Problem of Tendency.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RevLeft,

We're all familiar with the epidemic of intra-left bickering, and a crisis of theory is no small concern when it is a central question in the organization of the proletariat to destroy systemic oppression of working people.

However, I know I'm not the only one who's noticed that the left, in broad terms, is hamstrung by petty sectarianism based on "tendency." When we say "tendency," we tend to mean to what school of anti-capitalist thought someone adheres. People of the same tendency may have different ideas when approaching the same issue, but, generally, a tendency is a general label for adherence to a given tradition.

The problem we're facing, though, is that this label is being used by comrades as a shortcut around substantial political analysis. It's basically a way for leftists to tell who they ought to hate and who they ought to like. This is just as much a problem for me and my fellow "Stalinists" as it is for Trotskyites, syndicalists, anarchists, left communists, Third Wave Neo-Ceaușescist-Avakianists, etc. ad infinitum.

It has all the same potential benefit and serious thought put into it as hating someone who likes a sports team you don't like.

Being a "Stalinist" open about his interest in the Juche Idea, I've been on the receiving end of this many times over the past week alone, here. Back when I was a more orthodox "Stalinist" of the Hoxha-aligned school of "anti-revisionism," I did more than my fair share on the giving end of it, too. But my interest in doing so withered away when I got off Facebook (where my only "activism" was trolling libertarian pages and bickering with Maoists) and got involved in actual activism, particularly through the new S.D.S., the Jacksonville Progressive Coalition, and DreamDefenders.

The Gainesville and Tallahassee chapters of the S.D.S. organized a campaign of agitation and protest in favor of passing a tuition equity bill that allowed undocumented students to pay in-state tuition, as opposed to the out-of-state rate that is triple the in-state rate. I was part of the protest within the state capitol building that took place during the deliberation of the bill, a drop in a sea of progressive working people who came out to put the pressure on the politicians to make this concession. Despite the best efforts of the Democratic "supporters" of the bill to utterly gut the thing, it passed in the desired form.

Now, the S.D.S. people I know are pro-Stalin and sympathetic to north Korea. In fact, many of them are affiliated with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!). Despite this "Stalinism," not one of them is in favor of establishing an autocracy or criminalizing homosexual relations or promoting nationalism. I found "Stalinism" to be very inclusive along all lines, although I need to admit people of non-binary gender and trans gender individuals were underrepresented.

Even so, the undocumented students who now have an improved chance at education, a chance to escape the vicious school-prison pipeline established to disfranchise them, never came up to me or any of my comrades and told us that we were "lowlife scum" or that our politics were "shit."

I've received both those sentiments, plus the imperative to die in a gutter, in an email of fewer than two sentences here, though.

My experience has been that the kind of "leftist" who engages in this childish practice begins and ends their political activism on the computer doing exactly that. Sure, they may "support" various struggles, but this tends to amount to little more than a verbal expression of allegiance rather than any substantive action. I once brought this up in response to a bizarre tirade insisting I had no political experience beyond the computer, and when I brought up my recent activism and asked him if he had any such experience, his crony told me I was being "ableist." Barring disabilities that hamper cognitive functioning or induce catatonia or something, people can still can make substantive contributions to projects about which they are passionate. Criticism of Stephen Hawking aside, I don't think anyone considers him incapable of work due to his paralysis.

My point is that, even if you can't stand north Korea and you feel your politics are diametrically opposed to "Stalinism," using a label as a shortcut to get right to coming down on a comrade for having "shitty politics" has no benefit to anyone -- not to the working class, not to your comrade, and not to you. I have asked this question of people critical of my Leninism and interest in Juche: how has Leninism/Juche hindered my politics in actual practice?

The only answers I've received have been non-sequiturs about "serving the interests of their tendency" or about how I must favor autocracy, how I must be homophobic, racist, etc. No examples of anything I've said or done demonstrating these have been forthcoming.

Let me reiterate that this is just as much a problem for my tendency or tendencies, as well. "Those Trotskyites like Trotsky! Why, they'll hamstring the dictatorship of the proletariat! Oh, damn those idealistic Luxemburgists and their ... idealism!" It's worth noting that this has never benefited anyone in any way even by accident.

Don't get me wrong. There's a place for criticism of the different schools of anti-capitalist thought, especially as regards the ultimate overthrow of our oppressors. But when you tell a comrade, who has been working with organizations helping workers and marginalized groups make actual, concrete gains in their struggle (however short-term), that he has "shitty politics" or that he is "lowlife scum," then what you're doing is telling him he belongs to the wrong team. And this is what I mean when I ask how my "Stalinism" has hindered my politics in practice; this sectarianism operates with utterly no knowledge of a person's actual record as a practicing progressive.

All "tendency" is now is a label, a combination of team colors we wear to let each other know who to like and who to dislike.

Frankly, there's a Trotskyite on this board whose posts I've thanked on a few occasions, because the fellow has a firm grasp on real-world issues like the bombing of Syria, the Hong Kong protests, etc. I may find his analysis of the Soviet Union off, but, really, when it comes to getting things done in the real world, we agree more than we diverge. I've found the same is true of a few anarcho-communists and the like.

It would be of no benefit to anyone to rule them out as allies in the anti-capitalist struggle for the reason that their "tendency" doesn't reflect the efficacy of their real-world activism.

Unfortunately, some of us, especially those of us whose "leftism" begins and ends on a forum, fail to see this and wish death on the people getting things done.

[Sasha]

A. Your the most whiny user I have seen here (and that says something)

B. You fail to understand that people like me don't think your a fellow leftist, a comrade, who we just happen to disagree with on some political details. You are an enemy, a class enemy, a reactionary not much better than a fascist. If not for your irrelevance you would be a target. Just as we are to those you say allign with.

[RedWorker]

He's just an attention/drama seeker and quite rude/annoying. Nothing new under the sun. Just the average tankie.

[consuming negativity]

>Frankly, there's a Trotskyite on this board whose posts I've thanked on a few occasions
>It would be of no benefit to anyone to rule them out as allies

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure "Trotskyite" is not a term of endearment for, uh, allies...

[Creative Destruction]

is there some concentration of "Stalinists" in Florida or something? i knew another dude who considered himself the same and he was involved in the SDS down there, as well.

eta. did you happen to post on IIDB?

[RedWorker]

Honestly, I think Stalinists should just be restricted.

[Sinister Intents]

Hilarious tbh. I think tendency has its positive sides, labels don't have to be bad

Also too long I skimmed it

[Rurkel]

B. You fail to understand that people like me don't think your a fellow leftist, a comrade, who we just happen to disagree with on some political details. You are an enemy, a class enemy, a reactionary not much better than a fascist. If not for your irrelevance you would be a target. Just as we are to those you say allign with.

That's harsh, although I do think that apologizing for nasty historical things (much more for current things like Juche) reveals a lack of critical thinking.

[Zoroaster]

Honestly, I think Stalinists should just be restricted.

That's already been done before. And personally, although I do disagree with Marxist-Leninists, I don't think restricting them is a good idea.

[Q]

"Tendency labels" are important to signify political differences. And with you "being a 'Stalinist' open about his interest in the Juche Idea", you are threading territory that is much removed from communist politics. I happen to agree with Sasha in this case: Stalinism and its derivatives (Maoism, Juche, Hoxhaism, et al) are developments based on and are a result of the failure of the Russian revolution, a political framework that saw consolidation in the late 1920's.

As such, it is a political framework that is in actuality anti-communist and, as such, reactionary as Sasha put it, precisely because it was developed as the political justication of the counterrevolution in Russia.

