Victim-blaming, Orwell, and “North Korea�

[Leftsolidarity]

"Victim-blaming, Orwell, and “North Korea”

Posted on May 12, 2013 by CANTJAILTHEREVOLUTION



“When the U.S. vilifies or threatens war against a people, our instinct should be to unconditionally and vocally oppose this aggression, rather than scrutinize the victim.”

by Andy Koch

I walk out of the job training classroom and into a nearby break room. A small group of recent college graduates in their early twenties, all of them white, sit around a table with coffee. We’re all just starting out as new nurses at the local state hospital.

Person A: “Did you see that thing on CNN last night? That crazy north Korean dictator guy, Kim Jing-Jong or whatever? Like, launched another nuclear bomb?”

Person B: “That whole frickin’ country is crazy. They’re all so brainwashed, it’s just unbelievable. It’s like that book, 1984 … it’s like there is ACTUALLY a real country that is exactly like that, with big brother watching you, and everything is propaganda.”

Person C: “I don’t know what’s taking Obama so long to take care of it, you know? It would be for their own good, like Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It’s the same deal. What’s the military for if not for taking care of these Hitler-type guys and shutting down their torture chambers and concentration camps?”

I’ve just met most of these folks for the first time, and from my experience, someone who barely knows you probably isn’t going to give an unpopular opinion any thought. While my politics are opposed to this kind of jingoism, I decided to pick my battle and not take issue with what they were saying. Sometimes it just doesn’t seem worth it, especially when I don’t know how hostile my job environment might be to my politics. Overhearing the conversation brought up feelings of sadness and frustration for me – just another reminder of how much I feel at odds with the war-loving society I live in.

These life-long United States residents’ comparison of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK for short, referred to in U.S. corporate media as “north Korea”) to the fictional society that George Orwell describes in the novel “1984” struck me as particularly ironic. 1984 paints a picture of a global state of affairs in which the powerful rulers of each of three super-states maintain dominance of their respective societies through endless war, constant surveillance, secret detentions and prisons, and a complete stranglehold on information and public thought through propaganda. Now, I honestly don’t know if this comparison applies to the DPRK – I’ve never been there, and isn’t a whole lot of reliable information available to us in the United States about the nation. However, I think the comparison certainly applies to a place I’m more familiar with – the United States.

[B]Victim-Blaming

Most progressives and liberals I know would strongly oppose placing the blame for a sexual assault on the victim. Unlike the mainstream media, they would never ask of a survivor: “Well, what were you wearing? Why were you alone in that area?” This comes from the progressive instinct to side with the oppressed, to believe the victim, to look closely at who was the aggressor and who had the power in any situation. This is an essential act of solidarity which helps to break down oppression.

Unfortunately, among most of the progressive movement in the U.S., this opposition to victim-blaming does not generally apply to oppressed nations. When the U.S. wages war on or vilifies a nation, such as Iraq, Libya, Cuba, or the DPRK, the first place liberals and progressives look is at the victim. “They lack civil liberties, that’s not the kind of society I want”… “that country is a dictatorship”… “their leader is crazy.” I remember hearing no end to the reasons why Libyan leader Ghaddafi was a bad guy from the mouths of progressives, but fewer statements of opposition to the NATO bombing campaign that ensued, killing thousands of civilians.

Why do we jump at the opportunity to justify U.S. aggression? The DPRK isn’t perfect, but why do we need to list its imperfections every time the U.S. threatens war against this oppressed nation that has suffered under white, Western colonialism and imperialism for more than a century? This is victim-blaming on an international scale. When the U.S. vilifies or threatens war against a people, our first instinct must be to unconditionally and vocally oppose this aggression, rather than scrutinize the victim.

Endless War

There hasn’t been a single year that I’ve been alive in which the U.S. didn’t carry out some kind of military operation against the people of another country. The capitalist ruling class benefits immensely from these wars through the seizure of resources, destruction of “disobedient” governments, profitable contracts for the production of weaponry, and by distracting the working class by whipping up racism and xenophobia. Being told every day by a highly polished media that you are in danger of being killed by terrorists distracts the masses of people from the fact that they are 8 times more likely to be killed by the police (1).

The US media portrays the DPRK as hyper-militarist, always itching to start a nuclear war. Is this the case? How can we judge this objectively? I find that looking historically at the actions which nations take, rather than the rhetoric coming from their leaders, is most useful in determining the objective character of these nations. How many aggressive wars has the US – either on its own or with NATO – waged in the past fifty years? Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, plus countless military interventions fought by US-funded proxy forces such as in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Palestine, and more.

How many countries has the DPRK invaded? None, though some right-wingers might argue that north Korea invaded south Korea during the US’s 1950-53 war which claimed more than 3 million Korean lives. I don’t consider attempting to take back territory under colonial control to be an invasion, however – and by 1950, Korea had been under colonial subjugation for over 40 years, by Japan, then France, then the United States. Taking back your national territory from a colonial or imperial occupying army isn’t an invasion – it’s the right of an oppressed people.

Constant Surveillance, Secret Detentions & Prisons

Warrantless wiretapping has become a routine operation of the US Department of Justice since the start of the US government’s “War on Terror.” According to the ACLU, “more people were subjected to [telephone wiretapping] surveillance in the past two years [2009 and 2010] than in the entire previous decade… The number of authorizations the Justice Department received to use these devices on individuals’ email and network data increased 361% between 2009 and 2011.” (2) During the Bush administration, wiretapping and other breaches of civil rights were fiercely protested. However, once Obama came into office, much of the liberal movement against these attacks packed up and went home, much like the liberal anti-war movement. The rapid erosion of privacy and other civil liberties under the Obama administration hardly registered on most liberal and progressive activists’ radar. I’d like to go more in depth about secret detentions, prisons, and police repression in the US, but a thorough look at these issues would require a discussion of its own. I think it’s enough just to point out that the US has more prisoners than any other country in the world – 2.3 million, disproportionately Black, Native, and Latino. China, with more than four times the US population, has 600,000 fewer prisoners than the US. Looking at it from another angle, the United States, with five percent of the world’s population, has over 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. (3) Given the magnitude of the police state at home, it’s no wonder the U.S. exports prisons around the world, from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Grahib and countless other CIA “black sites.”

