal opinion?Just a note here (and I'll get attacked for this, since the person in question seems like a respected poster and I'm sure his reputation is well deserved) A Juchist sympathiser is as much a comrade to me as a Juchist ruler or a fascist ruler. He should be restricted, or some would be unrestricted. I'd prefer the latter TBH, because like you say above he has something positive to add to this debate, but I can't understand why pacifist, left-liberals, moderates, social democrats, Maoist Third Worldist sympathisers. etc are restricted yet somebody who supports (to most people's knowledge, and what seems to be factually correct) a tyrannical dehumanising oppressive military regime.

[TheEmancipator]

In my experience, I find liberals to be the least open to revolutionary socialist ideas. Your mileage may vary.

They are ruthlessly critical only because they take us seriously. Trust me on that, they do. Until we start backing brutal dictatorships.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Most of the ideologically left-liberals I know see communism as a form of liberal extremism[...]

Then they're wrong, wrong, wrong, and they do not have a good grasp of what Marxism is. Marxist theory rejects key liberal dogmas, and the policies advocated by liberals are obviously inconsistent with socialist aims.


[...]or at least born out of a positive deformation of liberalism (they are quite right on a historical basis).

Meaning what, exactly? Marxism is not a development of liberalism, but an independent, scientific standpoint.


These are the guys who you usually hear the clichéd "Communism works great in theory" yet tell us we can't provide a proper path towards it. Why?

Because they have no idea what communism is.


Because so far all communists have supported are tinpot Marxist-Leninist tyrants who end up like the DPRK.

Lenin, of course, was a noted "tinpot dictator", as were Luxemburg, Kun, Adler, Villon and others.


I personally believe we can learn a lot from them while still keeping our core objective going, as well as the materialist and idealist analysis our ancestors have left us. We're supposed to be adaptable for chrissakes, we're not reactionaries! It seems like most communists are stuck in the 19th/20th century.

Being adaptable does not mean being inconsistent, eclectic and directionless. What can we learn from the liberals? How to bolster the capitalist state? But we would rather overthrow it. Class collaboration? Morality? Corporatism? We have heard all of that from the Bernsteins, the Struves, the de Mans.

And there is no "idealist analysis" in consistent Marxism.


Just a note here (and I'll get attacked for this, since the person in question seems like a respected poster and I'm sure his reputation is well deserved) A Juchist sympathiser is as much a comrade to me as a Juchist ruler or a fascist ruler. He should be restricted, or some would be unrestricted. I'd prefer the latter TBH, because like you say above he has something positive to add to this debate, but I can't understand why pacifist, left-liberals, moderates, social democrats, Maoist Third Worldist sympathisers. etc are restricted yet somebody who supports (to most people's knowledge, and what seems to be factually correct) a tyrannical dehumanising oppressive military regime.

This site is not "the Moralistic Left", and it restricts members based on their adherence to revolutionary socialism and its goals. Comrade Leftsolidarity comes from a small, but notable, revolutionary-socialist tendency, and they are not a Juchist, nor do they support the DPR Korea uncritically.

I mean, I think their position is daft, but they're more of a comrade to me than a liberal could ever be.

[cyu]

I am Schrödinger. My support of the North Korean regime is a cat. Until the box is opened, the cat is in a state that is both alive and dead. If someone else opens the box and claims the cat is dead (or alive), my belief in their claim merely becomes a new cat. And until the box is opened, the new cat is in a state that is both alive and dead.

But it's easy to see the role that North Korean news reports plays in Western media. It is used has a propaganda tool against leftists. See how bad lefists are? They created North Korea. You wouldn't want that would you? It's time to round up the leftists and make sure they are never seen again.

If you're born into the Hatfield family, of course you're only going to hear horror stories about the McCoys. If you're born into the Capulet family, of course you'll only hear horror stories about the Montagues. Is either the American regime or the North Korean regime 100% evil or good? No. Which is more evil or good? That is a useless question. The real question should be which parts of both regimes (real, imagined, or misreported) are things we support, fight, or couldn't care less about.

If they say North Korea is undemocratic, do we fight the anti-democratic forces in America? If they say North Korea executes people, do we fight the executioners in America? If they say the ruling class lives comfortably while the poor starve, do we fight the same ruling class in America?

[Akshay!]