I see you developing in one of two ways: Either you harden in your believes that is provided by the 'Marxist-Leninist' (sic) framework, or you take distance from it and develop in a more communist direction. There is no stable middle ground here that you're taking right now: You can't 'peacefully coexist' with the rest of the left in the long run as long as you're standing for the politics you're espousing right now. This becomes more of an issue if your group, tendency or even person grows influence (which is not the case today, as with much of the rest of the far left).


Honestly, I think Stalinists should just be restricted.
This creates other issues and these issues were a main reason for abandoning this policy many years back (it is also banned from being discussed as a policy measure by the founder of the site, so don't try to bring it up). The main reason is that not only it affects many leftists (see the list I already mentioned above), it is also having an impact on closely related political frameworks and here I'm mainly thinking about Trotskyists which, as a political framework, developed itself mainly in opposition to Stalinism, but still took quite a lot of the same foundation. This makes Trotskyists in some aspects difficult to differentiate from Stalinists.

If such a policy would be adopted, it would run the chance of 'creeping up' to include Trotskyists and maybe even other tendencies or you'd need to be very specific to exclude those tendencies that you're aiming for.

But again, this policy was abandoned and will not be discussed.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Sasha,

You're a sad excuse for a moderator, and, ignoring for a moment the irony of considering me both irrelevant and a class enemy, you've expertly ignored every single point I made in the post, none the least of which was about active participation in working class struggle. If by some miracle I do become relevant to you, I have no worries about being your "target." As I said, your leftism begins and ends on the internet. If someone is your enemy because of a label alone, you're of no use to any progressive struggle.


To RedWorker,

Of the two of us, who is the one going into introductory threads just to put people down? You've made little contribution to any discussion you've been in, and that seems to be the opinion of quite a few people here.


To communer,

I apologize. I didn't realize "Trotskyite" was considered derogatory. I'm happy to use "Trotskyist" if that's a more welcome term.


To rednoise,

I don't know, to tell you the truth. I don't even know if many of them are "Stalinists" so much as very broad in their Marxist thinking. As for "IIDB," I don't know what that is.


To Sinistra,

I'm confused as to how you found something "hilarious" after having only skimmed it. I don't know if "TL;DR" is a demonstration of good faith.


To Rurkel,

We can discuss these "nasty" historical things, many of which I'm sure you find I'm unwilling to support. As for the "nastiness" of Juche, I'm also happy to have a discussion about that. I don't find your remark about a lack of critical thinking very comradely, but I'm given no reason to doubt that you're an intelligent person. Maybe we can come to an understanding if you're just willing to hear me out, perhaps elsewhere so as not to derail the thread.


To Socialisme,

I appreciate that. I haven't spoken with you much and, although I'm disturbed by your "thanks!" on the comment Sasha made, I don't have reason to suspect you regard me as an enemy, even if I don't doubt you find me misguided. If you're willing to assume good faith on my part and demonstrate good faith on yours, you will find that, in terms of concrete, material action that a progressive can be expected to take today, we probably agree on a lot more than we'd disagree on.

That was actually the point of my post, which makes it a shame some of these kids flat out refused to read it. Talking about a single-party socialist state, socialism in one country, etc., is all well and good theoretically, but how much of that is relevant to the activism any of us are now involved in? You can hate my "Stalinism," of course, but I doubt you hate the idea of supporting tuition equity or opposing discrimination in school or the workplace, right?

In other words, I could wear a button that says "Kim Il-sung rules!" but how much of my real-world actions reflect your understanding of Kim Il-sung's actions? Or Stalin's? I'm not putting anybody in a labor camp or having them executed; I'm protesting discrimination and trying to help with efforts to make education accessible to marginalized groups.

Call me "whiny," but the folks here who expressed greater interest in being petty than in figuring out a way to cooperate aren't my comrades.

[Sinister Intents]

@Toxin: I read enough to know that I'm pretty cool with labels and I don't hold people's tendencies against them. I already forgot what I read in because I'm in class and multitasking. It's still TL; DR and I'm with what Q said.

BTW I'm not a pan leftist but I'm very cool with people of non anarchist tendencies

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Q,

I'm dismayed that even you're choosing not to address the central point of my post. Again, you may find "Stalinism" reactionary, but your insistence that tendency is useful has you stumbling right past the fact that my real-world practice is progressive.

Again, you're all worried about the recreation of what you understand to be the world of Stalin, which is why your hostility is based wholly in a "someday" scenario that has no real chance of happening.

Let me ask you this: if I had never come here and identified with any particular school of thought, and we somehow knew each other only through real-world political activism, would you be able to identify my tendency through my actions? You can make that question much more general, too: are you able to identify tendency solely through real-world expressions of activism?

My point, which I'll reiterate only one last time, is that not one single person here can identify any substantive way in which my concrete, real-world actions hinder the struggle of the proletariat for freedom.

I'm a class enemy for no reason beyond that I don't back the right dead guy. Bring up theory all you like, but in a material sense, that's really all there is to it.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Sinistra,

Then may I make the request that you at least consider the main point that I've reiterated? I feel like the responses so far have been off the mark of what I'm actually saying.

Funny thing is that I acknowledged this was a problem in my behavior toward fellow leftists, too, and that I'm open to friendship with people of non-Leninist tendencies (as well as Trotskyism, whose adherents identify as Leninists, too). I may not agree with the theoretical framework, but nobody whose actions reflect proletarian interests is my enemy.

[Q]

To Q,

I'm dismayed that even you're choosing not to address the central point of my post. Again, you may find "Stalinism" reactionary, but your insistence that tendency is useful has you stumbling right past the fact that my real-world practice is progressive.
Actually, I did respond to this point, although it may not have been clear enough: Based on your "real-world practice", as you put it, I see you developing in different, more crystallised ways. The point I was making was that you're not 'done' with your development. Two other possible outcomes I didn't discuss is that you could take your distance from 'tendencies' completely and just be vaguely communist/leftwing or, based again on your "real-world practice", you could move away from communist politics completely and become, for example, a typical trade unionist.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Stalinists and DPRK supporters come and go on this site pretty frequently. For whatever reason people who want to wear those titles here always seem to eventually get around to making racist or homophobic comments, and recently they've had trouble stopping themselves from justifying the mass rape that took place in Europe during ww2. So based on past experience, you'll likely get yourself banned or you'll change your ideas and drone on about it for a few weeks. Also this is just a pretty hostile community in general for some reason.

I would relax and not worry about it tbh, this forum has no effect on the real world.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Q,

I apologize, then, for not being careful enough in my reading of you. I still disagree with your predictions, as they strike me as condescending. I do agree, though, that I am not done with my development. Had I joined maybe a year ago, I'd be more of the "Espresso Stalinist" variety of "Hoxhaist." You may be right in your predictions, but, again, I am not your enemy. I'm very, very unlikely to support a reading of Stalin or something that would prove hostile to a real-world attempt on your part to organize working class action.

We'll just have to see.


To Ethics Gradient,

Actually, I know what you mean. I've done a bit of lurking and seen what you're talking about. What especially disturbs me is a weird pattern of Soviet fetishism that leads some posters to actually attempting to justify the mass Soviet rape of German women. Denying it would be atrocious, but attempting to justify it is above and beyond atrocious.

You might have seen me in a recent thread about the subject, actually. I was skeptical of a quote attributed to Stalin that made it seem like he was okay with the rape. Where I failed was in attacking the quote rather than criticising the Stalin government for not having taken effective action against the rape.

You're right, though, about this place being hostile. I take some comfort in your reassurance that some twerps on the internet matter little in the grand scheme of things. I can assure you that I will not make any such comments as other "Stalinists" have, and I am open to criticism and self-criticism if I do unconsciously display such chauvinistic attitudes.

