Fake N.Korea stories, as usual, convince gullible western press

[TC]

"Basically every viral-minded news website on the planet is running a story today about how North Korea is requiring men to get their hair cut like Kim Jong-un. Korea Times reports, citing Radio Free Asia, that “since about two weeks ago, men are allowed to have the ‘Dear Leader Kim Jong-un’ haircut only.” Another sources is quoted as saying that “Until the mid-2000, we called it the ‘Chinese smuggler haircut.’

Like most news out of the brutally repressive dictatorship/global meme generator, it should be treated with some skepticism and is already being picked apart to some extent. The sourcing is pretty thin, and NK News quotes some recent visitors to Pyongyang who don’t recall seeing people with unusual haircuts."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/26/that_story_about_north_koreans_being_required_to_g et_kim_jong_un_s_haircut.html





"It's a crazy story, but where did it come from? And should we believe it?
Well, let's first consider the source. For example, the BBC picked up the story on its News from Elsewhere blog, sourcing much of the story to the Korea Times, an English-language paper published by the Hankook Ilbo group. The Korea Times, meanwhile, appears to have gotten the story from Radio Free Asia, a non-profit funded in part by the United States government. Radio Free Asia's story only appears on the Korean-language version of its Web site, though a representative says that it will be translated soon.

Regarding the second question, most North Korean experts I reached out to seemed inclined to believe that the story couldn't be true.

"This sounds like BS to me," said Aidan Foster Carter, an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology & Modern Korea at Leeds University in Britain.

"For a start, no one else in North Korea seems to sport a Kim Jong Un hairdo!"
"I think we can add this to the long list of ridiculous news stories on North Korea," said Andray Abrahamian, Executive Director of Choson Exchange, a Singaporean non-profit providing training in business, economic policy and law to young North Koreans. "Everybody had typical haircuts there last week when we were there for a Women in Business program."

Chad O'Carroll, editor of the North Korean-watching website NKNews was also skeptical, forwarding a message from a reader of his Web site who had recently been in Pyongyang and had not seen Kim's haircut replicated anywhere. NK News has now written an article that argues the hairstyle order is "unlikely true," citing numerous sources."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/26/are-the-men-of-north-korea-really-being-forced-to-get-kim-jong-un-haircuts/

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Defend real socialism! Down with imperialism! For a better, more gulaggy, murderous, dictatorial world in the name of the party!

Liberation at last!

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't like NK but yeah this story has nothing to back it and should be laughed at.
When NKNews says it's bullshit = bullshit.

[DOOM]

Defend real socialism! Down with imperialism! For a better, more gulaggy, murderous, dictatorial world in the name of the party!

Liberation at last!

If we don't support NK, capitalism will win! US imperialist pigs will take over!
FOR THE GLORIOUS LEADER OF THE GREAT NATION OF KOREA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Kim_Il-sung.jpg/799px-Kim_Il-sung.jpg

[Brotto Rühle]

Anything bad about Best Korea is lies. Anything good is not. The logic of the "anti-imperialist".

[GerrardWinstanley]

Anything bad about Best Korea is lies. Anything good is not. The logic of the "anti-imperialist".Hahahahahahahahahahaha yeah, so true. Stupid America-hating commies.

[DOOM]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha yeah, so true. Stupid America-hating commies.

They call themselves anti-imperialists, you know.
As if every other communist is pro imperialism, duh.

[TC]

I oppose both the government of North Korea and false propaganda concocted out of a sense of smug superiority. I don't see any contradiction between these two positions. If you do and prefer your world not only divided between clear good and clear evil but require that evil to take on comic book style hilarity, I would invite you to develop a more nuanced position.

[GerrardWinstanley]

North Korea is the very personification of evil. Anybody who disagrees with me or makes fun of our dear liberal broadsheets for lying about it is a Stalinist.
*high five* *patriotic circle jerk*

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Defend real socialism! Down with imperialism! For a better, more gulaggy, murderous, dictatorial world in the name of the party!

Liberation at last!

Because everyone that insinuates that the DPRK isn't a nation of brainwashed subhumans ruled in a pharaonic manner by someone who is half Mengele and half one of the Three Stooges secretly has a massive hard-on for Kim's presumably virgin ass.

Maybe you were one of those people who accused everyone who doubted the testimony of that "Kuwaiti nurse" of secretly being a massive fan of Saddam Hussein.

Honestly this site should give up the pretension and change its name to Imper"Lef".

[Brotto Rühle]

because everyone that insinuates that the dprk isn't a nation of brainwashed subhumans ruled in a pharaonic manner by someone who is half mengele and half one of the three stooges secretly has a massive hard-on for kim's presumably virgin ass.

Maybe you were one of those people who accused everyone who doubted the testimony of that "kuwaiti nurse" of secretly being a massive fan of saddam hussein.

Honestly this site should give up the pretension and change its name to imper"lef".
Defend the glorious degenerated workers state of North Korea!!! Don't dare critique it in any way shape or form, it's not as bad as they say, I swear!

That's what I read in your post.

[FSL]

"Respected" papers have this rule against anonymous, single source reporting, they won't publish articles like that.

What they will do instead is wait for a less respected publication to carry that article (say any random the-true-north-korea website) and then cite that. Problem solved, respectable misinformation.




Defend real socialism! Down with imperialism! For a better, more gulaggy, murderous, dictatorial world in the name of the party!

Liberation at last!
Are you at this point a parody?

[Brotto Rühle]

"Respected" papers have this rule against anonymous, single source reporting, they won't publish articles like that.

What they will do instead is wait for a less respected publication to carry that article (say any random the-true-north-korea website) and then cite that. Problem solved, respectable misinformation.