In my experience, I find liberals to be the least open to revolutionary socialist ideas. Your mileage may vary.

Exactly! Malcolm X also pointed this out when he referred to the distinction between a fox and a wolf. He said the only difference between them is that the fox is more deceitful and clever so he makes it look as if he's on our side.

Regarding this topic, as I've said in my other posts elsewhere, I don't think opposing imperialism has anything to do with agreeing with the ideology of the country being attacked. So one can be a socialist/anarchist and still completely oppose US Imperialism against North Korea. Whether or not North Korea is communist is almost irrelevant. I'd oppose US Imperialism against Iran and Afghanistan as much as I'd oppose US Imperialism against North Korea. That's why I don't have any problem in accepting the label of being a "principled anti-imperialist".

[TheEmancipator]

Then they're wrong, wrong, wrong, and they do not have a good grasp of what Marxism is. Marxist theory rejects key liberal dogmas, and the policies advocated by liberals are obviously inconsistent with socialist aims.

I think this has more to do with them not believing in pure liberalism than them not understanding Marxism, but OK.


Meaning what, exactly? Marxism is not a development of liberalism, but an independent, scientific standpoint.Because "Marxism" as we know it would not exist if it wasn't for liberalism and Marx reacts directly to what he sees in liberal society.



Because they have no idea what communism is.They do. They want a classless, egalitarian society, but they do not have the imagination or pragmatism required. So they are just "Left-liberals".


Lenin, of course, was a noted "tinpot dictator", as were Luxemburg, Kun, Adler, Villon and others.Of course there are notable exceptions, that I think we should pay more attention too. But on this forum there is a vast array of Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.. A vastly overrated political agitator who was power-hungry and ensured the creation of Socialism at its bordeline worst is not one of those exception. Neither are two genocidal maniacs. I understand the theory behind the support though.


Being adaptable does not mean being inconsistent, eclectic and directionless. What can we learn from the liberals? How to bolster the capitalist state? But we would rather overthrow it. Class collaboration? Morality? Corporatism? We have heard all of that from the Bernsteins, the Struves, the de Mans.Well the liberals seem to use their critical mind more than most leftists, who are religiously citing the Manifesto as if it were the Bible. Or blindly back any country that ever had anything to do with Socialism, such as North Korea...


And there is no "idealist analysis" in consistent Marxism.Hegelian. Not all of us are Marxists.


This site is not "the Moralistic Left", and it restricts members based on their adherence to revolutionary socialism and its goals. Comrade Leftsolidarity comes from a small, but notable, revolutionary-socialist tendency, and they are not a Juchist, nor do they support the DPR Korea uncritically.Right, so we are supposed to accept somebody who is openly defending the Juche ideology and a tyrannical regime because of his tendency or party, yet we'll ban a user for exactly the same and ban some pacifists along the way.

Mind-boggling...I didn't realise this is one of those members only forums.


I mean, I think their position is daft, but they're more of a comrade to me than a liberal could ever be.Please tell me how Juchism is in any way different to the fascism we despise more than left-liberals or social democrats.

[Leftsolidarity]

Please tell me how Juchism is in any way different to the fascism we despise more than left-liberals or social democrats.

By reading about what Juche actually is because if you're equating it to fascism you have no clue as to what it is. You're going "I don't like this. It's the same as fascism."

A few pages ago I said how Juche is meant to be an extension of Marxism-Leninism particularly focused on the conditions of the DPRK of how to build socialism while being isolated and under constant threat of invasion.

You might disagree with the ideology, that's one thing, but to then equate it to fascism because you lack an actual understanding, is a completely different thing.

[Ismail]

Because you'll find the vast majority of Left-Liberals would be communists if it weren't for some of our members supporting brutal tyrannical regimes all because they superficially adopted "Communism" as their goal."Left-Liberals" would be communists if they were Marxists. Plenty of "left-liberals" had no problem supporting "socialists" like the 80's FSLN, "African Socialism" à la Nyerere, etc. because these governments pretty much matched their standards of regulated capitalism while having vague, inoffensive but attractive "socialist" rhetoric.

The CPUSA, which is practically an arm of the Democrats and thus deals constantly with "left-liberals," does not seem to regard the DPRK as socialist. It's not enjoying new members from this.