[Art Vandelay]

You're right, though, about this place being hostile. I take some comfort in your reassurance that some twerps on the internet matter little in the grand scheme of things.

Look, I can't say I agree with your politics, or even with much of what you posted in this thread, but you'd do good to remember the part of your post I quoted above. This site is meaningless, as is your attempt to start some pro-left unity discussion. Who cares what folks think of your politics and what terms they might hurl at you. Sounds like you've found some folks in your area that you feel you are doing some good organizing with; good for you, focus on that. Most posters on here haven't done shit when it comes to actual political work and, in my opinion, have no idea what the hell they are talking about. My point is don't worry about it. Just keep reading (from a lot of different perspectives) and I wish you well on your political development.

P.s. when I first read through this thread, right after it was posted, one of the individuals who is now chastizing you, had thanked your op. I don't know, kind of found that funny.

[RedWorker]

Most posters on here haven't done shit when it comes to actual political work and, in my opinion, have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

The classic "well you're talking shit behind a screen face me irl m8" line.

[Art Vandelay]

The classic "well you're talking shit behind a screen face me irl m8" line.

Heh. Nah, not at all really. More just a general observation. Hell I've been involved with an organization for about 2 years and don't consider the revolution any closer. My point was to not take this site too seriously, but feel free to interpret my post however you like. Cheers.

[Sinister Intents]

Look, I can't say I agree with your politics, or even with much of what you posted in this thread, but you'd do good to remember the part of your post I quoted above. This site is meaningless, as is your attempt to start some pro-left unity discussion. Who cares what folks think of your politics and what terms they might hurl at you. Sounds like you've found some folks in your area that you feel you are doing some good organizing with; good for you, focus on that. Most posters on here haven't done shit when it comes to actual political work and, in my opinion, have no idea what the hell they are talking about. My point is don't worry about it. Just keep reading (from a lot of different perspectives) and I wish you well on your political development.

P.s. when I first read through this thread, right after it was posted, one of the individuals who is now chastizing you, had thanked your op. I don't know, kind of found that funny.

Actually I'm not chastising him/her, I haven't formed my opinion all the way through on the subject and PMed the OP that I'll get back to them, even though I agree with Q. I want to take more than 5 minutes on this subject and not make a bunch of shitposts because my management class is boring.

[Sabot Cat]

It's hard to cooperate towards a common goal if we don't have as much. Why should I consider you a 'comrade' if all you want to do is make another Cuba, USSR, or China? Or North Korea, of all places?

Unless you have a conception of Marxism-Leninism different from how it has been practiced for a little less than a century, which is possible.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Sabot Cat,

Take a look at the thing I spent a good deal of this thread reiterating.

The creation of a whole new state in the vein of, say, the Soviet Union is pretty far off on the horizon, wouldn't you say? Getting tuition equity in Florida is a bit more realistic. Organizing anti-imperialist protests is also a lot more doable.

Are you really so concerned that I'll try to become a dictator that you won't hold a "U.S. out of Middle East!" banner with me? Or go marching next to me to protest the indictment of an anti-war activist?

You'll probably want to keep your distance because of my tendency to tell dad jokes and eat sloppily, but I don't think these problems are related to Stalin.

[Sinister Intents]

It is bullshit how people tend to use tendency to seemingly gauge one's intelligence or gauge their personality. There are so many different tendencies here on RevLeft with both good and bad politics. You don't strike me as a moron or as ableist, racist, et cetera. Your fascination with Juche and Stalinism has no effect on me save for: "Good for you on knowing how to define yourself. " I used to be a Stalinist in the past with a weak understanding of Marxism, I was very nationalistic and unabashedly supported the cis-hetero-patriarchy. I've very small experience in politics; all of it on the computer, so sadly I'm a keyboard warrior, I'd love to do activism as you have, alas I'm too isolated. What all were you looking for in my response? My label isn't very accurate because my politics are an amalgamation of Marxism with a strong leaning of anarchism. While we differ in tendency, I'd gladly work with you in politics despite difference in practice and theory.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Mistress Sinistra,

I'm embarrassed, because you asked what kind of response I was expecting and I just realized I put no thought into that before posting this.

Funny thing is, I call myself a Leninist, but fellow Leninists of the Stalinist variety describe my Leninism as "heterodox" at best (some even calling me downright revisionist). I've a growing interest in anarchism, too, and some of my impulses toward authority in real life make people think I am an anarchist. By that, I mean everyone in any position of authority in my community has an intimate knowledge of what my middle finger looks like.

A running in-joke among my friends is that I'm an "anarcho-Jucheist." I might still have that punk rock shop of Kim Il-sung on my other computer.

But I really appreciate your comments, and I hope we'll cross paths again on the forums a good many times.

[Sabot Cat]

To Sabot Cat,

Take a look at the thing I spent a good deal of this thread reiterating.

The creation of a whole new state in the vein of, say, the Soviet Union is pretty far off on the horizon, wouldn't you say? Getting tuition equity in Florida is a bit more realistic. Organizing anti-imperialist protests is also a lot more doable.

Are you really so concerned that I'll try to become a dictator that you won't hold a "U.S. out of Middle East!" banner with me? Or go marching next to me to protest the indictment of an anti-war activist?

I can't even begin to convey the harm that Marxist-Leninists have done to revolutionary leftism through failure after failure, disaster after disaster. If there's any group that has aided the bourgeoisie more in destroying the viability of a proletarian revolution, it's you all. Furthermore, I'm sorry if it's hard to get comfortable with you as a political ally... although I'm sure you understand, considering the Marxist-Leninist policy towards provisional political allies is to jail them and shoot them later as counter-revolutionaries once you attain real power.

However, you are right that any leftist attempts at seizing power will be completely ineffectual in the contemporary United States at least. Consequently, I'm not opposed to coalitions with those of disparate political affiliations if it will lead to better consequences than not doing so.

So I guess the answer is sure, if I don't think such an association will be construed as promoting or showing solidarity with Marxist-Leninists or, goodness forbid, followers of that Juche dogmatic doggerel.


You'll probably want to keep your distance because of my tendency to tell dad jokes and eat sloppily, but I don't think these problems are related to Stalin.

I'm aware that people are people, but that doesn't make them comrades, you know?

Although I have to say, you're quite personable. Most people are far more abrasive here. @[email protected]

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Sabot Cat,

I'm afraid I can't understand your objections, and you should have a good idea as to why I can't. Obviously, I came to Leninism precisely because I reject the prevailing narratives about socialist endeavors undertaken with Leninist methodology. To draw a parallel, you shouldn't be surprised that my view of anarchists is colored by my conception of their role in subverting the efforts to halt the Falangists' rise to power in Spain. I don't want to start a whole new debate, but if we're talking about successive failures one after the other, I'm still waiting for an example of success achieved by anarchism or social democracy or left communism, etc.

We might agree, though, that, short of creating a workers' state or thriving anarchist commune, leftists in general have accomplished many things while forced to work in the framework of capitalist society. It's easy to fall back on narratives about Russian Leninists perpetrating all sorts of atrocities, but what about U.S. Leninists? Leftists of all strains have made great strides for the working class in my country, and some of the most underappreciated progressives in U.S. history have at least been influenced by Leninism. I wouldn't put Malcolm X or Huey P. Newton anywhere below paramount figures in the history of this country.

Incidentally, the Black Panthers were supporters of Kim Il-sung and, at least for a time, declared Juche their Party ideology. Not that the Panthers are above criticism for a number of questionable attitudes, but they were an important factor in Black Americans' struggles for their rights and defense against the white supremacist police state.