Propaganda

The U.S. corporate media is the most expensive, sophisticated propaganda machine in the world – all the more effective because it disguises itself so well as a “free press.” There hasn’t been a single war that the U.S. has waged in the past twenty years that didn’t have the full support of all the major media, from Fox News to the New York Times. Even today no major news outlet is willing or able to expose drone killings, challenge the basic logic of the war on terror, or defend the rights of oppressed nations to self-determination. This is because they are all the private property of the capitalist ruling class – for example, the Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News along with countless other media holdings. Why would we expect the media to represent the interests of anyone but their owners? The media promote what is profitable and beneficial to the capitalist class: racism, war, sexism, etc. The U.S. propaganda system is so effective that the majority of the progressive and left movement is thoroughly misled by it. Remember when Fox, CNN, etc. told us that it was necessary to impose a “no-fly zone” over Libya in order to save its people from their murderous dictator? How many progressives, liberals, and leftists did you see adopt almost an identical position? Maybe they had a little more nuanced approach, and said something like “we are for a no-fly zone but against NATO and Gaddhafi” or “against a no-fly zone but for the Libyan rebels.” How did that turn out? NATO bombed what was once the nation with the highest living standard in Africa into submission, destroying almost all its public infrastructure. Tens of thousands of civilians died in these attacks. “Rebel” groups lynched Black Africans living in Libya by the hundreds. Libya’s government was destroyed, and replaced by a NATO-supported ruling clique which has yet to establish a functional government. We have to learn from these historical lessons – we have to oppose all imperialist war. And yet, even as I write this, an almost identical situation is happening in Syria.

Footnotes

(1) – Data from the 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, analyzed by The Progressive Review, Feb. 9, 2009. http://prorev.com/2009/02/cop-is-more-likely-to-kill-you-than.html

(2) – “New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance” by Naommi Gilens, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, Sept. 27, 2012. http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase

(3) “U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other countries” by Adam Liptak for The New York Times, April 23, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/america/23iht-23prison.12253738.html



http://cantjailtherevolution.org/2013/05/12/victim-blaming-orwell-and-north-korea/

[evermilion]

“When the U.S. vilifies or threatens war against a people, our instinct should be to unconditionally and vocally oppose this aggression, rather than scrutinize the victim.”

This. So much.

[Crixus]

I'll criticize North Korea's claim to socialism as a Marxist. I'll oppose the US's hostility as a Marxist. I'll criticize the US and global capitalism as a Marxist. I'll say North Korea because it is north of South Korea and it's not a democratic republic. Of course the US controls public opinion and isn't an actual democracy either but bourgeois democracy gives more freedom of thought and movement than North Korea (this would obviously change if the system were actually threatened). North Korea isn't an example of socialism to be defended but this doesn't mean Marxists or anyone should support war being waged. All of this should be obvious to whoever wrote this piece. I wouldn't think the guy is a Marxist or Anarchist. Edit: I guess he is. Ouch.

[evermilion]

Of course the US controls public opinion and isn't an actual democracy either but bourgeois democracy gives more freedom of thought and movement than North Korea (this would obviously change if the system were actually threatened).

What's frustrating to me is that you don't see the contradiction, here. At the same time, U.S. controls public opinion and offers freedom of thought and movement. That doesn't make sense. Also consider that the information about north Korea you're getting is not coming to you through objective account; the same bourgeois democracies that control public opinion control the dissemination of media. Given that, I really don't know by what measure you've come to establish that north Korea is less free than the United States. We can tell it is for the fact that the entire country is kept on constant high alert and is besieged by almost universal sanction. The Marxist acknowledges that this isn't the fault of some autocrat sipping cognac and people worshiping a dead man; we need to understand north Korea in dialectic with other things. Consider the United States interest in the Korean peninsula. Consider its history.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I’ve just met most of these folks for the first time, and from my experience, someone who barely knows you probably isn’t going to give an unpopular opinion any thought. While my politics are opposed to this kind of jingoism, I decided to pick my battle and not take issue with what they were saying. Sometimes it just doesn’t seem worth it, especially when I don’t know how hostile my job environment might be to my politics. Overhearing the conversation brought up feelings of sadness and frustration for me – just another reminder of how much I feel at odds with the war-loving society I live in.

This. 1000 times this! it's worth emphasizing that this is a problem for Marxists and anarcho-communists no matter where they stand on the DPRK.

Also I don't think it's fair to caricature anti-imperialists as being pro-corrupt-cognac-sipping-bureaucrat "useful idiots". I dislike the leadership of the DPRK as well, but a war would be nothing but disastrous for the DPRK's workers. Anything less than firm opposition to U.S. warmongering on the Korean peninsula is anti-communist---period, regardless of whether "Juche" or Western capitalism is "worse".

[Crixus]

What's frustrating to me is that you don't see the contradiction, here. At the same time, U.S. controls public opinion and offers freedom of thought and movement. That doesn't make sense.

It makes plenty sense. It's bourgeois democracy with the ruling classes ideas being projected onto the masses. Sure the US is Orwellian but not in the same sense as North Korea. I can come on this site and lambast the state, oppose capitalism and organize in the community, actions against both the state and capitalism. Kautsky and Marx spoke of the benefits of bourgeois democracy in building a workers movement. In 'socialist' Korea they're running with the baton that Stalin created. 'Socialism' in an isolated nation has no other path but to be authoritarian in order to keep people in line with the party and to stop bourgeois capitalism from overtaking the region. I'll say North Korea, on a scale of authoritarianism, as far as control of the citizenry, is on a higher scale than the US and the control is done in different ways. It's not an example of socialism to be defended. This doesn't mean the USA is an example of democracy and freedom.