Are you at this point a parody?
The "parody" are the "anti-imperialists" who defend North Korea. Picking their favourite capitalist state over another.

[FSL]

The "parody" are the "anti-imperialists" who defend North Korea. Picking their favourite capitalist state over another.

There is a specific subject mentioned in this tread, that is a fresh round of misinformation about something. Some people find this interesting and some people don't, apparently, and start attacking "capitalist states".

If you don't care about the news, move on.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think it's more sensationalism than gullibility. I hadn't heard of this story, but I checked a Dutch newssite and it had the story with the title ('All men required to ... ') in between those subtle ' ' quotation marks, which permits them to print any unsubstantiated rumour since they are technically quoting someone (Radio Free something apparently in this case).

[BIXX]

I fail to see why doubting this story (which frankly sounds ridiculous to me) is seen as supporting the DPRK.

I mean, I know the Dear Leader is fucking insane, but I doubt that he is as insane as he'd have to be to criminalize bald folks.

I wanna know more about the background of this story, as I suspect it will be much the same as this video:

CJoQOQHQ8oA

[#FF0000]

The "parody" are the "anti-imperialists" who defend North Korea. Picking their favourite capitalist state over another.

Who is doing that in this thread?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Two totally consistent theses:

(1) North Korea is an authoritarian country with all sorts of oppressive and dystopian laws

(2) The western press and SK newspapers jump at any story which confirms their stereotypes and narratives about North Korea, even when the evidence is not there



Honestly this site should give up the pretension and change its name to Imper"Lef".

Despite the fact that a number of views have been expressed here, and nobody has actually endorsed American Imperialism? No need to exaggerate.

[Prometeo liberado]

Nothing new here. Nixon was funding shit like this all over south-east asia, buying ad space on billboards touting The "Great Leader" as the father of all socialists revolutions. Amazing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Defend the glorious degenerated workers state of North Korea!!! Don't dare critique it in any way shape or form, it's not as bad as they say, I swear!

That's what I read in your post.

Good for you? I guess? Of course, Trotskyists, even those who do not consider the DPRK to be a deformed workers' state, call for the defence of North Korea from imperialist incursion. Those of us who consider the DPRK to be a deformed workers' state call for the unconditional defence of North Korea from internal capitalist-restorationist forces as well - as unpalatable that is to liberals. (Note that I do not consider Shachtmanites - whose position is closer to that of most posters on this site, apparently - to be Trotskyists).

That said, we can and we do criticise the North Korean bureaucracy. In case you haven't figured it out, calling something a "deformed" workers' state is not a compliment. Nor do we flatter the WPK by calling them a brittle parasitic caste. In no case are we against principled, communist criticism of the DPRK - but we do not care for sensationalist ("Everyone in North Korea has the same haircut!") or liberal ("The poor peasants! The poor Christians! The poor liberals!") criticism.


Despite the fact that a number of views have been expressed here, and nobody has actually endorsed American Imperialism? No need to exaggerate.

I think both of us are well aware of the balance of opinion on this site. As for posters not endorsing American imperialism - that is technically true. But whenever one of the ridiculous lies the propaganda machines of the US and its clients and junior partners periodically make up about the DPRK is exposed for the nonsense it is, most posters try to shoot the messenger and then go into hysterics over North Korea.

[Brotto Rühle]

Good for you? I guess? Of course, Trotskyists, even those who do not consider the DPRK to be a deformed workers' state, call for the defence of North Korea from imperialist incursion. Those of us who consider the DPRK to be a deformed workers' state call for the unconditional defence of North Korea from internal capitalist-restorationist forces as well - as unpalatable that is to liberals. (Note that I do not consider Shachtmanites - whose position is closer to that of most posters on this site, apparently - to be Trotskyists).

That said, we can and we do criticise the North Korean bureaucracy. In case you haven't figured it out, calling something a "deformed" workers' state is not a compliment. Nor do we flatter the WPK by calling them a brittle parasitic caste. In no case are we against principled, communist criticism of the DPRK - but we do not care for sensationalist ("Everyone in North Korea has the same haircut!") or liberal ("The poor peasants! The poor Christians! The poor liberals!") criticism.



I think both of us are well aware of the balance of opinion on this site. As for posters not endorsing American imperialism - that is technically true. But whenever one of the ridiculous lies the propaganda machines of the US and its clients and junior partners periodically make up about the DPRK is exposed for the nonsense it is, most posters try to shoot the messenger and then go into hysterics over North Korea.
This isn't the proper thread to debate the Proudhonist theories of Trotsky, so I won't.

However, I'd like to know why it's so strange for people to believe things like this. It's like, no matter what negative thing is reported on the DPRK, it has to be lies. Dictators have banned weirder things than haircuts. Women are already limited to certain hairstyles in the DPRK.

"Anti-imperialism" is sad.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This isn't the proper thread to debate the Proudhonist theories of Trotsky, so I won't.

However, I'd like to know why it's so strange for people to believe things like this. It's like, no matter what negative thing is reported on the DPRK, it has to be lies. Dictators have banned weirder things than haircuts. Women are already limited to certain hairstyles in the DPRK.

"Anti-imperialism" is sad.

Because similar claims, all based on reports lacking in elementary journalist integrity, have been made a million times, and each time they turned out to be rubbish? Because the connection to the American-led encirclement of North Korea is obvious? At this point the only thing that enables people to believe these reports is sheer will-to-believe.

"Anti-imperialism" of the Galloway type is certainly sad. But Shachtmanism - in the broad sense of "socialists" marching in step with the "democratic" bourgeoisie against the "evil' Stalinists - is even sadder, and that's an accomplishment.