[La Guaneña]

So what you guys are saying is that we should start not supporting regimes "like the DPRK" because the bourgeois media doesn't do so, so that left-liberals would join our cause.



Just for clarification, what regimes would you put in "like the DPRK"?

[VDS]

So what you guys are saying is that we should start not supporting regimes "like the DPRK" because the bourgeois media doesn't do so, so that left-liberals would join our cause.

No, how you got that from what people are writing is beyond me. We shouldn't support regimes like theirs because it's oppressive and has nothing to do with socialism.

The whole thing about left-liberals is an observation, not a reason. As in, it's an observation that one reason WHY the left struggles is because too many leftists are out spewing things like "SUPPORT NORTH KOREA" even though they are an oppressive regime that is ANYTHING but leftist.

[La Guaneña]

No, how you got that from what people are writing is beyond me. We shouldn't support regimes like theirs because it's oppressive and has nothing to do with socialism.

The whole thing about left-liberals is an observation, not a reason. As in, it's an observation that one reason WHY the left struggles is because too many leftists are out spewing things like "SUPPORT NORTH KOREA" even though they are an oppressive regime that is ANYTHING but leftist.

Very few communists actually support Korea because is supposedly is a socialist state, how you guys get that from most of the supportive posts is also beyond me.

Supporting the Korean, Iraqi or Iranian states agains imperialism not necessarily means supporting their actual internal politics. What other ways are there of supporting one country against an attack from another without supporting it's current regime?

You guys are saying that you don't support imperialism, but also refuse to support the Korean state. So how should the imperialists get fucked?

[VDS]

Very few communists actually support Korea because is supposedly is a socialist state, how you guys get that from most of the supportive posts is also beyond me.

Supporting the Korean, Iraqi or Iranian states agains imperialism not necessarily means supporting their actual internal politics. What other ways are there of supporting one country against an attack from another without supporting it's current regime?

You guys are saying that you don't support imperialism, but also refuse to support the Korean state. So how should the imperialists get fucked?

You must have read anything I wrote before. It's FINE to oppose American Imperialism, and should be encouraged, but that's different than saying that people are DPRK SYMPATHIZERS.

People will stand behind almost anything with a red flag. This isn't about protecting DPRK from imperialism, it's about NOT supporting a repressive regime.

[VDS]

You guys are saying that you don't support imperialism, but also refuse to support the Korean state. So how should the imperialists get fucked?

Yes, it's simple really, I don't understand how you're having a problem with this. You can be anti-imperialist AND not support repressive regimes.

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. I support DPRK to be free from Imperialism, but I do NOT support the North Korean state itself.

Furthermore, what do you mean how do then they "get fucked"? They're not GOING to get fucked just because we support DPRK. Our supporting a repressive regime (again, supporting their state, not supporting their right to be free from imperialism, I feel the need to stress this) will do NOTHING to proverbially "fuck" imperialism.

[one10]

Very few communists actually support Korea because is supposedly is a socialist state, how you guys get that from most of the supportive posts is also beyond me.

Supporting the Korean, Iraqi or Iranian states agains imperialism not necessarily means supporting their actual internal politics. What other ways are there of supporting one country against an attack from another without supporting it's current regime?

You guys are saying that you don't support imperialism, but also refuse to support the Korean state. So how should the imperialists get fucked?

No, we are saying that we are opposed to Imperialism but don't see the need to extend our support and sympathy to said regimes.

[La Guaneña]

No, we are saying that we are opposed to Imperialism but don't see the need to extend our support and sympathy to said regimes.

We all agree on how imperialism sucks, that goes without saying. I'm asking how that struggle against imperialism translates to the material world. Imperialism is not only fought against with ideas, you need rifles and men too. Where do they come from?

[VDS]

We all agree on how imperialism sucks, that goes without saying. I'm asking how that struggle against imperialism translates to the material world. Imperialism is not only fought against with ideas, you need rifles and men too. Where do they come from?

Unfortunately, it's not so cut and dry. You're correct in your assessment that imperialism IS to be fought with rifles and men, but we're still a ways from there.

[billydan]

because North Korea is the best korea

[La Guaneña]

Unfortunately, it's not so cut and dry. You're correct in your assessment that imperialism IS to be fought with rifles and men, but we're still a ways from there.

So in case of an invasion in the DPRK, you do not support the Korean Army in it's defense? Let's be honest, there aren't any other options between that defense and a US victory.