Also consider that the information about north Korea you're getting is not coming to you through objective account

All propaganda! All of it! Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. It was all socialism proper! OK. Sure. I don't criticize North Korea from watching FOX news, MSNBC or CNN. I criticize the system there as a Marxist. North Korea, Juche ideology, Songun, is shit. It's a military dictatorship headed by one family. Socialism it is not.





the same bourgeois democracies that control public opinion control the dissemination of media. Given that, I really don't know by what measure you've come to establish that north Korea is less free than the United States.

Via Marxist analysis of Juche ideology. By applying historical materialism to the conditions there which gave rise to authoritarianism. By watching hours of video from North Korea and by reading their own strange propaganda.




We can tell it is for the fact that the entire country is kept on constant high alert and is besieged by almost universal sanction. The Marxist acknowledges that this isn't the fault of some autocrat sipping cognac and people worshiping a dead man; we need to understand north Korea in dialectic with other things. Consider the United States interest in the Korean peninsula. Consider its history.

I'm fully aware of the material conditions which gave rise to Korea's authoritarianism and also the theoretical underpinnings of their society. I'm not in the mood to argue the merits of Juche ideology nor Stalinist ideology.

[Akshay!]

Number of nuclear weapons in US - 5113.
Number of nuclear weapons in North Korea - 12.
Number of nuclear weapons used by US - 2.
Number of nuclear weapons used by the rest of the world combined - 0.

I wonder who's the "threat" here...

[Crixus]

Number of nuclear weapons in US - 5113.
Number of nuclear weapons in North Korea - 12.
Number of nuclear weapons used by US - 2.
Number of nuclear weapons used by the rest of the world combined - 0.

I wonder who's the "threat" here...
The US global capitalist police obviously but this still doesn't mean North Korea should be defended as a socialist state. They should be defended from US aggression while being criticized for not representing socialism. This shouldn't be hard to understand yes?

[evermilion]

It makes plenty sense. It's bourgeois democracy with the ruling classes ideas being projected onto the masses. Sure the US is Orwellian but not in the same sense as North Korea.

I think I may have asked this, but how is it you've come to know that? How did you learn that this is indeed fact? I'm not asking you to restate your conclusion or finding; I know what it is. I want to know where that information is coming form. Let me repeat the experiment and see if I come to the same conclusions.


I can come on this site and lambast the state, oppose capitalism and organize in the community, actions against both the state and capitalism. Kautsky and Marx spoke of the benefits of bourgeois democracy in building a workers movement. In 'socialist' Korea they're running with the baton that Stalin created. 'Socialism' in an isolated nation has no other path but to be authoritarian in order to keep people in line with the party and to stop bourgeois capitalism from overtaking the region. I'll say North Korea, on a scale of authoritarianism, as far as control of the citizenry, is on a higher scale than the US and the control is done in different ways. It's not an example of socialism to be defended. This doesn't mean the USA is an example of democracy and freedom.Allow me to quote, if I may, none other than J.V. Stalin:


The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomena in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with surrounding conditions but divorced from them; and that, vice-versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena.


Everything depends on the conditions, time and place. It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible…

Do you get where I'm going with this? You've implied that these diversions from true Marxist socialist development are due to the individual decisions and personality of Stalin, for the most part. You've attributed the development of entire countries to the personal failings of individual men. By what measure is that at all Marxist? We can't come to a scientific understanding of historical development that way; we'd be on a witch hunt for would-be dictators.


All propaganda! All of it! Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. It was all socialism proper! OK. Sure. I don't criticize North Korea from watching FOX news, MSNBC or CNN. I criticize the system there as a Marxist. North Korea, Juche ideology, Songun, is shit. It's a military dictatorship headed by one family. Socialism it is not.

Okay, I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm suggesting you scrutinize and own up to where you get your information. You owe it to yourself if you consider yourself a fellow Marxist. And Songun political method is what keeps the country from getting rolled over by tanks from the south.


Via Marxist analysis of Juche ideology.You came to a materialist understanding of the current conditions of north Korea by reading books about ideology. You must not think very much of me if this is what you brought to the table.


By applying historical materialism to the conditions there which gave rise to authoritarianism.What does this part even mean? If you were looking at history with any kind of materialist mindset, you wouldn't be attributing the formation of an entire nation to ideology.


By watching hours of video from North KoreaHours? Literally hours? Were you filming a documentary?


... and by reading their own strange propaganda.Do you even remember what you're supposed to be convincing me of right now? As to how you've used materialist analysis to determine with certainty, while never having been to north Korea, that the U.S. is "freer" than north Korea? And you did this by reading propaganda? I get that this can inform your understanding of other things, but not once have you mentioned anything from north Korea's actual history besides the Juche idea. I've seen nothing about Japanese imperialism, United States imperialism, universal sanction, and the threat of nuclear annihilation and the constant threat of invasion stoked by war games in the south. A materialist would have at least touched upon each of this things,


I'm fully aware of the material conditions which gave rise to Korea's authoritarianism and also the theoretical underpinnings of their society. I'm not in the mood to argue the merits of Juche ideology nor Stalinist ideology.I'm actually a little offended by the bold part. I mean, how dare you post all this and actually say that at the end?

[evermilion]

The US global capitalist police obviously but this still doesn't mean North Korea should be defended as a socialist state. They should be defended from US aggression while being criticized for not representing socialism. This shouldn't be hard to understand yes?

What shouldn't be hard to understand is that there is a spectrum of socialistic development. Even countries we can call not socialist are somewhere along this line, many closer to the beginning of capitalism than the end of it. Given north Korea's history, though, I have to say they're not doing bad for themselves.

[Rurkel]

Do you even remember what you're supposed to be convincing me of right now? As to how you've used materialist analysis to determine with certainty, while never having been to north Korea, that the U.S. is "freer" than north Korea?
So, Marxists and other leftists who never been to the US, should refrain from criticising the US? The whole "have you BEEEN there, punk" argument is ridiculous.