[Brotto Rühle]

Because similar claims, all based on reports lacking in elementary journalist integrity, have been made a million times, and each time they turned out to be rubbish? Because the connection to the American-led encirclement of North Korea is obvious? At this point the only thing that enables people to believe these reports is sheer will-to-believe.It's more a sad belief that the DPRK is post-capitalist, and therefore anything the capitalists say is lies.

You can't prove this story wrong anymore than I can prove it right.


"Anti-imperialism" of the Galloway type is certainly sad. But Shachtmanism - in the broad sense of "socialists" marching in step with the "democratic" bourgeoisie against the "evil' Stalinists - is even sadder, and that's an accomplishment."Anti-imperialism" aka, choosing sides, which is what the Stalinists, Maoists, a lot of Trots, and others do. The "either-or" dichotomy is a false one.

Are you claiming that I am "marching in step" with the democratic bourgeoisie?

[synthesis]

Honestly this site should give up the pretension and change its name to Imper"Lef".

God, enough with the pejorative abbreviations already.

Question: if this was an analogous article about some ridiculous, trivial rule, or lack thereof, in Iran, would you people be as up in arms about "imperialist propaganda"? Because they're both awful, capitalist states, no matter which global imperialist bourgeoisie they side with.

[Tenka]

I'm not an "anti-imperialist" but it is pretty annoying when people come to a thread like this with their shitty dear leader memes because, apparently, showing sensationalist news reports on DPRK to be the rubbish that they typically are is "defending DPRK".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"Anti-imperialism" aka, choosing sides, which is what the Stalinists, Maoists, a lot of Trots, and others do. The "either-or" dichotomy is a false one.

Are you claiming that I am "marching in step" with the democratic bourgeoisie?

Denouncing anti-imperialism is choosing a side in a far more odious way.
For one, anti-imperialism concerns opposing concretely the machinations of the imperialists, not because the Kims are really stand-up guys, but because imperialism is an attack on the people of Korea. If anything, the American and South Korean sabre rattling only serves to sure up the Kim regime, and justify its brutal internal repression.

That you can implicitly defend integrity the corporate media and echo thoughtlessly the line of American foreign policy hacks in one breath, then ask "Am I marching in step with the bourgeoisie?" in the next, says quite enough.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's more a sad belief that the DPRK is post-capitalist, and therefore anything the capitalists say is lies.

You can't prove this story wrong anymore than I can prove it right.

I don't need to prove it wrong. The burden of proof is not on me, but on the people making the claim - particularly since their sources are so tenuous. If I say that Rae Spiegel secretly has a closet full of Nazi regalia, you don't have to prove me wrong, I have to prove that I'm right. And it's not a moral rule, to stave of that objection, but a heuristic one - if I claim something, I have to back it up, or people can just dismiss it.


"Anti-imperialism" aka, choosing sides, which is what the Stalinists, Maoists, a lot of Trots, and others do. The "either-or" dichotomy is a false one.

Are you claiming that I am "marching in step" with the democratic bourgeoisie?

Pretty much. Take this thread. You could have made the usual obsequious "plague on both their houses" post. But no, you attack North Korea, and only North Korea, and continue to defend imperialist yellow journalism even after it has been debunked.


Question: if this was an analogous article about some ridiculous, trivial rule, or lack thereof, in Iran, would you people be as up in arms about "imperialist propaganda"? Because they're both awful, capitalist states, no matter which global imperialist bourgeoisie they side with.

There was, some time ago, an article about Christians in Iran being arrested for drinking wine. Devrim pointed out how nonsensical that is, and there was no real controversy over that (of course I suspect more people here are sympathetic to Iran than the DPRK). What we reliably know about Iran is sufficient enough to condemn the Iranian theocracy without making things up.

[synthesis]

There was, some time ago, an article about Christians in Iran being arrested for drinking wine. Devrim pointed out how nonsensical that is, and there was no real controversy over that (of course I suspect more people here are sympathetic to Iran than the DPRK). What we reliably know about Iran is sufficient enough to condemn the Iranian theocracy without making things up.

Fair enough. I remember that thread. But:


Of course, Trotskyists, even those who do not consider the DPRK to be a deformed workers' state, call for the defence of North Korea from imperialist incursion.

Do you really not see the difference between opposing the imperialism of our own countries and "defend[ing] North Korea from imperialist incursion"? Or am I misunderstanding what it means to "call for" something?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do you really not see the difference between opposing the imperialism of our own countries and "defend[ing] North Korea from imperialist incursion"? Or am I misunderstanding what it means to "call for" something?

To an extent, you are right and I misspoke - Trotskyists generally oppose imperialist intervention. Trotskyists that consider the DPRK a deformed workers' state also call for the defence of North Korea (whereas we couldn't give a damn if the government in Iran, for example, fell, although our Iranian comrades would fight any imperialist incursion).

In countries of the imperial metropole, however, the distinction is less important than one might think. In both cases we would call for workers' action against the war - strikes, hot-cargoing, driving recruiters off campuses, sabotage etc. But at the same time, I can't shake off the feeling that most people who have posted on this thread would refuse to go along, hiding behind phrases about evil Stalinist state-capitalists etc. etc.

[Halert]

I full opposes the DPRK regime and i'm not an "anti-imperialist". I do think that the media is putting sensationalists news reports about the DPRK that lack a reliable source. The reason for the media doing this is i think a combination of wanting high viewer ratings and bourgeoisie propaganda to show how "superior" our system is to theirs.

Also, this is not chit-chat please stop derailing this threat with memes. if you disagree with the OP or others who are critical of the news reporting around the DPRK, please post a critique but without the memes, thank you.