[VDS]

So in case of an invasion in the DPRK, you do not support the Korean Army in it's defense? Let's be honest, there aren't any other options between that defense and a US victory.

No that's different. In the event of an imperialist invasion we SHOULD want the imperialist forces to be pushed back. There's no doubt about that. What I and others are saying, is that the state itself should not be supported, and that DPRK sympathizers support North Korea in more than an anti-imperialist basis.

[RedAnarchist]

because North Korea is the best korea

Please don't post one-liners like this, we consider it spam.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think this has more to do with them not believing in pure liberalism than them not understanding Marxism, but OK.

"Pure" liberalism being, what, exactly? Consistent liberalism? The implication seems to be that one can be socialist and liberal in varying proportions - as if there exists some sort of continuum between "liberalism" and "socialism" so that someone can be, say, 80% liberal and 20% socialist.

That, however, makes no sense: liberalism and socialist are different, incompatible standpoints. One can be a socialist with a liberal deformation, and one can be a wretched eclectic who mixes ideas from disparate ideologies on personal whim, but for a consistent, committed liberal to become a socialist - that requires a dramatic shift in certain underlying assumptions.

Liberals that drift in the direction of "socialism" (but without that scary "Stalinist" stuff) end up occupying the same position as Decr... I am sorry, Old Labour at best.


Because "Marxism" as we know it would not exist if it wasn't for liberalism and Marx reacts directly to what he sees in liberal society.

The same holds for utopian socialism, Jacobinism, Prussian conservatism and the Junkertum...


They do. They want a classless, egalitarian society, but they do not have the imagination or pragmatism required. So they are just "Left-liberals".

It's not a matter of imagination, but of having a basic theoretical grasp of the subject matter. People that "want" communism like the average Christian wants the kingdom of heaven on Earth are, I suppose, well meaning, but this is not the sort of commitment that defines the revolutionary.


Of course there are notable exceptions, that I think we should pay more attention too. But on this forum there is a vast array of Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.. A vastly overrated political agitator who was power-hungry and ensured the creation of Socialism at its bordeline worst is not one of those exception. Neither are two genocidal maniacs. I understand the theory behind the support though.

Honestly, every time I hear liberal attacks on Stalin or Mao, I grow fonder of the old bastards. And the description of Lenin as "power-hungry" simply speaks for itself.

This is why Marxists should remain Marxists, instead of trying to court liberal public opinion - honest, Marxist criticism of Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, anyone, would be replaced by endless "humanistic" wankery over "genocide" and "tin-pot dictators". We might as well let Jeanne Kirkpatrick determine our policy.


Well the liberals seem to use their critical mind more than most leftists, who are religiously citing the Manifesto as if it were the Bible.

Good grief. Have you not read enough liberal analyses, not enough Marxist analyses, or both? Marxism, as a scientific theory, provides a robust and useful framework for analysing society; liberals have moralistic dicta pulled from their esteemed professorial posteriors and some mangled statistics.


Or blindly back any country that ever had anything to do with Socialism, such as North Korea...

I am trying to not be rude here, but if this is the impression you have gained from this thread, you have probably not read it carefully enough. Again, of all the people that have posted, only one "backs" the DPR Korea. The rest of us do not, but neither are we taken in by outlandish bourgeois narratives about the "evil DPR Korea".


Hegelian. Not all of us are Marxists.

Indeed. But there is a qualitative difference between Marxists and anarchists that base themselves on a class analysis and the endless chaos of Hegelians, humanists, moralists, the religious, and so on, and so on.


Right, so we are supposed to accept somebody who is openly defending the Juche ideology and a tyrannical regime because of his tendency or party, yet we'll ban a user for exactly the same and ban some pacifists along the way.

Comrade Leftsolidarity - who, as far as I can tell, has not "defended" Juche but has called for a more clear-headed assessment of the ideology - is a revolutionary socialist by virtue of being a member of a revolutionary socialist tendency. Pacifists are not. Nor are people who think socialism is "no unemployment".


Please tell me how Juchism is in any way different to the fascism we despise more than left-liberals or social democrats.

Juche does not aim to mobilise the lower strata of society to fight the labour movement in favour of the individual bourgeoisie; it is not corporatists, racist, mystical and so on. How is Juche at all similar to fascism, except that you don't like either?