[goalkeeper]

this is complete crap.

[Luís Henrique]

What shouldn't be hard to understand is that there is a spectrum of socialistic development. Even countries we can call not socialist are somewhere along this line, many closer to the beginning of capitalism than the end of it. Given north Korea's history, though, I have to say they're not doing bad for themselves.

Effectively, what seems to be very hard to understand is that such continuum or spectrum does not exist. There is no such thing as 10% socialist or 90% socialist.

Luís Henrique

[RedHal]

when it comes to the DPRK, liberals, progressives and libertarian leftists turn into Fox News viewers, to them the DPRK is absolute evil-hell on earth.

[Leftsolidarity]

this is complete crap.

That's a great one-liner there. Would you like to add to the discussion or just break board rules while showing you don't have anything productive to say?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Take your false dichotomies and stuff them somewhere else please. I will be critical of the leaders of the USA and of the DPRK.


Okay, I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm suggesting you scrutinize and own up to where you get your information. You owe it to yourself if you consider yourself a fellow Marxist. And Songun political method is what keeps the country from getting rolled over by tanks from the south.

That's ridiculous. There's no evidence that the DPRK needs to spend more than a quarter of their GDP on maintaining their military. The fact is that their military is MORE than enough to deter any kind of attack. A defensive military does not need to vastly outnumber its opponent in most areas. They could similarly deter attacks with much less military spending than under their current regime. Their military is designed not just to defend the country against the RoK, but to destroy substantial portions of the RoK and seize most of its territory if possible.

Nor is it an effective policy. Each year that the DPRK stagnates economically because it invests more in military than economic development, the more tanks the RoK can afford to build in the long term. In many years the food supply is precarious or even not enough to feed their people, either commoners need to be starved to feed the military or the soldiers themselves face malnourishment. The fact is that the DPRK's military is much too big for their economy to support, or to allow for real economic growth.

Nor can you prove that comment true. It's an unsupported counter-factual claim. How do we know for sure that the USA and RoK necessarily would have attacked with lower military spending? There's really no evidence to back that up. Of course, every nation in the world sees attacks by other countries as some kind of inherent risk, so they do build militaries, and it would be rational for the DPRK to do the same to deter an attack. I don't think anyone would be surprised if North Korea spent more than the average country on its military. However most countries don't see the need to spend 25% of their GDP on it, or have 1/20th of its population in the military (to say nothing of the reserves). That they're a Stalinist power that the US opposes doesn't change things - Cuba spends much less of its GDP on its military and is much closer to the United States, yet manages to not get invaded. Cuba also does much more to physically support revolutionaries or supposed "revolutionaries" around the world.

The reality is that the Songun policy goes well beyond the need to deter the South Koreans and USA.

[vizzek]

:rolleyes:

the DPRK is on the side of Russian and Chinese imperialism. that is undeniable. you aren't doing anything productive or pro-communist or whatever by supporting them; you are simply supporting the opposing empire (not something new for stalinists but w/e).

i cant wait to be called a petit-bourgeois liberal fox news viewer for taking a materialist position.

[TheEmancipator]

I do not see how trying to support one nation's doctrine in favour of another when both are imperialist, militarist regimes is necessary. This isn't a fucking computer game, where its X vs Y, there are numerous geopolitical factors in this conflict.

Ultimetatly, the North Korean regime is a far more Orwellian regime than the United States, which however is firmly on the road to such madness. But North Korea prioritises the military as the revolutionary force, sabre rattles its way into scare mongering and scapegoating and is a hereditary one-man dictatorship. There is absolutely nothing remotely Marxist in their constitution anymore that isn't a superficial lie.

That does not mean that I want to see the US invade Korea, despite the venimous accusations that will follow. I want the working classes in Korea to topple their military dictatorship and establish a socialist society.

[TheEmancipator]

when it comes to the DPRK, liberals, progressives and libertarian leftists turn into Fox News viewers, to them the DPRK is absolute evil-hell on earth.

And if Nazi Germany had a Hammer and Sickle instead of a swastika, you would support it. I can come up with massive, overblown generalisations too, but in this case I'm probably half-right.

[evermilion]

So, Marxists and other leftists who never been to the US, should refrain from criticising the US? The whole "have you BEEEN there, punk" argument is ridiculous.

Not even close to my actual argument. The "materialist analysis" I'm talking about is someone having caught maybe a glimpse of footage on NBC and then reading about Juche.


Effectively, what seems to be very hard to understand is that such continuum or spectrum does not exist. There is no such thing as 10% socialist or 90% socialist.

Luís Henrique

Also missing the point, which is that society develops toward socialism, but not always evenly. We need to understand where the D.P.R.K. stands in relation to socialist development, not merely to say it's simply "fascist" and that's that.


That's ridiculous. There's no evidence that the DPRK needs to spend more than a quarter of their GDP on maintaining their military. The fact is that their military is MORE than enough to deter any kind of attack. A defensive military does not need to vastly outnumber its opponent in most areas. They could similarly deter attacks with much less military spending than under their current regime. Their military is designed not just to defend the country against the RoK, but to destroy substantial portions of the RoK and seize most of its territory if possible.

The above is indefensible.


Nor is it an effective policy. Each year that the DPRK stagnates economically because it invests more in military than economic development, the more tanks the RoK can afford to build in the long term. In many years the food supply is precarious or even not enough to feed their people, either commoners need to be starved to feed the military or the soldiers themselves face malnourishment. The fact is that the DPRK's military is much too big for their economy to support, or to allow for real economic growth.

And this is the result of "mismanagement," perhaps? Do no other countries maybe have a vested interest in the stagnation of the D.P.R.K.'s economy?


Nor can you prove that comment true. It's an unsupported counter-factual claim.

And why is that? It's already a well-known fact. Julian E. Barnes in two March 29, 2013 articles in the Wall Street post interviewed actual defense specialists from Washington who admitted to a "playbook" on provoking north Korea as a measure of keeping it on high alert to drain its precious resources. Korean specialist Tim Beal describes this exact process as "sub-critical warfare." You also can't demonstrate a positive claim you made: that north Korea's economy stagnates as a result of ineffective management.