[synthesis]

In countries of the imperial metropole, however, the distinction is less important than one might think. In both cases we would call for workers' action against the war - strikes, hot-cargoing, driving recruiters off campuses, sabotage etc. But at the same time, I can't shake off the feeling that most people who have posted on this thread would refuse to go along, hiding behind phrases about evil Stalinist state-capitalists etc. etc.

Can you point to any instance where the "ultra-lefts" in this thread have indicated that they would not oppose an act of imperialism by their own government?

[Craig_J]

If we don't support NK, capitalism will win! US imperialist pigs will take over!
FOR THE GLORIOUS LEADER OF THE GREAT NATION OF KOREA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Kim_Il-sung.jpg/799px-Kim_Il-sung.jpg

I hope that's a joke.

[Brotto Rühle]

I LOVE "NON-IMPERIALIST" BOURGEOISIE <3 Yeah, we've heard the "anti-imperialist" lines before. "We are supporting the bourgeoisie of X, because if we don't the imperialism of Y will make things much worse for the poor proletariat!". It's quite frankly one of the saddest positions people can take, and is a straight up cop-out defense of some sort of "progressive capitalism" that is inherent in X. If not a "progressive capitalism", it's the Proudhonist view that it is a "post-capitalist" society, which is even more embarrassing, and we must defend this superior mode of production.

"The only war is class war", although a cliche among the left now, is more important than ever when opposing the liberals and "anti-imperialists" who pick their favourite capitalists. It's not about supporting the DPRK against the Imperialism of the USA, or the USA over the despotism of the DPRK. It's choosing the international proletariat in it's struggle against both imperialism and the capitalists of "victim" states. You are, by proxy, opposing the class struggle in the DPRK by suggesting the Kim state is a progressive bourgeois force in society.

That's the fucking problem. The CHOICE of one bourgeoisie over both another bourgeoisie. Placing the revolutionary class itself to the weigh side, to be defended by the masters.

Your position on impeiralism suggests there's an imperilaist bloc (The US, UK, etc), and elsewhere non-imperialist parts of the world where states exist where the imperialist part is not able to "subjugate and exploit". A completely non-Marxist position. Imperialism has domianted the world for close to 100 years now, time to realize it. Though, I'm sure an anarcho-Maoist such as yourself will eventually flip flop into my way of thinking before flip flopping back out.

[Prometeo liberado]

Seeking to expose the lies of brand X in no way puts you on the fast track to support brand Y. Simple logic simply won't support it. What your doing is trying to shove a square peg into the round hole. Exposing propaganda and manipulation of the minds of masses of people is just that. You wanna critique the international DPRK marketing crusade? Well then start the proper thread.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

For fuck's sake.

If you can't distinguish between a) the Korean people and b) the Kim dictatorship, which in turn leads you to de facto cheer on your own bourgeoisie's political maneuverings, then you obviously don't understand class war.

Vaguely racist fear-mongering about dictatorships on the far side of the Pacific is not a useful communist strategy.

Calling that what it is isn't "Defending the North Korean bourgeoisie."

[Alexios]

"If I disagree with it, it must be racist"

Another astonishing argument from the most illustrious Garbage Disposal Unit.

There's really nothing racist at all with what Rae is saying. The North Korean state and the North Korean proletariat are at complete odds with one another. It's very true that everyone loses with imperialism, but you don't seem to get that "supporting the [insert oppressed country] people" always has and always will equate to supporting the ruling class of that country.

But this debate has been had at least a million times so I'm not going to bother pursuing it any further.

[synthesis]

If you can't distinguish between a) the Korean people and b) the Kim dictatorship, which in turn leads you to de facto cheer on your own bourgeoisie's political maneuverings, then you obviously don't understand class war.

If you can't distinguish between a) "not supporting the North Korean government" and b) "supporting the imperialism of one's own bourgeoisie vis-a-vis North Korea," which in turn leads you to de facto cheer on completely naked class collaboration, then you obviously don't understand how words work.

Honestly, the way you have used "de facto" in this thread and others makes me seriously doubt you understand at all what it means. I could say "you're de facto supporting the North Korean government" and it would be just as accurate.

[Goblin]

If we don't support NK, capitalism will win! US imperialist pigs will take over!
FOR THE GLORIOUS LEADER OF THE GREAT NATION OF KOREA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Kim_Il-sung.jpg/799px-Kim_Il-sung.jpg

How about you return to your "Solidarity with Israel" group you reactionary shit. Seriously, go troll somewhere else.

Of course the story is bullshit. We've all seen stories like this be pushed by US and South Korean media in the past, and we've all seen them get debunked. It's a tactic, they try to make the DPRK look pathetic. They do this to all their enemies.

[Ocean Seal]

Defend real socialism! Down with imperialism! For a better, more gulaggy, murderous, dictatorial world in the name of the party!

Liberation at last!
Doesn't it bother anyone that the first comment on any North Korea post is usually the same thing, and gets a ton of "thanks" without actually posting anything of relevance.

1. Kim Jung Un is a bad guy... Thank you for enlightening me to that, I would have otherwise never known.
2. I still care about the news in North Korea, and whether or not what the Western press reports about North Korea carries any weight.
3. If anything its to stop people from spouting stupid shit like this story is true blah blah, you don't know what its like to live under a dictator etc.

[TC]

It should be pointed out that out that the articles posted at the start of this thread are not by the Korean Friendship Association or even leftwing alternative press like the Morning Star or Mother Jones or Alternet.

These are articles from the mainstream corporate news media including the Washington Post.