[Magón]

Wait, since when was Juche considered a far leftist ideology on here? I thought those who advocated that, were either banned or put in OI, precisely because Juche ideology doesn't fall under far left thinking?

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Spooky Skeleton Comrade,

I'm willing to argue Juche is far left and that attempts to spin it to the contrary have their basis in imperialist propaganda.

You probably don't buy that, but ask yourself how willing you are to open that can of worms right now.

[Magón]

To Spooky Skeleton Comrade,

I'm willing to argue Juche is far left and that attempts to spin it to the contrary have their basis in imperialist propaganda.

You probably don't buy that, but ask yourself how willing you are to open that can of worms right now.

You're right, I don't buy that, but I'm also not about to argue it with you, because really I don't care. Juche, whether clouded in propaganda or not, isn't worth my time arguing. Kind of like once you've said or proven yourself to be a reactionary, there's no point in arguing.

But really my comment was just a general question, because before I left, a few Juche supporters were being sent to OI or banned for what they were saying.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Magón,

I take it by making a point to call me a reactionary you're telling me you had utterly no interest in anything I've said here other than that I'm interested in Juche, which you, as so many others have, took as the go-ahead to be a miserable dick.

I'm growing ever more inclined to give weight to what E.G. and the Old Bull said about kids on the internet playing leftism not mattering in the real world.

[Magón]

To Magón,

I take it by making a point to call me a reactionary you're telling me you had utterly no interest in anything I've said here other than that I'm interested in Juche, which you, as so many others have, took as the go-ahead to be a miserable dick.

I'm growing ever more inclined to give weight to what E.G. and the Old Bull said about kids on the internet playing leftism not mattering in the real world.

Well if you support Juche thinking, and what the only Juche country in the world has done, then yes I would call you, and do call them, reactionary. But again, I'm not too interested in arguing about something as pointless as Juche, because it's just that, pointless and would be like talking to a wall.

And since you don't know me, or what I've done, passively trying to call me a kid playing "leftism" on the internet, is quite a leap on your part. I never questioned your own activism, so don't try and leap to conclusions, questioning mine.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Magón,

You did, actually, attack my activism by calling me a reactionary. Had you bothered to read anything here beside that one, precious code word, you'd have not made the leap to calling me a reactionary.

And if Juche is so pointless, why did you feel the need to engage me? It seems it's not so pointless you'd choose not to passive-aggressively assert the reactionary nature of Juche just because you weren't able to instantly shame me out of my interest.

I've got a shot of vodka poured for a response detailing your reasons for calling Juche reactionary despite having claimed you were above arguing about the topic. Wanna help me get wrecked?

[consuming negativity]

Magón isn't being a dick. Old Bull Lee is right about there being a lot of bad posters here, but Magón is not one of them. And there's no reason why imperialists would want to spin Juche to appear not-leftist when the left is anti-imperialist and Juche is the ideology of a totalitarian monarchist state. If anything, they'd be wanting us to think that that's what "real communism" is so that we'll abandon the left and accept lower wages.

Which isn't to say I disagree with you that Juche is a left-wing ideology. Juche, for better or for worse, does have its roots in the political "left" through Stalin and Lenin. And no, I'm not a Stalinist or a Leninist either; I just think playing these "more leftister than thou" games is boring. After a certain point, where something comes from is pretty meaningless, and you need to judge it based on what it is. And, judged on its own merits, Juche is pretty terrible.

No, it's not what the US wants you to think it is, and North Korea is not Hell On Earth™, but none of us are making any arrangements to defect any time soon. Why? Because it's not what the North Korean government wants you to think it is either. It's not special. It's not going to lead the working class to salvation. It's a bunch of post-Stalinist garbage that is somehow even more vacuous than Stalinism itself. Seriously. Anybody who has actually read what Stalin has written cannot be a Stalinist, because the dude had nothing to say worth hearing.

Similarly, I find it very, very hard to believe that you've actually read a lot about Juche and find it genuinely appealing. And if you do, well, I for one have no idea what to tell you. Hopefully in six months you look back at this conversation thinking "wow, how could I be so silly?" and have turned to serious socialist thought.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Most posters on here haven't done shit when it comes to actual political work and, in my opinion, have no idea what the hell they are talking about. who says
what do you know about me
what do you know about the rest of the people here
what is this information-gathering apparatus you're using that gives you access to the personal lives of strangers on the internet

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To communer,

You fail to consider that the prepared imperialist narrative does indeed assert that Juche-based socialism is real communism, but that the atrocious elements of this narrative serve a dual-purpose in hardening the resolve of much of the left to distance itself from north Korea as a "spurious" communism. It retains the right element among the proletariat while robbing anti-imperialism of its allies among the left.

What you have to say about Stalin having written nothing of worth makes your following condescending attempt at shaming me out of Juche that much weaker for the willing forfeit of your credibility.

The reason you don't know what to say to me is because there's nothing you can say to me that isn't some kind of prepared talking point I've met already. Be as condescending as you like, but the responses I've received are unimpressive. My real-world experience has been that people who have accomplished far more than I have are mostly tolerant or even sympathetic to Juche. Comparing that to you, you overestimate what hope you have of making any point I find insightful.

[Sabot Cat]

What does Juche mean to you, precisely? Do you just like the self-reliance part, or are the Great Leader, military-first aspects of Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism also appealing to you?

[Sasha]

To Sasha,

You're a sad excuse for a moderator, and, ignoring for a moment the irony of considering me both irrelevant and a class enemy, you've expertly ignored every single point I made in the post, none the least of which was about active participation in working class struggle. If by some miracle I do become relevant to you, I have no worries about being your "target." As I said, your leftism begins and ends on the internet. If someone is your enemy because of a label alone, you're of no use to any progressive struggle..

not a label, a taken position on the field of class struggle. why should i pretend you are my comrade and a strasserite neo-nazi not? strasserists are also always nagging me that i should be nice to them because they are fellow revolutionary socialists. well no, they are nazi's, they align with and praise people who killed my family. who will kill me if they get in power. so why should i be under any obligation to play nice with you, someone who openly aligns himself with tendencies and people who massmurdered my actual fellow leftists, the people i would actually consider comrades, with someone who will want to kill me if you would ever (very unlikely as it is though) would come to power?

and seriously, you really should stop this "anyone who i doesnt like must be a keyboard warrior" its pathetic, i'm not going to play a dick measuring contest with you but i can guarantee you you are looking like a total tool now to anyone who actually knows me.

[RedWorker]

Here's the problem with OP. We already know it, because we've dealt with Stalinists here, but he doesn't. He's a typical Stalinist. He has no real understanding of Marxism, everything he knows is extremely distorted. He's getting an entirely normal response, but believes the otherwise. We've dealt with Stalinists here and we know that they are all the same, act the same way, and respond in the same way to the same stimulus, and OP is proving to be the same. He interacted in real life with a few kids playing communism, then he encountered actual communists and obviously is shocked because everything he knew turns out to be false.

Like other Stalinists, he is rude, disrespectful, extremely closed minded and just generally annoying (usually because they can't reasonably respond to others' arguments) -- how else would he come to have these political ideas, while ignoring the obvious? --, but they project all these attributes unto others to make themselves look reasonable in their own mind. "Everyone else must be the asshole! I'm being nice!".