[evermilion]

And if Nazi Germany had a Hammer and Sickle instead of a swastika, you would support it. I can come up with massive, overblown generalisations too, but in this case I'm probably half-right.

Looks like Nazis have made their inevitable appearance. Everybody, abandon thread!

[TheEmancipator]

Looks like Nazis have made their inevitable appearance. Everybody, abandon thread!

Hmm, usually its Stalin on RevLeft, isn't it?

[evermilion]

Hmm, usually its Stalin on RevLeft, isn't it?

You take a drink every time someone mentions Stalin, and you finish your drink when Ismail mentions Hoxha. We've lost so many good posters to liver failure.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The above is indefensible.


The above is a fallacy. Actually, even fallacies are closer to an actual argument



And this is the result of "mismanagement," perhaps? Do no other countries maybe have a vested interest in the stagnation of the D.P.R.K.'s economy?


Not "mismanagement" so much as insufficient investment (though I'm sure mismanagement has been a problem to, as it is in all economies to varying degrees). It takes labor to maintain a military - that labor can be used to improve and expand on the means of production, too. Ergo, labor used to sustain the military could alternatively been done to expand the means of production.




And why is that? It's already a well-known fact. Julian E. Barnes in two March 29, 2013 articles in the Wall Street post interviewed actual defense specialists from Washington who admitted to a "playbook" on provoking north Korea as a measure of keeping it on high alert to drain its precious resources. Korean specialist Tim Beal describes this exact process as "sub-critical warfare."

Yeah that's the whole point - the USA knows that if the DPRK spends too much on its military to maintain its economy, it will remain limited. What's interesting is that the DPRK responds precisely in the manner which fits with the interests of the US - by under-investing in the actual productive base in their economy.


You also can't demonstrate a positive claim you made: that north Korea's economy stagnates as a result of ineffective management.

Again, not ineffective management, but insufficient investment. It's generally difficult if not impossible to predict the actions of major powers, especially over a long period of time, but it's easy to predict that insufficient economic investment would result in a smaller production base.

[evermilion]

The above is a fallacy. Actually, even fallacies are closer to an actual argument

You neglect to mention what about what I said makes it a fallacy. I know you just learned that word in Debate 101, but tossing it around doesn't make you more right.


Not "mismanagement" so much as insufficient investment (though I'm sure mismanagement has been a problem to, as it is in all economies to varying degrees). It takes labor to maintain a military - that labor can be used to improve and expand on the means of production, too. Ergo, labor used to sustain the military could alternatively been done to expand the means of production.And why do you think they don't have sufficient capital to invest in other areas of the economy?


Yeah that's the whole point - the USA knows that if the DPRK spends too much on its military to maintain its economy, it will remain limited. What's interesting is that the DPRK responds precisely in the manner which fits with the interests of the US - by under-investing in the actual productive base in their economy.I'll agree it's interesting, but that you blame the D.P.R.K. for responding in this way is what baffles me. What other options do they actually have? What can you realistically suggest that the government do, then? What would you do differently and why do you think you'd have the luxury of doing so?

[MarxSchmarx]

this is complete crap.


That's a great one-liner there. Would you like to add to the discussion or just break board rules while showing you don't have anything productive to say?

Just to be clear, goalkeeper, this is a verbal warning for a one-liner.



And if Nazi Germany had a Hammer and Sickle instead of a swastika, you would support it. I can come up with massive, overblown generalisations too, but in this case I'm probably half-right. Looks like Nazis have made their inevitable appearance. Everybody, abandon thread!

Emancipator made their post in earnest. You should try to engage people more constructively.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You neglect to mention what about what I said makes it a fallacy.


Actually I said it wouldn't even pass as a fallacy, because what you said wasn't even mimicking an argument. Just dismissing what someone said is not an argument, nor could it pass for one.


I know you just learned that word in Debate 101, but tossing it around doesn't make you more right.I'm so beyond "debate team" you wouldn't know where to start but nice try at a flame. That's an ad hominem btw.



And why do you think they don't have sufficient capital to invest in other areas of the economy?
Because they spend too much $$$ on their military? Don't say "Why is that???" implying "because they are threatened by the USA" because we have established that the regime feels threatened. The question is whether or not military overspending on their level is actually reasonable in this case.



I'll agree it's interesting, but that you blame the D.P.R.K. for responding in this way is what baffles me. What other options do they actually have? What can you realistically suggest that the government do, then? What would you do differently and why do you think you'd have the luxury of doing so?Um, refocusing their military spending on defensive systems (for instance they have one of the world's largest tank armadas - a force which is most cost effective on offense, not defense, especially if one is facing US air power as the Gulf War proved) and using those savings to bolster their economy. I'm criticizing the priorities of their government because it is not some powerless victim tied to the whims of evil imperialists but an autonomous entity able to invest its resources well or invest them badly.

[evermilion]

Actually I said it wouldn't even pass as a fallacy, because what you said wasn't even mimicking an argument. Just dismissing what someone said is not an argument, nor could it pass for one.

So why has that been more or less all of what you've said so far? All I'm getting from you is "Nuh uh! Their military spending sucks!"


I'm so beyond "debate team" you wouldn't know where to start but nice try at a flame. That's an ad hominem btw.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem


Because they spend too much $$$ on their military? Duh
You should try to engage people more constructively.


Um, refocusing their military spending on defensive systems (for instance they have one of the world's largest tank armadas - a force which is most cost effective on offense, not defense, especially if one is facing US air power as the Gulf War proved) and using those savings to bolster their economy. I'm criticizing the priorities of their government because it is not some powerless victim tied to the whims of evil imperialists but an autonomous entity able to invest its resources well or invest them badly.

And what actual evidence have you to show that a shift in resource allocation priorities in north Korea will work out just fine for them? Jesus, you spend more time lobbing introductory debate vocabulary than you do actually explaining anything. And you call my arguments baseless.