There is some room even within mainstream bourgeois press to buck the trend of preferring propagandistic truthiness to reality. It would be a truly disappointing reflection on the left if politically convenient falsities are held more sacred then getting to the facts.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"If I disagree with it, it must be racist"

Another astonishing argument from the most illustrious Garbage Disposal Unit.

There's really nothing racist at all with what Rae is saying.

OK, I understand that, in this context, the reasoning behind the allegation of racism may be unclear.

Popular media narratives of North Korea are rooted in hegemonic orientalizing discourse of "asiatic despotism". Rae's uncritical engagement with shit like this serves to reproduce this discourse, and therefore, carries a racist kernel at its core.

There are plenty of critiques of the DPRK that don't reproduce this racist notion. That it is a capitalist military dictatorship isn't a thing I'd dispute. Of course, media propaganda about "Crazed Asian Despot imposes haircuts! Plans to destroy world!" etc. doesn't say that at all. Saying it (that the DPRK is fundamentally a capitalist military dictatorship) of course, would be blatantly hypocritical, given the entanglement of imperialists with capitalist military dictatorships all over the planet.

Yourself, Rae, and others, of course, are happy to play 'revolutionary purist'/lackey for American foreign policy in threads about the DPRK, while, on the other hand, remaining tellingly silent about similar regimes (Saudi Arabia?) that work hand-in-glove with imperialist powers. Happy to slag off anti-imperialism, but content to remain politely mum about imperialism. 'Nuff said.


The North Korean state and the North Korean proletariat are at complete odds with one another. It's very true that everyone loses with imperialism, but you don't seem to get that "supporting the people" always has and always will equate to supporting the ruling class of that country.

The American state and the North Korean proletariat, of course, are also at odds with one another, because class war spills over national borders. Opposing the interests of the American/South Korean/etc. bourgeoisie no more constitutes defense of Kim & Co. than opposing police constitutes supporting the mafia. Such an attitude fails to understand their interrelationship.
Let's look at the real world. The North Korean dictatorship is still dependent on food aid from the US, South Korea, China, and other capitalist powers - these powers regularly threaten to, or do, cut food aid - a situation wherein the military and political elites continue to eat while ordinary North Koreans face starvation. The DPRK, in turn, justifies its absurd military-police apparatus with reference to the hostility of imperialist powers, and control of food. On the other side, the US and friends have in North Korea a suitable boogie-man to justify military presence in Korea and the Pacific, they have a growing source of cheap labour as the DPRK increasingly permits foreign investment, and so on.
For these reasons, one can't actually oppose the Kim dictatorship without opposing imperialism, and vice versa. To do less either way is worse than useless.


If you can't distinguish between a) "not supporting the North Korean government" and b) "supporting the imperialism of one's own bourgeoisie vis-a-vis North Korea," which in turn leads you to [I]de facto cheer on completely naked class collaboration, then you obviously don't understand how words work.

Of course, how parroting implicitly racist media lies and railing one-sidedly against the DPRK constitutes anything other than supporting the imperialism of one's own bourgeoisie is beyond me. Rae goes so far as to suggest something like a Negri-ist understanding of imperialism, where we somehow have empire without imperialists! "Imperialism rules the world . . . but my bourgeoisie aren't the 'bad guys'!" Seriously, from a Canadian? That shit is vile, not to mention practically what gets shoved down the throat of Canadian elementary school students. The implicit lack of gag reflex would be kind of sexy if I thought I had a shot, but, alas, I don't go in for thinly veiled patriotism, eh?


Honestly, the way you have used "de facto" in this thread and others makes me seriously doubt you understand at all what it means. I could say "you're de facto supporting the North Korean government" and it would be just as accurate.

Erm . . . except that I, like Rae, live in Canada, and a) have a political responsibility to work to defeat the ruling class here, where I am (as Rae is bucking responsibility for), and b) as a part-time temp have precicely zero capacity to do anything to meaningfully 'support' a country on the other side of the world.

[synthesis]

The word "racist" is basically meaningless when it comes out of your proverbial mouth. It reflects your own parochial view of how imperialism actually works; this is demonstrated by the fact that you call people who "refuse to support" national liberation struggles in (let's say) Africa "racist," but when people address the exact same criticism at national liberation struggles in (let's say) Ireland, you have to find some other way to express your indignation that someone could fail to support these sacred cows of the North American left.


Popular media narratives of North Korea are rooted in hegemonic orientalizing discourse of "asiatic despotism". Rae's uncritical engagement with shit like this serves to reproduce this discourse, and therefore, carries a racist kernel at its core.

Where has he done this - where has he opposed anti-imperialism using the bourgeois narrative specific to North Korea? Can you quote a specific post, or are you just swinging blindly again? I don't usually like using the term "straw man," because it gets thrown around too much as it is, but you are really straw-manning the subject in the most recklessly dishonest way possible.


Yourself, Rae, and others, of course, are happy to play 'revolutionary purist'/lackey for American foreign policy in threads about the DPRK, while, on the other hand, remaining tellingly silent about similar regimes (Saudi Arabia?) that work hand-in-glove with imperialist powers. Happy to slag off anti-imperialism, but content to remain politely mum about imperialism. 'Nuff said.

Yeah, because if someone comes out with some equally ridiculous propaganda against Saudi Arabia, you won't see people here tripping over themselves to expose it. On this forum, if a regime is in opposition to the Western bloc, there's generally an implicit value judgment that they should be defended. You can engage with people's criticism of this value judgment without continually and predictably throwing around accusations of white supremacism.