Like other Stalinists, he believes that our criticism of Stalinism is that it "was responsible for mass murder". Well, no. Stalin as a person can be called a murderer, but Stalinism is not neccessarily tied down to mass murder; it also existed in so many other countries, such as Cuba. Our criticism of Stalinism is a Marxist criticism of Stalinism. Our criticism of Stalinism is that it is dictatorial, based on revision over Marxism, utopian and idealist, among other things, and basically nearly everything in it is wrong. Stalinism is not Stalin, Stalinism is what was known as "Marxism" in Cuba, USSR, etc.

It goes down to little things, such as mimicking the DPRK's propaganda apparatus by typing "north Korea" instead of "North Korea", or claiming to follow Kimilsungist Thought. To the average person this would be downright ridiculous, but Stalinists have this inability to realize obvious things.

He may call himself a socialist but what good is it if about 50% of the people here in RevLeft consider USSR-style states "state capitalist" according to a poll of 271 users, contrasted with a mere 7% considering them "socialist"? So obviously we can't consider him a "socialist comrade" at all. This surprises him.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Stalinists and DPRK supporters come and go on this site pretty frequently. For whatever reason people who want to wear those titles here always seem to eventually get around to making racist or homophobic comments, and recently they've had trouble stopping themselves from justifying the mass rape that took place in Europe during ww2. So based on past experience, you'll likely get yourself banned or you'll change your ideas and drone on about it for a few weeks. Also this is just a pretty hostile community in general for some reason.

The thing is, "Stalinists" say these things with the same frequency as posters of other tendencies, but they get disproportionately punished for it. Consider the thread you're referencing - the Marcyist Dagoth Ur said some pretty questionable things, but they were open to interpretation at the very least. They were banned (by the same admin who always talks about banning and restricting Stalinists, no less). The "anarchist" exeexe directly said all German women were Nazis who deserved to be raped. He's still around (even though that wasn't the first reactionary outburst from exeexe).

In face, here are some things you can advocate on RevLeft:



a labour market;
a commodity market;
capital markets? sure;
co-determination and cooperatives;
bombing Syria;
"rape of women in the PKK never happened, all those PKK sources talking about cleansing Arabs are the work of the Devil";
gay rights are irrelevant;
"community values";
Stalinist semi-military regimes are cool as long as the comrade president marshal said mean things about Stalin.

And so on. But if you like Stalinist semi-military regimes where the comrade eternal president marshal didn't say mean things about Stalin, you're history. The administration (or some elements in the administration at least) will comb through every post you make, and find something to ban you. If nothing can be found, it will be made up.



Here's the problem with OP. We already know it, because we've dealt with Stalinists here, but he doesn't. He's a typical Stalinist. He has no real understanding of Marxism, everything he knows is extremely distorted.



Dude, you're a shill for social-democrats. Whatever the numerous faults of Marxists-Leninists they are at least revolutionary socialists, something you'll never be.


To add to what Old Bull Lee said, you might notice that most posters here are not members of sympathisers of any revolutionary organisation - unless you count made-up tendencies like Lihism or Internet organisations like the SPUSA or the WSM. I think we're still seeing the fallout from the "Occupy" period where a lot of petit-bourgeois types were attracted to radical liberalism masquerading as socialism (it doesn't help that many of the actual socialists were banned).

[Tim Cornelis]

Juche is a far-right ultranationalist ideology, though not fascist.

Juche stresses social hierarchy and absolutism instead of equality; Juche stresses that 'popular masses' make history and shape governments instead of material conditions and ruling classes; Juche stresses racial purity over equality; Juche is a cancerous ideology. For this reason, Juche is even inconsistent with Stalinism. So I have no idea why you would have affinity with both. North Korea has removed all references to Marxism-Leninism and communism. 'Stalinist in form, nationalist in content' as Charles K. Armstrong said.

Would I work with Nazis and fascists for more favourable tuition fees because a new socialist revolution is far off the horizon? No. Under no circumstances will I cooperate with fascists, Nazis, or ultranationalists, or people with such sympathies such as you. Cooperating with you or fascists for short-term reforms enables you to put yourself in a positive light, and perhaps attract some people to your warped ideas (although unlikely in your case). So no, I'd never cooperate with 'Juche-ists'.

I would cooperate with Maoists, Stalinists, anarchists, Left Communists, Trotskyists, socialdemocrats, but -- although you may find this odd -- I draw the line at cooperation with far-rightists including Juche-ists, ultra-conservatives, ultra-nationalists, fascists, national conservatives, National Bolsheviks, autonomous nationalists, and neo-nazis. Yes, to reiterate, I wouldn't care less if any of those died in a gutter (which is distinct from an imperative to tell them they should die in a gutter, which may be illegal if interpreted as threat).

[Magón]

To Magón,

You did, actually, attack my activism by calling me a reactionary. Had you bothered to read anything here beside that one, precious code word, you'd have not made the leap to calling me a reactionary.

And if Juche is so pointless, why did you feel the need to engage me? It seems it's not so pointless you'd choose not to passive-aggressively assert the reactionary nature of Juche just because you weren't able to instantly shame me out of my interest.

I've got a shot of vodka poured for a response detailing your reasons for calling Juche reactionary despite having claimed you were above arguing about the topic. Wanna help me get wrecked?

What part of my not wanting to argue about Juche, didn't you honestly not understand? You can argue it all you like, but not with me, you'll have to do it with someone else.

You also fail to understand that a person can do good activist work, but still have shitty politics. Just take OWS for example, of people making a statement about Wall Street, but a lot of those same people having shitty political views i.e. Liberal, etc. So no, I was not attacking your activism, but stating that Juche was a reactionary political ideology, and it is, and if you think Juche is a good idea, that makes you reactionary, regardless of your activism. Which is why there's no point in talking or arguing it with you, because as I said, and you're proving, it's like talking to a brick wall.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Sasha,

Who's the total tool, here, who referred to someone as eventually becoming a "target" and compared someone to a Strasserite neo-Nazi? If I look like a tool to the people who know you in real life, you look like a petulent child to the people who know me.

This "you're not my comrade" posturing is what's pathetic, although I get it feels cool to pretend you're defending something. I'm sure workers everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief that at least one RevLeft moderator had the courage to stand up to the Juche infestation.


To RedWorker,

Again, have you ever actually contributed anything at all to these forums? That little rant of yours was just about the pettiest thing I've seen yet.


To 870,

I appreciate that there's at least one person here with some sense.


To Cornelis,

Not one single thing you've said about Juche is true. Your criticisms are nonsensical, and I've encountered them before. The "popular masses" thing is based in a shallow reading of some Juche material. Both Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, especially in the latter's treatise on Juche, make clear that the working class is the class responsible for the end of capitalism and bringing about communism. Referring to "the masses" is a way to illustrate the continuity of class struggle throughout all the modes of production in history.

The racial purity thing is just something cooked up in the imaginations of Western propagandists. Also, north Korea may have removed references to Marxism-Leninism from the Constitution, but this isn't indicative of their attitudes toward communism. In fact, Marxism-Leninism is still a substantial element of study, and every so often they will hang portraits of Marx and Lenin upon the W.P.K. headquarters.

But, Tim, the best thing about this is that you've, like most of the other keyboard kommunists here, attributed to me a bunch of attitudes that don't reflect any of the work I've actually done or how I actually go about life as a communist. You got it into your head that Juche is such-and-such, and any "Jucheist" who doesn't conform to that understanding must not understand Juche correctly.


To Skeleton Dude,

There's no point in arguing, yet you keep doing it. Why?


To Sabot Cat,

Can I get back to you? Maybe when the shitstorm of self-righteous LARPers has passed?

[Sabot Cat]

To Sabot Cat,

Can I get back to you?