[Lucretia]

I think it is highly dishonest, at the very least, to suggest that Marxists have to chose between opposing imperialism and opposing the highly oppressive, anti-worker political leadership of the countries that might be the target of imperialism. But leave it to a member of the WWP/PSL to insists on this dichotomy, then to prioritize the imperialism question over the domestic politics one. We are in a "global class war" after all -- where the participants aren't workers and capitalists, but state systems. Or so the Marcyites would have us believe.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So why has that been more or less all of what you've said so far? All I'm getting from you is "Nuh uh! Their military spending sucks!"

That's because you obviously ignored all the arguments I gave for why military overspending sucks. You obviously didnt read my argument - first time around you said I was talking about "mismanagement" which wasn't my point at all. Instead of trying to lecture other people on the internet on the finer details of debate (I have nothing to learn from you about "rhetoric") how about you focus on closer reading skills?



And what actual evidence have you to show that a shift in resource allocation priorities in north Korea will work out just fine for them? Jesus, you spend more time lobbing introductory debate vocabulary than you do actually explaining anything. And you call my arguments baseless.That's because you didn't have an argument except "that is indefensible" or "durrr ur frum debate team 101" as if either of those make your case. Dismissing or insulting people on the internet doesn't constitute an argument. How about you address my claims? Otherwise you are the only one who looks the fool.

I mentioned that they spent 25% of their military spending on GDP, that they have one of the world's largest tank forces, that other countries deter US invasion much more, the fact that the DPRK's military is more than powerful enough to deter an attack, and the fact that reinvesting that on economic productivity would actually improve the security of people in that country in the long term. You haven't actually challenged those claims. You seem more focused on insulting people or just dismissing their arguments, which is a juvenile way of debating.

[Crixus]

I said the US is indeed Orwellian but in different ways...


I think I may have asked this, but how is it you've come to know that? How did you learn that this is indeed fact? I'm not asking you to restate your conclusion or finding; I know what it is. I want to know where that information is coming form. Let me repeat the experiment and see if I come to the same conclusions.

I tried to contact my comrades in North Korea but their Kwangmyong won't allow it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmyong_%28network%29

[evermilion]

That's because you didn't have an argument except "that is indefensible" or "durrr ur frum debate team 101" as if either of those make your case.

And you did the same in your very first response to one of my posts. And you've made a lot of claims without actually backing any of them up. What exactly do I owe you, again?


I mentioned that they spent 25% of their military spending on GDP, that they have one of the world's largest tank forces, that other countries deter US invasion much more...

Stop right there. There aren't different levels of having prevented U.S. invasion. That the D.P.R.K. has yet to be invaded since the Korean War means they're preventing U.S. invasion effectively. Iraq has failed to prevent U.S. invasion on more than one occasion, for comparison.


...the fact that the DPRK's military is more than powerful enough to deter an attack...

Now, while you're probably going to ignore this in favor of reducing everything I write to a single, snide remark as a measure of ducking actual debate, I have to reiterate a question of mine: how do you know that? You've given me the percentage of GDP spent on the military and you've mentioned they have a lot of tanks, but by what line of research did you come to this conclusion?


...and the fact that reinvesting that on economic productivity would actually improve the security of people in that country in the long term.

See above.


You haven't actually challenged those claims.

See above.


You seem more focused on insulting people or just dismissing their arguments, which is a juvenile way of debating.

See further above.

[evermilion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmyong_%28network%29

You know, I clicked that link, thinking that, because you were showing it to me, it must have been some kind of special Wikipedia that I didn't have.

[Crixus]

You know, I clicked that link, thinking that, because you were showing it to me, it must have been some kind of special Wikipedia that I didn't have.
The point escapes you yes? I'm not defending bourgeois democracy as being preferable to communism (NK isn't communist or socialist in my view anyway) I'm saying under our current bourgeois capitalist system we have less outright/obvious social control. America is still disgustingly authoritarian but these things take on a more invisible process due to the economic system itself. Most of the people in prison in the US are there for lack of access to the means of sustenance. Poverty that the capitalist system depends on and manufactures. Those of us lucky enough to have jobs, food and a place to live enjoy (after work) more freedom of movement/thought/action than the average person in North Korea. Both are Orwellian when it comes to controlling peoples world view but in different ways. In the US capital does this by monopolizing media. The state usually stays out of it but the CIA has been known to place stories in the media. Hell, they might even be behind some of the major news networks or at least have carte blanche when it comes to inserting information. The US is indeed Orwellian but in North Korea it's more outright coercive rather than manipulative.

[evermilion]

The point escapes you yes?

That has to be it. The only other option is that I disagreed with you, which is absurd given how you cited Wikipedia.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And you did the same in your very first response to one of my posts. And you've made a lot of claims without actually backing any of them up. What exactly do I owe you, again?


No I didn't insult you or dismiss your arguments with a one liner. I know nothing about you and don't see how your personality traits or what debate classes you have taken are at all relevant. Nor have I just dismissed something you said as "indefensible" without giving a reason. I am doing my best to address your arguments, something you don't seem to be extending to me. Ironic how you are now accusing me of the things you are doing.



Stop right there. There aren't different levels of having prevented U.S. invasion. That the D.P.R.K. has yet to be invaded since the Korean War means they're preventing U.S. invasion effectively. Iraq has failed to prevent U.S. invasion on more than one occasion, for comparison.
Except that has nothing to do with what's at issue. Obviously they have not been invaded. The question is if their regime is justified in spending so much on its armed forces. The DPRK is in a much better defensive position than Iraq for many different reasons, from its mountainous terrain to the fact that it is adjacent to a military ally which has a national interest in the continuation of that state to the fact that its military is much more effectively fortified. That's to say nothing of its 8-12 nuclear arms. Also, unlike Iraq, it is not a Middle Eastern country sitting on a significant portion of the world's oil.