[one10]

So in case of an invasion in the DPRK, you do not support the Korean Army in it's defense? Let's be honest, there aren't any other options between that defense and a US victory.

This makes the DPRK sound too innocent.

If the the DPRK doesn't want an imperialist invasion of their country, then why instigate it?

They can take other measures to counter imperialism. Making nuclear threats isn't the smartest thing to do.

[Ismail]

This makes the DPRK sound too innocent.

If the the DPRK doesn't want an imperialist invasion of their country, then why instigate it?It is the South which has refused to sign a peace treaty with the North, and whose new President has ramped up the South's military shows of force.

Also as William Blum notes (http://williamblum.org/aer/read/115):

The Washington Post recently reported: “A year into his tenure, the country’s young leader, Kim Jong Un, has proved even more bellicose than his father, North Korea’s longtime ruler, disappointing U.S. officials who had hoped for a fresh start with the regime.”

Yeah, right, can’t you just see those American officials shaking their heads and exclaiming: “Damn, what do we have to do to get those North Korean fellows to trust us?” Well, they could start by ending the many international sanctions they impose on North Korea. They could discontinue arming and training South Korean military forces. And they could stop engaging in provocative fly-overs, ships cruising the waters, and military exercises along with South Korea, Australia, and other countries dangerously close to the North. The Wall Street Journal reported:
The first show of force came on March 8, during the U.S.-South Korean exercise, known as Foal Eagle, when long-range B-52 bombers conducted low-altitude maneuvers. A few weeks later, in broad daylight, two B-2 bombers sent from a Missouri air base dropped dummy payloads on a South Korean missile range.

U.S. intelligence agencies, as had been planned, reviewed the North’s responses. After those flights, the North responded as the Pentagon and intelligence agencies had expected, with angry rhetoric, threatening to attack the South and the U.S.

On Sunday, the U.S. flew a pair of advanced F-22s to South Korea, which prompted another angry response from the North.

And the United States could stop having wet dreams about North Korea collapsing, enabling the US to establish an American military base right at the Chinese border.

As to North Korea’s frequent threats … yes, they actually outdo the United States in bellicosity, lies, and stupidity. But their threats are not to be taken any more seriously than Washington’s oft expressed devotion to democracy and freedom. When it comes to doing actual harm to other peoples, the North Koreans are not in the same league as the empire.

“Everyone is concerned about miscalculation and the outbreak of war. But the sense across the U.S. government is that the North Koreans are not going to wage all-out war,” a senior Obama administration official said. “They are interested first and foremost in regime survival.”Ba'athist propaganda talked about how Iraq would valiantly struggle against the US and inflict upon it a total defeat in the months leading up to the Iraq War. A lot of this was geared towards domestic consumption. When Saddam was actually interviewed by Westerners he called for negotiations and not solving problems through violence and whatnot.

[one10]

It is the South which has refused to sign a peace treaty with the North, and whose new President has ramped up the South's military shows of force.

Also as William Blum notes (http://williamblum.org/aer/read/115):
Ba'athist propaganda talked about how Iraq would valiantly struggle against the US and inflict upon it a total defeat in the months leading up to the Iraq War. A lot of this was geared towards domestic consumption. When Saddam was actually interviewed by Westerners he called for negotiations and not solving problems through violence and whatnot.

Granted, I'm not defending the actions of the US either (nor would I ever defend such acts). I'm simply stating that the DPRK aren't doing anything to help their cause by responding to the US with nuclear threats. The United States is the bully on the block, they will flex their muscles and they will push you. The DPRK is taking the bait.

[Leftsolidarity]

This makes the DPRK sound too innocent.

If the the DPRK doesn't want an imperialist invasion of their country, then why instigate it?

They can take other measures to counter imperialism. Making nuclear threats isn't the smartest thing to do.

Wtf are you talking about? The DPRK has continuously made attempts at trying to better relations and to achieve peace. The U.S. and puppet state of South Korea continuously rejected all their proposals and attempts. The DPRK has done nothing except expose the imperialist moves against their country which happen all the time and reiterate the fact that those are moves of war against their country. I refer you back to my very first post in this thread. The article specifically deals with this issue. The DPRK is the victim here, not the instigator.