You can PM if you would like. :)

Although I can't say that Tim Cornelis's criticisms are misplaced if you believe something along the lines of this (http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/062nd_issue/98092410.htm), which indeed extols Korean nationalism and the rest.

That's also why I asked for clarification: I'm not sure how much of this you agree with, if any.

[Sasha]

:lol:

[Magón]

To Skeleton Dude,

There's no point in arguing, yet you keep doing it. Why?


Uh... I'm not, nor was I before, arguing with you. In fact, you're the one who wanted to argue with me, when I said there was no point to. I was just clearing up what you were obviously confused about, in thinking I was somehow attacking your activism when I was commenting on your political views on Juche alone. The two can be separate, and often are with most people. You are an example of such people is all.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Magon,

I do apologize, then, for my hostility. I disagree with you about my politics, of course, but I lashed out defensively.


To Deadpool,

Don't you have some Golden Girls to watch?

[Tim Cornelis]

This "you're not my comrade" posturing is what's pathetic

What if, brace yourself, you really aren't our comrade? What if you are as much my comrade as, indeed, Strasserites and 'National Anarchists'?


To 870,

I appreciate that there's at least one person here with some sense.

It figures, you like wingnut Spart 870.


To Cornelis,

Not one single thing you've said about Juche is true. Your criticisms are nonsensical, and I've encountered them before. The "popular masses" thing is based in a shallow reading of some Juche material. Both Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, especially in the latter's treatise on Juche, make clear that the working class is the class responsible for the end of capitalism and bringing about communism. Referring to "the masses" is a way to illustrate the continuity of class struggle throughout all the modes of production in history.

The racial purity thing is just something cooked up in the imaginations of Western propagandists. Also, north Korea may have removed references to Marxism-Leninism from the Constitution, but this isn't indicative of their attitudes toward communism. In fact, Marxism-Leninism is still a substantial element of study, and every so often they will hang portraits of Marx and Lenin upon the W.P.K. headquarters.

But, Tim, the best thing about this is that you've, like most of the other keyboard kommunists here, attributed to me a bunch of attitudes that don't reflect any of the work I've actually done or how I actually go about life as a communist. You got it into your head that Juche is such-and-such, and any "Jucheist" who doesn't conform to that understanding must not understand Juche correctly.

To the contrary, everything I said about Juche is true. Juche is the insane brainchild of insane absolutist autocrats. It has nothing in common with Marxism. Their attitude to communism is as fundamental as the attitude of National Bolsheviks to communism. That North Korea stresses racial purity is as much Western propaganda as the Holocaust is Zionist propaganda.

North Korea is a racist, Korean supremacist, ultranationalist, absolutist autocratic dictatorship. There is no discussion to be had about these facts.

And of course, you know the personal involvement of people on this forum in activism do you now?

I don't care about your 'real life' posturing of 'going about your life as communist' since it's meaningless since you are not a communist.


To Sabot Cat,

Can I get back to you? Maybe when the shitstorm of self-righteous LARPers has passed?

LARPers now? Rather ironic.

[RedWorker]

The OP has, thus far, failed to initiate any dialogue about what attracts him to Stalinism and draws him away from Marxism.

[Sasha]

Wheter OP is a communist or not, at least 870 will defend his right to nuclear arms....

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The tribalism is real

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Wheter OP is a communist or not, at least 870 will defend his right to nuclear arms....

And if Obama decides to bomb him, you'll adopt a line that amounts to supporting Obama.

But yeah, "defend the North Korean deformed workers' state's right to nuclear arms" gets under people's skin - which is a good thing. If you're consistent, that will happen. Well, to be fair most Trotskyist groups consider the DPRK a deformed workers' state, but most of them are too frightened to draw the logical conclusions (or have a truly petit-bourgeois fear of nuclear weapons, as the late E. Mandel did).

[consuming negativity]

To communer,

You fail to consider that the prepared imperialist narrative does indeed assert that Juche-based socialism is real communism, but that the atrocious elements of this narrative serve a dual-purpose in hardening the resolve of much of the left to distance itself from north Korea as a "spurious" communism. It retains the right element among the proletariat while robbing anti-imperialism of its allies among the left.

What you have to say about Stalin having written nothing of worth makes your following condescending attempt at shaming me out of Juche that much weaker for the willing forfeit of your credibility.

The reason you don't know what to say to me is because there's nothing you can say to me that isn't some kind of prepared talking point I've met already. Be as condescending as you like, but the responses I've received are unimpressive. My real-world experience has been that people who have accomplished far more than I have are mostly tolerant or even sympathetic to Juche. Comparing that to you, you overestimate what hope you have of making any point I find insightful.

No man, I wasn't trying to shame you out of anything. Nor was I trying to be condescending. I was stating my opinion. You are free to believe whatever you want and I am free to believe whatever I want about you in turn. That's just... reality. But I apologize if you misinterpreted my post as an attack against your character; it isn't unreasonable for you to be making that assumption given the environment in which you're posting.

But I would actually like to be wrong about Stalin. He's an interesting historical figure, and I was very disappointed to find that he had nothing worth saying through his words. Not least because part of my personality is that I really, really like to play the devil's advocate and even to argue positions I think are wrong because it gives me a chance to explore the thought patterns of other people. So if you really think you're so much more knowledgeable than me on this subject, I want you to link me to something interesting that I could gain from intellectually-speaking. What did he contribute to theory that was not gained through interpretation of his actions, mistakes, and triumphs? I'm not saying he was useless - I'm just saying he never wrote anything worth reading. And, to clarify, his speech when the Germans surrendered doesn't count. That was pretty cool. But it wasn't smart, which is what I'm looking for.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Can I get back to you? Maybe when the shitstorm of self-righteous LARPers has passed? it ain't larping if it's on the internet, bruh.

[Црвена]

I do appreciate the organising being done by other tendencies of communism in order to participate in workers' struggles and work towards an abolition of capitalism through revolution...but sometimes the tendency differences are too great. As an anti-vanguardist and anti-centralist who thinks the revolution that ends capitalism must be as global as the system it ends, apart from the occasional bit of labour union activity, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to work with Stalinists and proponents of the Juche idea. I wish left unity was possible, but there are just too many political differences in the left.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Saying the DPRK state is a "worker's state" of any kind makes the notion of a "worker's state" utterly bankrupt. The same goes for China, Vietnam and Laos. Among other things, they extol nationalism not internationalism, the bureaucracy and military hold far more practical political power than "the workers", and the exploitation of labor for the extraction of surplus value is encouraged to give the ruling class cash for international trade.

None of the nation-states ruled today were brought to power by a worker's revolution, but by armed force. These weren't states ruled by the workers, and the wholesale conversion to bourgeois norms of commerce in China and Vietnam are great examples of this. The DPRK on the other hand is dominated by its armed forces, which explains why such a non-productive sector of the economy receives so much investment (of course, one might respond that it faces RoK and US aggression, but no other target of US Imperialism, from Iran to Cuba to even China, have such high and sustained rates of military spending, and none of those countries have a large, albeit nominal ally right next door which values it as a buffer).

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Cornelis,

Aside from the childish mudslinging, all you've really managed is to repeat your assertions sans any support or even explanation whatsoever. I have a feeling I'm not going to get much more than that.


To RedWorker,

Because that isn't the point of this thread, and you're still being really passive-aggressive.


To communer,

I can't imagine why you would say Stalin never wrote anything of value. I apologize for getting defensive, though. I'd really like to talk at length, though.