Now, while you're probably going to ignore this in favor of reducing everything I write to a single, snide remark as a measure of ducking actual debate, I have to reiterate a question of mine: how do you know that? You've given me the percentage of GDP spent on the military and you've mentioned they have a lot of tanks, but by what line of research did you come to this conclusion?
Um snide remarks? You're one to talk. What about merely referring to something as "indefensible" or referring to other people's academic history? Every time you've actually tried to make an argument I've responded but half the time you willingly misread it (say I'm talking about "mismanagement" when I never used that word) or dismiss it (like saying something is "indefensible" without bothering to explain why or what that even means)

As for my KNOWLEDGE, there are plenty of sources. Check wikipedia if you want (I don't have the time to go searching for more professional sources at this time for an internet forum at this point in my life). They have a whole website on the DPRK's armed forces and equipment levels of world militaries, as well as references to other sources. The 25% figure is one I've encountered before, and if you've heard a different one I'd be happy to hear it. I'm sure the 25% is a rough estimate because the DPRK's government itself is very opaque, although they are clearly proud of the fact that their armed forces are unusually powerful for a country with their economic status, based on their propaganda and state policy of Songun.

While its fair sometimes to ask for sources it wouldn't be possible to have debates over the internet if everyone had to go find an internet source for anyone who wanted proof that, say, investing more labor into the economy as opposed to the military helps to improve the economy. If someone makes a controversial claim, it's fair to ask for sources, but it's common sense that you can only make and operate so many tanks or tractors efficiently with a certain amount of steel and fuel. Moreso if one considers the impact of military overspending on countries in the past.

[evermilion]

No I didn't insult you or dismiss your arguments with a one liner. I know nothing about you and don't see how your personality traits or what debate classes you have taken are at all relevant. Nor have I just dismissed something you said as "indefensible" without giving a reason. I am doing my best to address your arguments, something you don't seem to be extending to me. Ironic how you are now accusing me of the things you are doing.

You dismissed the points of the post to which you were originally responding with a bunch of assertions, with nothing to back them up. I said that your position was indefensible and invested just as much work into demonstrating why and you did in demonstrating your assertions.

(I was going to quote your whiny little rant in which you completely misunderstood something I said; I was talking about my own snide remarks, snippy.)


As for my KNOWLEDGE, there are plenty of sources. Check wikipedia if you want (I don't have the time to go searching for more professional sources at this time for an internet forum at this point in my life).

If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, then, again, I don't see what I owe you. Your last paragraph is more defense about why you don't really have much more to tell me than to go back to Wikipedia and rummage around until I come to the same conclusions you do.

[Crixus]

That has to be it. The only other option is that I disagreed with you, which is absurd given how you cited Wikipedia.
Are you saying North Koreans have free flow access to the global internet?

[evermilion]

Are you saying North Koreans have free flow access to the global internet?

I don't know what it means to have "free flow access" nor why you felt it necessary to specify that the internet is, in fact, global. The situation in north Korea is that most Koreans have access to whatever pages are processed and censored by the government. Others have access to the internet outside of the intranet for governmental work.

That may strike you as inherently more oppressive, for whatever reason, but everything said online in the United States is potentially a matter of public record. All the government has to do is say to any given service provider, "Hand it over," and your private e-mails can be used against you in court. I don't know if this next part is true, but I'm gonna totally say it anyway: every single solitary tweet is in the Library of Congress. So a military government processes internet, while finance capital observes and records our every idea and movement. I see much more of Orwell in the United States, and a simple junta in north Korea.

[goalkeeper]

I don't know what it means to have "free flow access" nor why you felt it necessary to specify that the internet is, in fact, global. The situation in north Korea is that most Koreans have access to whatever pages are processed and censored by the government. Others have access to the internet outside of the intranet for governmental work.

That may strike you as inherently more oppressive, for whatever reason, but everything said online in the United States is potentially a matter of public record. All the government has to do is say to any given service provider, "Hand it over," and your private e-mails can be used against you in court. I don't know if this next part is true, but I'm gonna totally say it anyway: every single solitary tweet is in the Library of Congress. So a military government processes internet, while finance capital observes and records our every idea and movement. I see much more of Orwell in the United States, and a simple junta in north Korea.

Wow, talking of Orwell, this seems to be the sort of political writing he was railing against in Politics and the English Language. Such weasel words.

Are you seriously saying that overt censorship of the type the DPRK practices is preferable to the sort of monitoring the US does (which, we should add, doesn't bother to lock up the American users of this site)?

No, I don't know what "free flow access" to the internet is, but i'm sure you and I are closer to it than people who live in a state that people only "have access to whatever pages are processed and censored by the government."

[evermilion]

Wow, talking of Orwell, this seems to be the sort of political writing he was railing against in Politics and the English Language. Such weasel words.

Can you point out to me exactly which words you mean?


Are you seriously saying that overt censorship of the type the DPRK practices is preferable to the sort of monitoring the US does (which, we should add, doesn't bother to lock up the American users of this site)?

No, I'm saying that I don't really see one as being objectively "worse" than the other. And why would the government bother with locking anyone up from here? Hell, if RevLeft got north Korean users talking about assassinating Kim Jong-un, I doubt the D.P.R.K. would do anything about it just because of all the unproductive, pedantic, masturbatory "debates" that characterize this site. They'd be dead of malnourishment before they stopped arguing about the most ideologically correct method of killing a man.


No, I don't know what "free flow access" to the internet is, but i'm sure you and I are closer to it than people who live in a state that people only "have access to whatever pages are processed and censored by the government."

Great. Now I can watch a YouTube video about that crazy lady on Kitchen Nightmares while I'm taking a dump. I feel so empowered.