[one10]

Wtf are you talking about? The DPRK has continuously made attempts at trying to better relations and to achieve peace. The U.S. and puppet state of South Korea continuously rejected all their proposals and attempts. The DPRK has done nothing except expose the imperialist moves against their country which happen all the time and reiterate the fact that those are moves of war against their country. I refer you back to my very first post in this thread. The article specifically deals with this issue. The DPRK is the victim here, not the instigator.

There is no doubt that the DPRK is the victim of imperialism. The United States will continue to decline proposals at bettering relations, just like they do with Cuba.

All I'm saying is that the DPRK does not deserve the sympathy of the left. We can oppose and protest imperialist action against the DPRK or any country for that matter, but extending your sympathy and support by sending them a friendly letter is unnecessary and makes the rest of the left look bad.

As I said, the United States is trying to bait the DPRK into a war and they are biting. All it takes is a few threats of nuclear war and an attack on South Korea for the United States to justify their invasion of the DPRK. Let's not act like the US hasn't been trying to intimidate the DPRK for decades.

The DPRK is clearly reactionary and the lack of experience is being demonstrated by your "comrade" Kim Jong Un.

[Leftsolidarity]

There is no doubt that the DPRK is the victim of imperialism. The United States will continue to decline proposals at bettering relations, just like they do with Cuba.



So why are you placing blame on the victim?



All I'm saying is that the DPRK does not deserve the sympathy of the left. We can oppose and protest imperialist action against the DPRK or any country for that matter, but extending your sympathy and support by sending them a friendly letter is unnecessary and makes the rest of the left look bad.



Look bad to who? Liberals and imperialist apologists? I feel fine looking bad in their eyes as any other person who views themselves as a revolutionary. I think the position of not fully defending themselves against imperialism and the demonization of the DPRK makes those on the left look bad. I think that throughtout the struggle, the correct line will ultimately shine through as the correct line and will win the fully respect of the masses. Trotsky and Lenin talked at length about this. I feel like that fully applies to the situation of the DPRK. It should already be apparent to those on the Left that we should support the DPRK (obviously it's not) but the working masses in the United States will learn who is on their side and what the correct position is through them becoming more involved in the struggle. It might take awhile but I feel that the masses here will eventually break through the bourgeois propaganda and come to support the DPRK.



As I said, the United States is trying to bait the DPRK into a war and they are biting. All it takes is a few threats of nuclear war and an attack on South Korea for the United States to justify their invasion of the DPRK. Let's not act like the US hasn't been trying to intimidate the DPRK for decades.



How is the DPRK "biting"? They have been facing this since the creation of their state. They finally said that if the imperialists will not recognize the armistice then they will not either and will respond in full force. That is completely understandable and that should be supported because they are standing against imperialist aggression. Why should they get any blame for this?


The DPRK is clearly reactionary and the lack of experience is being demonstrated by your "comrade" Kim Jong Un.

Actually it's not very clear at all. I asked awhile ago, how is it reactionary? What past ruling class interest does it represent and what class holds power? Like I said before, you might not like them but that doesn't make them reactionaries.

[TheEmancipator]

Leftsolidarity, could you provide unbiased sources detailing how such a secretive state is in way socialist in all but name? Because cry "bourgeois propaganda" all you want, the numerous accounts from defectors and witnesses detail a society that does not merit any support from the left.

[Leftsolidarity]

Leftsolidarity, could you provide unbiased sources detailing how such a secretive state is in way socialist in all but name? Because cry "bourgeois propaganda" all you want, the numerous accounts from defectors and witnesses detail a society that does not merit any support from the left.

"Unbiased" is not real. If I provide you with links from the DPRK or any organizations in contact/support of them, you will say they are not trustworthy and biased. If I give you bourgeois links then they will clearly be biased against the DPRK.

So don't ask me to do something you don't actually want me to do.

[one10]

So why are you placing blame on the victim?

I'm not placing blame on them for starting it. I'm placing blame on them for perpetuating it.



Look bad to who? Liberals and imperialist apologists? I feel fine looking bad in their eyes as any other person who views themselves as a revolutionary. I think the position of not fully defending themselves against imperialism and the demonization of the DPRK makes those on the left look bad. I think that throughtout the struggle, the correct line will ultimately shine through as the correct line and will win the fully respect of the masses. Trotsky and Lenin talked at length about this. I feel like that fully applies to the situation of the DPRK. It should already be apparent to those on the Left that we should support the DPRK (obviously it's not) but the working masses in the United States will learn who is on their side and what the correct position is through them becoming more involved in the struggle. It might take awhile but I feel that the masses here will eventually break through the bourgeois propaganda and come to support the DPRK.