Of course, how parroting implicitly racist media lies and railing one-sidedly against the DPRK constitutes anything other than supporting the imperialism of one's own bourgeoisie is beyond me. Rae goes so far as to suggest something like a Negri-ist understanding of imperialism, where we somehow have empire without imperialists! "Imperialism rules the world . . . but my bourgeoisie aren't the 'bad guys'!"

So basically, you're just making this up as you go along. There is not a single quote in this thread that you could use to back up this criticism. Your Marxism is bad and you should feel bad.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The word "racist" is basically meaningless when it comes out of your proverbial mouth [. . . T]his is demonstrated by the fact that you call people who "refuse to support" national liberation struggles in (let's say) Africa "racist," but when people address the exact same criticism at national liberation struggles in (let's say) Ireland, you have to find some other way to express your indignation.

Yeah, usually when white people think white people should govern non-white people it's racist.
Usually when white people think white people should govern other white people, race isn't really the issue.

Brilliant critique.


There is not a single quote in this thread that you could use to back up this criticism.

Rae on imperialism without imperialists:


Your position on impeiralism suggests there's an imperilaist bloc (The US, UK, etc), and elsewhere non-imperialist parts of the world where states exist where the imperialist part is not able to "subjugate and exploit". A completely non-Marxist position. Imperialism has domianted the world for close to 100 years now, time to realize it.

Bite me.

[synthesis]

Rae on imperialism without imperialists:

I really have this image of you sitting behind your computer and laughing to yourself as you deliberately misconstrue other people's arguments. It's like you've already made up your mind what people have said before you've even read their posts. You've even cut out the end of one of my sentences in your quote for no apparent reason. I'm not even sure it's worth it to engage in this discussion with you, because you've tacitly admitted you're bullshitting here, but I'll put a little effort in regardless.

Imperialism is a global system, and the U.S., etc is not the only empire that composes that global system. It's not like imperialism ceases to exist where Western influence ends and other states begin. Where any form of imperialism is defeated, if capitalism is not overthrown alongside it then the nature of capitalist imperialism means that nation state will either become imperialist itself, or another empire will step in to fill the vacuum. There is also the implicit belief that the imperialism of the U.S., etc is qualitatively worse than, say, Russian or Chinese imperialism, which would be sort of acceptable if people stepped forward and admitted that and explained why they believe that in materialist terms, but because it's just lingering in the background it can't be addressed and lingers around in the form of nonsensical anarcho-Maoist soundbytes about "imperialist lackeys" and "white supremacy."

Can you please spell it out for me, just to make sure you actually understand what he's saying in that post you've quoted, where it implies that there is such a thing as "imperialism without imperialists"? Because otherwise I think it's fair to conclude that you're just throwing words around like a child with no idea as to what they actually mean.

[Brotto Rühle]

Yeah, usually when white people think white people should govern non-white people it's racist.
Usually when white people think white people should govern other white people, race isn't really the issue.Are you claiming this is my position? It's not, but I mean, your position of "ONLY THE ETHNICALLY MATCHING BOURGEOISIE OF A NATION MAY RULE THE PROLETARIAT! CHINESE BOURGEOISIE FOR CHINESE PROLETARIAT!!!! TANZANIAN BOURGEOISIE FOR TANZANIANS!!!"

Get bent.

[Mirrorsonic]

Ι would like to say that we should be against any attempt made of US imperialism to intervene in any way in N.Korea.It is true that N.Korea is not the ideal socialist state, and has gradually created a very different way of socialism.If am not wrong it has abandoned back in the 80s Leninism for the theory of one of their national heroes. I think when it comes to the economical base and the socialist relations on the production line it has a quite stable and truly socialist economy (i think in theory they have kept basic consents of Marxism in that sense)even under the embargo against them.There is not any capitalist elements neither a small bourgeoisie class, like it was in generally in the USSR.The problem lies to when it comes to the political rights.I mean there is not as it seems a proletarian democratic participation.For instance the command and duties are based according to the family line rather placing workers according to their capabilities.There is not a horizontal distribution of political power like the soviet was.Το understand N.Korea we should acknowledge, its cultural background, the historical conditions, the economic and social factors.If we really want the best for the people of N.Korea, they must be a change by themselves from inside and lifting the embargo in order the centralized socialist economy to flurish and satisfied their people needs.

[TC]

Um Garbage Disposal Unit, synthesis, Rae Spiegel - lets get this straight: none among the three of you are racists. None among the three of you are supporters of imperialism. You just have different views on matters of political priority and questions exactly what follows from supporting a more just, equal and liberated society. Fundamentally you're on the same 'team'. Disagreement over the details is simply a consequence of needing to hash out hard questions, not violently irreconcilable class or social loyalties.

So, come on, lets have have this conversation about the content and implications of the ideas people are putting forth here and now, and not how it fits into some interpretation of their overall politics or their basic goodness as a person or leftist. Anything else is just going to be an obstacle in making progress.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Are you claiming this is my position? It's not, but I mean, your position of "ONLY THE ETHNICALLY MATCHING BOURGEOISIE OF A NATION MAY RULE THE PROLETARIAT! CHINESE BOURGEOISIE FOR CHINESE PROLETARIAT!!!! TANZANIAN BOURGEOISIE FOR TANZANIANS!!!"

Get bent.

No, I wasn't claiming this was your position - I was having a laugh at synthesis's really, really, really dumb comment vis- racism and anti-imperialist struggles.

For the record, I don't think you're "racist" in the sense of knowing your intentions, or thinking that you're actively out in the street calling people "chink" or something. I think there is an implicit racism in narratives of North Korea that make fun of nationalist narratives of "Best Korea" as though the DPRK's nationalism were exceptional (or, more aptly, exotic), rather than banal.