[Crixus]

Juche ideology is basically 'socialism in one country' isolated from global trade with more advanced capitalist states surrounding the 'socialist' state. Lacking a global communist revolution this 'socialist' state will be stuck in a perpetual stage of fighting counterrevolution which by it's very nature will manifest as an authoritarian society incapable of providing workers democracy. Yes indeed capitalism and the various capitalist states are the aggressors and are creating the problem and Korea was indeed the victim of imperialism or capitalism's necessity to spread by force and squash any alternative to capitalism BUT there is no hope for Korea to become actually socialist or communist without a global revolution. In this sense the best way to support North Korea is to fight for socialism in our own more advanced western nations.

We've been down the road of isolation and militarization during the cold war. Attempting to out compete the western bloc while supporting and or downright facilitating revolutions and proxy wars in other less advanced regions both set the stage for global annihilation of humanity and drained all of the resources of the Eastern Bloc which in turn forced them to open up to more capitalistic relations than they already had. This and the eventual fall of 'socialism' (the eastern bloc) will be blamed on revisionism after Stalins death but Marx/Engels all along were strongly of the opinion socialism can't exist in isolation without help from the more advanced nations. An isolated Korea perpetually having to oppose counterrevolution for ten, twenty, fifty years also puts in place institutionalized forms of control that are by their very nature meant to be authoritarian. With no more significant support from Russia/China combined with a hereditary cult of personality North Korea becomes reminiscent of Stalinist Russia (but at least Korea had the help of Russia/China after the Korean war decimated the region and didn't have to industrialize under the banner of 'socialism').

Yes NK is a product of capitalist aggression, no doubt, the Korean war itself was a travesty but at this point we need to realize socialism in isolation is impossible and only leads to the perversion of socialist goals. A perversion we should not ideologically defend but we should also be aware it is indeed a perversion born out of fighting for socialism in improper material conditions. If socialism is going to manifest and eventually communism to exist there needs to be a wave of revolutionary fervor in the western 'first world' or western bloc nations,also China/Russia/India. Juche ideology is essentially Korea saying 'this is our way, our path' and Marx/Engels wouldn't have agreed with it. It was necessary to revise orthodox Marxism in order to justify that path to 'socialism'. What did Korean workers know about running production? About running society? What sort of experience did they have with a democratic process? The party (in this case one family) has to control everything in order to keep it together through a cult of personality and strict military control. Is this socialism?

The same problem happened with Russia post 1917. The global proletariat left them hanging so to speak. The only way Marx theorized Russia could be socialist was with the help of more advanced nations. The theory of isolation and self reliance was born out of the lack of a global revolution and hence socialism was perverted ever since. It is indeed the fault of capitalism and workers in the more advanced capitalist nations but blame also lies at the feet of theorists and leaders who would prematurely try to push socialism on the globe and on societies/people not yet ready for it. This is what Lenin and later Stalin did in Russia and NK is simply continuing this line of attack.

There needs to be a sort of shift in consciousness with the global work force and I don't think this will begin to happen on a scale where global revolution is possible until capitalism ceases to be a productive system. During it's inevitable decay and periods of inevitable worsening crisis. As we're starting to see now. What North Korea accomplishes with it's attempt at isolated socialism (especially after Russia/China went obviously capitalist) is not much other that to be an example of 'socialism' where blatant scarcity and authoritarianism are the norm. Our job should be to both criticize the conditions there (cult of personality/authoritarianism), criticize the attempt at isolated socialism and also criticize the false scarcity and authoritarian nature of capitalism as it begins to decay as these effects become undeniable to workers in the more advanced nations. Without a global revolution or revolutions in the more advanced western bloc nations north Korea is only going to be more cut off from necessary resources and become more and more paranoid (and rightly so) that capitalism will infiltrate it's little island of 'socialism'. This will manifest as worsening material and social conditions within North Korea which will in turn be touted as the failure of socialism and it will be the failure of socialism because it was attempted in complete isolation. Capitalists know what they're doing and until the heart of the capitalist order becomes socialist there's no hope. That's the main point. Even if China/Russia go socialist it will simply reset the cold war. The main question is what will it take for workers in the more advanced western nations to say enough is enough? Can capitalism go on forever? Can socialism overtake capitalism from without? Are cults of personality and isolated 'socialism' what we should strive for? What's the proper path?

Is this the proper path (video below)?

SOwgCPMZ3iI

[Agathor]

If you think that the US is going to invade North Korea you're an idiot.

[La Guaneña]

I would just like to know if it would even be possible for the DPRK to be connected to the Internet, as I imagine the permits are under the control of some country, most likely not friendly to them.

[Rurkel]

There are special organizations in DPRK that have access to the Internet, like the ministry of foreign affairs and important high-level research facilities. DPRK also does have an Internet presence (http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/index.php), demonstrating the unstoppable march of the Korean people and leadership (legitimate leadership in Pyongyang, of course, in turn led by Glorious Comrade Kim Jong-Un) to a new era of technological progress.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I would just like to know if it would even be possible for the DPRK to be connected to the Internet, as I imagine the permits are under the control of some country, most likely not friendly to them.

North Koreans have a nation-wide "intranet" service called Kwangmyong. Some North Koreans do have internet access, but it's very selective---probably limited to officials in Pyongyang.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Regardless of whether the DPRK is socialist or not, no one should be supporting a US war against them. Just as no one should support a Russian war against Saudi Arabia, or a Polish war against Chile.

[Let's Get Free]

I oppose U.S. aggression against any nation, but you probably won't find me going out of my way to apologize for that disgusting little state-capitalist dictatorship.

[evermilion]

I oppose U.S. aggression against any nation, but you probably won't find me going out of my way to apologize for that disgusting little state-capitalist dictatorship.

In other words, you have absolutely nothing new, interesting, or thoughtful to add to this conversation.

God, I love RevLeft.

[Captain Ahab]

In other words, you have absolutely nothing new, interesting, or thoughtful to add to this conversation.

God, I love RevLeft.

This post of yours adds nothing new, interesting, or thoughtful to this conversation.

And neither does this one.

[evermilion]

This post of yours adds nothing new, interesting, or thoughtful to this conversation.

And neither does this one.

That post was so totally not desperate for attention I think my sarcasm gland shriveled up and died.