Anyone who sees themselves as revolutionary doesn't mind looking bad in the eyes of other people? Is this so?

I strongly disagree with your sentiments, as a matter of fact, I'm sure a large majority of the left would. It is the duty of the revolutionary left to promote class consciousness and educate the masses. Being content with being viewed negatively isn't going to help our cause, especially in the face of slanderous propaganda pushed by the right. It's already a struggle battling the fallacies pushed by McCarthyism and Cold-War politics about the left, now we are going to be content with being viewed in accordance to those lies? That is ludicrous!

And second of all, no one on the left who considers themselves revolutionary should be sympathizing with the DPRK. Are you denying that they are an extremely repressive regime that prioritizes it's military over it's people? The DPRK is far from revolutionary.

How is the DPRK on the side of the workers in America when it isn't even on the side of the workers in North Korea?!




How is the DPRK "biting"? They have been facing this since the creation of their state. They finally said that if the imperialists will not recognize the armistice then they will not either and will respond in full force. That is completely understandable and that should be supported because they are standing against imperialist aggression. Why should they get any blame for this?

The United States will continue their imperialist aggression on the world, but threatening to engage in a nuclear war is not the proper nor responsible course of action.



Actually it's not very clear at all. I asked awhile ago, how is it reactionary? What past ruling class interest does it represent and what class holds power? Like I said before, you might not like them but that doesn't make them reactionaries.

The DPRK resembles a modern day Joseon dynasty if you ask me. The power is most certainly not in the hands of the working class.

I'll leave you with a few words from Fidel Castro....



Reflections of Fidel
The duty to avoid a war in Korea
(Taken from (CubaDebate)

A few days ago I mentioned the great challenges humanity is currently facing. Intelligent life emerged on our planet approximately 200,000 years ago, although new discoveries demonstrate something else.
This is not to confuse intelligent life with the existence of life which, from its elemental forms in our solar system, emerged millions of years ago.
A virtually infinite number of life forms exist. In the sophisticated work of the world’s most eminent scientists the idea has already been conceived of reproducing the sounds which followed the Big Bang, the great explosion which took place more than 13.7 billion years ago.
This introduction would be too extensive if it was not to explain the gravity of an event as unbelievable and absurd as the situation created in the Korean Peninsula, within a geographic area containing close to five billion of the seven billion persons currently inhabiting the planet.
This is about one of the most serious dangers of nuclear war since the October Crisis around Cuba in 1962, 50 years ago.
In 1950, a war was unleashed there [the Korean Peninsula] which cost millions of lives. It came barely five years after two atomic bombs were exploded over the defenseless cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which, in a matter of seconds, killed and irradiated hundreds of thousands of people.
General Douglas MacArthur wanted to utilize atomic weapons against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Not even Harry Truman allowed that.
It has been affirmed that the People’s Republic of China lost one million valiant soldiers in order to prevent the installation of an enemy army on that country’s border with its homeland. For its part, the Soviet army provided weapons, air support, technological and economic aid.
I had the honor of meeting Kim Il Sung, a historic figure, notably courageous and revolutionary.
If war breaks out there, the peoples of both parts of the Peninsula will be terribly sacrificed, without benefit to all or either of them. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was always friendly with Cuba, as Cuba has always been and will continue to be with her.
Now that the country has demonstrated its technical and scientific achievements, we remind her of her duties to the countries which have been her great friends, and it would be unjust to forget that such a war would particularly affect more than 70% of the population of the planet.
If a conflict of that nature should break out there, the government of Barack Obama in his second mandate would be buried in a deluge of images which would present him as the most sinister character in the history of the United States. The duty of avoiding war is also his and that of the people of the United States.
http://www.granma.cu/Fotos%202013/abril/firma-fidel-5abril.jpg
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 4, 2013
11:12 p.m.

[TheEmancipator]

"Unbiased" is not real. If I provide you with links from the DPRK or any organizations in contact/support of them, you will say they are not trustworthy and biased. If I give you bourgeois links then they will clearly be biased against the DPRK.