As for being bent, I'm way ahead of you.;)

Re: Synthesis on imperialism

I'm not sure where you're getting that I believe American imperialism is unique. If you'll scroll to the top of the page, you might notice my mention of China among the powers with whom the Kim dictatorship has an essentially symbiotic relationship.

I think your reading of my posts seems uncharitable at best, or more likely, starting from an assumption that anyone who expresses anti-imperialist sentiment is a weird caricature of a Maoist from 1970.

[synthesis]

I'm not sure where you're getting that I believe American imperialism is unique. If you'll scroll to the top of the page, you might notice my mention of China among the powers with whom the Kim dictatorship has an essentially symbiotic relationship.

Okay, let's start over. Rae Spiegel criticizes the (implicit) idea that there are places in the world that are not subject to imperialism, in some ways a response to this implicit idea that there is something qualitatively different about U.S. imperialism.

You use this quote to claim that Rae Spiegel is "reproducing hegemonic discourse," that he's arguing there's "imperialism without imperialists," and saying that the Canadian bourgeoisie is not bad - repeatedly accusing him (and anyone who agrees with him) of supporting global imperialism and white supremacy.

So I'm trying to explain why his perspective is not in support of white supremacist U.S. imperialism. Don't take out an excerpt and then inflate that to represent the entire argument.


I think your reading of my posts seems uncharitable at best, or more likely, starting from an assumption that anyone who expresses anti-imperialist sentiment is a weird caricature of a Maoist from 1970.

My reading of your posts is based in part in irritation with this tendency of yours to label people who disagree with you about broad theoretical concepts as "white supremacists" and "imperialist lackeys" who think that "white people should rule over non-white people." People can't just be wrong, they also have to be guilty of a bannable offense and, more importantly, of having a completely repulsive view of the world and of racial and imperialist issues. You throw around these serious charges without giving a second thought to their implications, and then you seem surprised when people have strong reactions to them. It doesn't make any goddamn sense.


Um Garbage Disposal Unit, synthesis, Rae Spiegel - lets get this straight: none among the three of you are racists. None among the three of you are supporters of imperialism. You just have different views on matters of political priority and questions exactly what follows from supporting a more just, equal and liberated society. Fundamentally you're on the same 'team'. Disagreement over the details is simply a consequence of needing to hash out hard questions, not violently irreconcilable class or social loyalties.

So, come on, lets have have this conversation about the content and implications of the ideas people are putting forth here and now, and not how it fits into some interpretation of their overall politics or their basic goodness as a person or leftist. Anything else is just going to be an obstacle in making progress.

As I said above, I agree with you in that these sorts of value judgments are partially why it's irritating to witness TGDU's constant accusations of racism and white supremacy when discussing issues relating to nationalism and imperialism.

But at the same time, this idea that our little tangent is an "obstacle in making progress" is pretty funny. Making progress in what? Coming to a consensus about a trivial news story about another trivial news story? This is a discussion forum, and sometimes people passionately disagree about things; the idea of "left unity" as a whole is ridiculous and meaningless, let alone trying to achieve it in this specific instance.

[TC]

But at the same time, this idea that our little tangent is an "obstacle in making progress" is pretty funny. Making progress in what? Coming to a consensus about a trivial news story about another trivial news story? This is a discussion forum, and sometimes people passionately disagree about things; the idea of "left unity" as a whole is ridiculous and meaningless, let alone trying to achieve it in this specific instance.


You are presuming that making progress means more than it does. What I mean is just having a productive conversation hashing out issues rather than a less gratifying one trading personal attacks and characterizations.

I also think that you don't have to 'build consensus' to make progress in developing and refining ideas. And these ideas pretty clearly pertain to more than "a trivial news story about another trivial news story".

[synthesis]

You are presuming that making progress means more than it does. What I mean is just having a productive conversation hashing out issues rather than a less gratifying one trading personal attacks and characterizations.

I think we (meaning TGDU, Rae Spiegel, and myself) have been doing as much of the former as of the latter - I am in fact challenging what I see as a troubling analytical tendency that he displays whenever these topics come up - but I suppose on the surface it doesn't look as "productive" if you haven't been privy to the other discussions about nationalism and imperialism in the last year or so.

[TC]

Alright fair enough - I am coming to your exchange late. It just seemed like you three were being unnecessarily mean to each other (I know I would personally stop taking seriously the arguments advanced by someone who signed off as "Get bent" or "Bite me" or "Your Marxism is bad and you should feel bad.")...so I'll step away from it then.

[Brotto Rühle]

No, I wasn't claiming this was your position - I was having a laugh at synthesis's really, really, really dumb comment vis- racism and anti-imperialist struggles.You support the ruling class of North Korea. It's as simple as that, and in every case. The anti-imperialists stand/stood with Assad and the Syrian ruling class, Qaddafi and the Libyan ruling class, Hussein and Iraq's ruling class, etc etc etc. That is the position of the "anti-imperialists", end of story.

As a "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" perhaps you should think back to Lenin's statement "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war" and contemplate it. Quite frankly, you're choosing of one ruler over another is akin to the Kautskyite "patriotic socialism"... of supporting the fatherland against "the enemy".


For the record, I don't think you're "racist" in the sense of knowing your intentions, or thinking that you're actively out in the street calling people "chink" or something. I think there is an implicit racism in narratives of North Korea that make fun of nationalist narratives of "Best Korea" as though the DPRK's nationalism were exceptional (or, more aptly, exotic), rather than banal.What? Do explain what narratives of mine are "implicitly racist". If you actually thought I was a racist, if you had any inkling of what the fuck you talk about, you'd have banned me already for racism.

[reb]

Denouncing anti-imperialism is choosing a side in a far more odious way.