To S.C.M.,

What do you feel like the difference is between a revolution and armed force? I mean, I get that the latter doesn't necessarily entail the other, but it's not like it's weird to think of a revolution as involving some degree of violence. And the military is actually not non-productive, unless you mean in a strict economic sense. The military is deployed to build up.infrastructure throughout the country.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Saying the DPRK state is a "worker's state" of any kind makes the notion of a "worker's state" utterly bankrupt. The same goes for China, Vietnam and Laos. Among other things, they extol nationalism not internationalism, the bureaucracy and military hold far more practical political power than "the workers", and the exploitation of labor for the extraction of surplus value is encouraged to give the ruling class cash for international trade.

None of the nation-states ruled today were brought to power by a worker's revolution, but by armed force. These weren't states ruled by the workers, and the wholesale conversion to bourgeois norms of commerce in China and Vietnam are great examples of this. The DPRK on the other hand is dominated by its armed forces, which explains why such a non-productive sector of the economy receives so much investment (of course, one might respond that it faces RoK and US aggression, but no other target of US Imperialism, from Iran to Cuba to even China, have such high and sustained rates of military spending, and none of those countries have a large, albeit nominal ally right next door which values it as a buffer).

Serious question: do you know what the term "deformed workers' state" refers to? Because it seems to me that people don't grasp what a deformed workers' state is, they just take offence at the words "workers' state". I remember giving you a link to the ICL position on China, to which you never responded if I recall correctly. I think the discussion on Cuba in the old SWP is also online - that's where the ICL line on China, the DPRK and so on originated (as well as the WL line that Cuba was a "state with a weak bourgeoisie").

[Zoroaster]

And if Obama decides to bomb him, you'll adopt a line that amounts to supporting Obama.

But yeah, "defend the North Korean deformed workers' state's right to nuclear arms" gets under people's skin - which is a good thing. If you're consistent, that will happen. Well, to be fair most Trotskyist groups consider the DPRK a deformed workers' state, but most of them are too frightened to draw the logical conclusions (or have a truly petit-bourgeois fear of nuclear weapons, as the late E. Mandel did).

http://gowherehiphop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/276253_papel-de-parede-meme-jackie-chan_1920x1440.jpg

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

Just as a note.

Cornelis is bothering me in P.M. and seems to think that, despite being an American of Anglo-Irish background, I'm somehow a Korean racial supremacist. To illustrate this point, he has begun throwing racist slurs around.

Because, you know, I'm the racist.

[Illegalitarian]

Third Wave Neo-Ceaușescist-Avakianists

I refuse to believe that this is a thing

[Illegalitarian]

I'm also a bit confused as to how one can be a Jucheist, since Jucheism is really nothing more than protracted war communism with Korean characteristics. Seems pretty pointless.

[Sasha]

dont know, if you want defacto hereditary authoritarian power with a strong emphasis on the military while poor people starve in the US just vote for Jeb Bush

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To the Illegalitarian,

That isn't a thing, no. I made it up for mirth-related purposes. Also, I think your characterization of Juche is off, although I do appreciate the parallel with War Communism.


To Sasha,

So do ever actually contribute to any conversation or...?

[Illegalitarian]

So are supporters of ideologically-driven financial organizations such as the world bank and IMF imposing neo-liberal structural adjustments on underdeveloped nations Bushist-Third Worldists? :laugh:

[Sea]

Frankly, there's a Trotskyite on this board whose posts I've thanked on a few occasionsOh sweet baby jesus you are a traitor!

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

So are supporters of ideologically-driven financial organizations such as the world bank and IMF imposing neo-liberal structural adjustments on underdeveloped nations Bushist-Third Worldists? :laugh:

I'd have said Neo-Reaganite-Randists, but now we're just being silly!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

To S.C.M.,

What do you feel like the difference is between a revolution and armed force? I mean, I get that the latter doesn't necessarily entail the other, but it's not like it's weird to think of a revolution as involving some degree of violence. And the military is actually not non-productive, unless you mean in a strict economic sense. The military is deployed to build up.infrastructure throughout the country.

Revolutions often entail force of arms, but not all armed uprisings can be described as a "worker's revolution". These revolutions were not committed by bodies of workers but by armies who proclaimed a revolution by fiat.

I think this is reflected in the ideological predilections of these countries towards nationalism, and the relative quickness in which their bureaucracies opened up to the liberal world order.


Serious question: do you know what the term "deformed workers' state" refers to? Because it seems to me that people don't grasp what a deformed workers' state is, they just take offence at the words "workers' state". I remember giving you a link to the ICL position on China, to which you never responded if I recall correctly. I think the discussion on Cuba in the old SWP is also online - that's where the ICL line on China, the DPRK and so on originated (as well as the WL line that Cuba was a "state with a weak bourgeoisie").

You did give me that link, and I admit I did not have time to finish it (I had other things going on) but my issue isn't with whether or not it's a worker's state which is deformed, but if it can be properly called any kind of "worker's state" at all (deformed or otherwise), especially one seen as worth defending. Their regime has nothing to offer the workers of the world

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To S.C.M.,

I disagree, but I get where you're coming from.

Would I be off in saying you might characterize these coups as Blanquist in nature?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Marxism-DeLeonism-Hatsune Miku Thought with Kilrathi Characteristics.*

(Yeah, chew on that one nerds:grin:)

*also known as Marxism-Brandonism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=19072)

[Sabot Cat]

Talking to ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт by PM, I'll just say that I don't think his political philosophy is all that bad from what I know about it so far. I'm not sure why he prefers the 'Marxism-Leninism' or 'Juche' labels if I'm understanding him correctly as a proponent of workplace democracy, but that's more a problem of terms than beliefs.

[Illegalitarian]

What does Juche mean to you, ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт?

[Zoroaster]

Communisation Theory-Pabloist-Ric Flair Thought with Scottish Characteristics...

Hey, I'm trying my best here people, give me credit where it's due.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Illegalitarian,

Juche, to me, is an approach to a Leninist conception of communism that allows for creativity and independence. That is, you don't have to dogmatically enforce every concept uttered by the orthodox Marxist authorities, especially if those concepts were formulations mean to address peculiar conditions. However, this is balanced by an understanding of the role of the proletariat in creating a new world, and it emphasizes this point even when a more authoritarian chain of command is necessary to deal with life-or-death crisis.

[John Nada]

Communisation Theory-Pabloist-Ric Flair Thought with Scottish Characteristics... Hey, I'm trying my best here people, give me credit where it's due.Locke-Blanqi-Bakunin-Bodiga-Pancho Villa-Lin Biao-Hoxha-Kabila-Chavez thought with neo-eco-feminist and anarcho-kautskyist characteristics.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

Locke-Blanqi-Bakunin-Bodiga-Pancho Villa-Lin Biao-Hoxha-Kabila-Chavez thought with neo-eco-feminist and anarcho-kautskyist characteristics.

Well fuck.

[motion denied]

and it emphasizes this point even when a more authoritarian chain of command is necessary to deal with life-or-death crisis

Posts like this give the impression DPRK is in permanent state of exception (à la Carl Schmitt).

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

Herr Unrat,

It isn't, though. It's in a pretty precarious predicament right now, of course, but conditions change. That's really the only constant.

[John Nada]

Posts like this give the impression DPRK is in permanent state of exception (à la Carl Schmitt).Well, the US has permanently declared war on them. Technically the US and South Korea are still at war with North Korea.