So don't ask me to do something you don't actually want me to do.


OK, I'll take that as a no then. Why do you permit yourself to defend the DPR Korea when you admit that you do not trust any sources? Have you been there?

[Leftsolidarity]

OK, I'll take that as a no then. Why do you permit yourself to defend the DPR Korea when you admit that you do not trust any sources? Have you been there?

No, I am saying there are not links that you would accept as unbiased because you will say that anything the DPRK reports or anyone who is actually in contact with them is biased and you will dismiss it. So I am not going to bother looking for some article that you deem true.

[TheEmancipator]

No, I am saying there are not links that you would accept as unbiased because you will say that anything the DPRK reports or anyone who is actually in contact with them is biased and you will dismiss it. So I am not going to bother looking for some article that you deem true.

And do these sources detail a socialist state or is it just anti-imperialist bullshit? Why don't you post your trustworthy sources on North Korea.

[RedHal]

Granted, I'm not defending the actions of the US either (nor would I ever defend such acts). I'm simply stating that the DPRK aren't doing anything to help their cause by responding to the US with nuclear threats. The United States is the bully on the block, they will flex their muscles and they will push you. The DPRK is taking the bait.

the DPRK is not taking the bait, they are playing their nuclear hand. The US might be a bunch of ravaging imperialists, but they are not insane. They are not going to risk a nuclear war and sacrifice South Korea and their other Asian allies. Domestically for the US it will also be disastrous. Even the mightiest military the world has even known, cannot just ignore a nuclear threat, it's all part of the DPRK's strategy of getting the US back to the negotiating table.

Now if you think the DPRK ruling class are just a bunch of insane despots, than you've watched too much racists mainstream depictions of the DPRK. Like other ruling classes, they want to preserve their elite status' and not risk total annihilation from invasion or using nuclear weapons.

To get a better understanding of the past and current situation on the Korean peninsula, visit www.nodutdol.org, the are progressive Koreans living in the US. You can also listen to the WBAI radio show Asia Pacific Forum, http://www.asiapacificforum.org/ , their last show was on the Korean crisis.

[cyu]

The United States is the bully on the block, they will flex their muscles and they will push you. The DPRK is taking the bait.


Maybe they are, and maybe the NK reaction hasn't been run through the right focus groups, but when a bully flexes their muscles, cowering in fear helps nobody but the bully.

[Greek Warrior]

Supporters of the DPRK are not necessarily supporters of Juche and the Kim family. Most of them support the North Korean regime in the name of anti - imperialism.
DPRK has been under embargo and threatened with war by the USA for a long time. Since the collapse of socialism in the 1990's, this country stopped receiving any kind of free aid from Russia, such as financial aid, petroleum, food, electricity, etc. The North Korean people are supposed to stand on their own feet, and their state has to survive without getting any help, withstand the western embargo and protect itself from potential war threats or USA attempts to topple DPRK government.
The only solution for that country is to have a very powerful army, devoted citizens (this requires a lot of state propaganda, and there is plenty of it in the DPRK) and a totalitarian government. So, Juche is totally effective and suits North Korea perfectly.
The only one to be blamed for the division of Korea is the USA. And Korea is probably never going to get unified, because of the USA.
Kim Jong Un is neither a democrat, nor a communist. He is a national socialist dictator. So was his late father.
However, they are effectively protecting their country and their people from the United States of Imperialism. Without the Kim family, North Korea would be under US influence, just like South Korea, with all the bad consequences of capitalism and US colonialism.
At least, the North Korean people have free housing, free electricity, (with frequent blackouts, though), free water, free food, free education, free healthcare, no unemployment, no taxes, probably no crime or drug trafficking, and lots of other things that do not exist in the South.
US propaganda about North Korea is not to be taken seriously.
Surely, North Korea is not Heaven. There is a lot of bad things happening there.
But there is also something on which probably everyone agrees:
DPRK is one of the very few countries in the world that give the middle finger to imperialist monsters.
The imperialists have attacked and completely destroyed many countries.
But they will never attack the DPRK. Because they can't.

[Comrade Jacob]

...probably no crime or drug trafficking...

This is not the case here comrade, meth & LSD is a large trade in the DPRK. Not the 70% b.s you here on the news but still large.