No it isn't. It's just us being communists, unlike your bourgeois loving bleeding heart liberal.


For one, anti-imperialism concerns opposing concretely the machinations of the imperialists,

Empty sloganeering.


not because the Kims are really stand-up guys, but because imperialism is an attack on the people of Korea. If anything, the American and South Korean sabre rattling only serves to sure up the Kim regime, and justify its brutal internal repression.

"people" isn't a class analysis. Learn to Marx. And yeah, totes supporting North Korea on the anti-imperialist front doesn't also sure up the Kim regime.


That you can implicitly defend integrity the corporate media and echo thoughtlessly the line of American foreign policy hacks in one breath, then ask "Am I marching in step with the bourgeoisie?" in the next, says quite enough.

The fact that you can puke up this anti-communist garbage and not be ashamed of it makes you a hack of another set of bourgoiesie.

[synthesis]

Oh yeah, one more thing I was thinking about and forgot to say.


No, I wasn't claiming this was your position - I was having a laugh at synthesis's really, really, really dumb comment vis- racism and anti-imperialist struggles.

This is my really, really, really dumb comment:


...the fact that you call people who "refuse to support" national liberation struggles in (let's say) Africa "racist," but when people address the exact same criticism at national liberation struggles in (let's say) Ireland, you have to find some other way to express your indignation that someone could fail to support these sacred cows of the North American left.

This is you "having a laugh" at that comment:


Yeah, usually when white people think white people should govern non-white people it's racist.
Usually when white people think white people should govern other white people, race isn't really the issue.

So it's all right with you if people don't support specific national liberation struggles, but only depending on which arbitrary racial category into which you've put the ethnicity of that nation? Remind me how this makes sense outside of the North American framework of racial categorization.

[Tim Cornelis]

Saying people are racist for criticising North Korea is a convenient way to shut them up. I should be careful, I might be an Islamophobe for saying mean things about Saudi Arabia (http://www.revleft.com/vb/saudi-arabia-migrant-t187763/index.html?p=2735088).

[SHORAS]

Criticism of Islam shouldn't just be towards the backward states that employ it as the official religion but applied to all of Islam.

Regardless of what people think of North Korea I think it's important to recognise sections of the ruling class filtering in 'news' to the more respected and in some cases revered media. Let's not leave this kind of thing to the conspiracy theorists. That the state funds various institutions and groups via the open secret services should be no surprise to anyone. What I think is really important is how they are not too dissimilar to their 'real' or 'genuine' equivalents and how they work together sometimes directly other times indirectly. I think it's part of dispelling the whole democratic myth.

[Sea]

If we don't support NK, capitalism will win! US imperialist pigs will take over!
FOR THE GLORIOUS LEADER OF THE GREAT NATION OF KOREA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Kim_Il-sung.jpg/799px-Kim_Il-sung.jpgIs it mean for me to refer to Kim as Chubby Cheeks? He kinda did have chubby cheeks.

[SHORAS]

Nothing new here. Nixon was funding shit like this all over south-east asia, buying ad space on billboards touting The "Great Leader" as the father of all socialists revolutions. Amazing.

Sounds interesting, could you expand a little?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Doesn't it bother anyone that the first comment on any North Korea post is usually the same thing, and gets a ton of "thanks" without actually posting anything of relevance.


If anything, the desire of me and others to parody North Korea is a reaction against the exceptionalism that is afforded the capitalist state that is the DPRK because it pays lip service to socialism, has red flags, a dictatorial state reminiscent of 20th century 'socialist' states and has its own brand of anti-americanism masquerading as genuine anti-imperialism.

It pisses me off when people say 'i'm not defending North Korea but...', as if there is anything of relevance to leftists here aside from the interesting geopolitics that this is a tiny, quasi-monarchich country armed with nukes and, for one reason or another, highly secretive about everything it does to the point of appearing just ridiculous.

That is essentially why I parody North Korea. Because the way it is run is fucking stupid, and sometimes (as friends with a knowledge of the cold war will attest) humour is just the best way of dealing with situations like this, because if you actually consider that people spend hours having serious political discussions about this and that theoretical detail of North Korea's 'socialist' and 'anti-imperialist' make-up, then you will realise just what a ridiculous situation that is.

It reminds me of sitting at university being told that neo-classical micro-economic theory works, as long as we essentially impose assumptions on our economic models and ignore what happens in the real world. Meanwhile, Rome/Wall Street/world economies burned.

So yeah, whilst I initially just came to this thread to annoy the anti-imp brigade, I am actually quite pissed off that people decide to defend the absurdity that is the North Korean political system and government organisation of that society and economy for their own political ends.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

your bourgeois loving bleeding heart liberal.
Calling someone a liberal is as empty as me calling you a fascist because I disagree with you. Seriously, just fucking stop it, it's pathetic. 'I'm more communist than you, you're a liberal'. It's meaningless.



"people" isn't a class analysis. Learn to Marx. And yeah, totes supporting North Korea on the anti-imperialist front doesn't also sure up the Kim regime.

1. Is this how you talk in real life? "Learn to Marx"? Fucking hell. Stop being such a patronising wanker, we don't need to pay homage to a dead guy from 150 years ago. Learn to human!

2. Supporting north korea on the anti-imperialist front definitely does shore up the Kim regime, just as supporting the USA would be shoring up the capitalist class there. Stop with the hypocrisy ffs!

[synthesis]

2. Supporting north korea on the anti-imperialist front definitely does shore up the Kim regime, just as supporting the USA would be shoring up the capitalist class there. Stop with the hypocrisy ffs!

That was sarcasm. You do realize reb is on your side, relatively speaking, right?