[Tim Cornelis]

This dimwited fool doesn't appear to understand what I tried to tell him. The North Korean regime is a far-right regime, virtually a military dictatorship, based on Korean supremacist ultranationalism. That he supports the regime means he supports Korean supremacism. One doesn't need to be a Korean for this, obviously. But basic logic isn't his strong suit apparently, but then, if it was, he wouldn't have sympathies for Juche.
When I used a racial slur this was in reference to North Korea's racist tirade against Obama, where these 'socialists' basically called Obama a dirty crossbreed, subhuman, and monkey. Of course, this went right over his head.
To reiterate, this bloke has sympathies for Juche. It is irrelevant that he has not himself expressed Korean supremacism in the same way that a neo-Nazi apologist or a member of a neo-Nazi organistion can be denounced for this without that person personally having expressed neo-Nazi political positions. I don't care about the specifics of the reason to rally behind these types of far-right ideologies.
Anyone who proclaims affinity for any far-right ideology or regime should be shunned personally and politically, isolated, and, under certain conditions, violence should be directed to prevent them from organising publicly.
Like National Bolsheviks, 'Juche-ists' may window dress their political conduct with red imagery and rhetoric, but they are not socialists. Why do we tolerate this avowed apologist for an ethnic nationalist absolutist regime on this forum for revolutionary leftists? All apologists and defenders of this far-right regime should be banned, including misguided Trotskyist with incoherent notions of 'deformed workers' states'.

[Zoroaster]

Tim, I don't mean to be rude, but why should Trotskyists be banned? Sure, I don't agree with them on a lot of things, but banning doesn't seem appropriate.

[Magón]

I'm going to ask this again, because maybe things have changed, but: honestly, didn't this site at least restrict Juche supporters at one time? Kind of like how AnCaps, Maoist Third-Worldists, etc. were either restricted or banned?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Tim, I don't mean to be rude, but why should Trotskyists be banned? Sure, I don't agree with them on a lot of things, but banning doesn't seem appropriate.

Well, if they banned all the actual revolutionary socialists, then the people who remained would be more willing to listen to their nonsense about the Zapatistas and about SYRIZA etc. I swear, one of these days even the leftcoms (I mean actual left communists, not the sort of people who consider themselves leftcoms on RevLeft) will get the axe because they didn't support the bombing of Syria and Iraq.

[Tim Cornelis]

And again, 870 continues his parade of extreme intellectual dishonesty. Clearly, he can't get over the fact that he called Marx's concept of communism, the free association of producers, as Proudhonist. Me confronting him with his denouncing of Marx as Proudhonist has caused him to continually misrepresent my positions out of spite, and he continues doing so despite me pointing out he's wrong. I have never claimed to support SYRIZA, I have only appealed to the Zapatistas and MST in the same way that Marx appealed to cooperatives. Marx's appeal, of course, did not mean he was 'cooperativist', in the same way that me appealing to the Zapatistas or MST does not make me a Zapatista or Stalinist. But since this extremely dishonest argument is the only argument he can think of to counter-balance how he, due to his Spart politics, denounced Marx as a Proudhonist, he will continue until his mind is liberated of the asinine pseudo-cult politics of the Sparts. And since he doesn't have the intellectual courage to confront this, he, of course, has blocked me, disallowing me from challenging his ridiculous politics.

@Socialisme ou Barbarie
I didn't say Trotskyists need to be banned. I said people who support far-right regimes need to banned, and this includes some (right-wing) Trotskyists -- in my experience, only Sparts and Spart derivatives. If there were Trotskyists who said we need to support the Peron regime, or Saudi Arabia's absolutism, or Hitler's Nazi-Germany as 'deformed workers' states' then it would be uncontroversial to nominate them for bans. The same should go for supporting the ethnic nationalist Korean regime.

[RedWorker]

Coincidentally, 870 has aligned himself with this Stalinist and claimed that this social-democratic tendency represents "revolutionary socialism".

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Timmy,

You can assert all these things until you're blue in the face, but you continually fail to demonstrate the right-wing character of the Juche Idea and you continually fail to demonstrate how I've exemplified any right-wing attitudes. In fact, you're trying to excuse yourself from so doing by saying it's "irrelevant" whether I'm actually an (Anglo-Irish American) Korean racial supremacist, and that this somehow means I can still be tied to neo-Nazis.

All you've managed to do is stamp your foot, call me names, and hurl racial slurs while calling me a racist.

What else you got?

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

Again, RedWorker,

Have you anything to actually contribute other than sticking your tongue out from behind Cornelis as he rants?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Coincidentally, 870 has aligned himself with this Stalinist and claimed that this social-democratic tendency represents "revolutionary socialism".

Seriously, are "Stalinist" and "social-democratic" the only words in your vocabulary? What is breathtakingly hypocritical about your behaviour is that you are an open shill for the social-democratic Podemos. "That Stalinist" is a revolutionary socialist - they might not be a good revolutionary socialist or a consistent one, but as far as I can tell (it's not as if we're drinking buddies) they fight for the overthrow of the bourgeois state by a workers' revolution. Unlike you with your beloved Pablemos. Or people who openly proclaim they work with liberals, prefer social-democrats to Stalinists and admit to working with cops. Or people who think the dictatorship of the proletariat is the bourgeois democratic republic. Or...

[RedWorker]

"That Stalinist" is a revolutionary socialist - they might not be a good revolutionary socialist or a consistent one, but as far as I can tell (it's not as if we're drinking buddies) they fight for the overthrow of the bourgeois state by a workers' revolution.

This Stalinist "revolution" can in fact take place within the parameters of the bourgeois state and take the form of a coup or annexation, and the Stalinist states were bourgeois states. As for the socialist part, I don't know what socialism you're referring to; after all, you admitted the GDR was under the capitalist mode of production.

Your positions on "workers' states" amount to strategically supporting Stalinist states, which are nothing but the bourgeois state under the capitalist mode of production coupled with social democratic policies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This Stalinist "revolution" can in fact take place within the parameters of the bourgeois state and take the form of a coup or annexation, and the Stalinist states were bourgeois states.

Your positions about "workers' states" amount to strategically supporting Stalinist states, which are nothing but the bourgeois state under the capitalist mode of production coupled with social democratic policies.

Well, you can yell that until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that (1) you can't explain the "Stalinist states", particularly the restriction of the law of value, their behaviour internationally etc. (I am reminded of Robertson's quip that the late Draper, the most left-wing of the Shachtmanites, saw Stalinism not as based on "a configuration of class forces, but a kind of black magic"), (2) your stupid quasi-Shachtmanist line has been proven to be suicidal for the proletariat, in Bolivia, in Hungary and elsewhere, (3) you are the cheerleader for bona fide social democrats.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

Go ahead and let us know when you've overthrown a bourgeois state, then, RedBuddy.

[Tim Cornelis]

To Timmy,

You can assert all these things until you're blue in the face, but you continually fail to demonstrate the right-wing character of the Juche Idea and you continually fail to demonstrate how I've exemplified any right-wing attitudes. In fact, you're trying to excuse yourself from so doing by saying it's "irrelevant" whether I'm actually an (Anglo-Irish American) Korean racial supremacist, and that this somehow means I can still be tied to neo-Nazis.

All you've managed to do is stamp your foot, call me names, and hurl racial slurs while calling me a racist.

What else you got?

"and that this somehow means I can still be tied to neo-Nazis."
You don't come across as stupid so I'm not sure why you're acting stupid. I didn't say you could still be tied to neo-Nazis, I said it is possibly that someone aligns himself with neo-Nazis without expressing neo-Nazi sympathies himself. Objectively, this hypothetical person (meaning we're not talking about you, a concrete and real person) is then aligned with neo-Nazism.

Kim Jong Il: "The consolidation of blood relations between the leader, the Party and the masses is guaranteed by the single ideology and united leadership." In other words, the Juche ideology is based on blood relations of the Korean ethnicity, with the absolute patriarch ('father of the people', a so-far hereditary function of the Kim Dynasty) overseeing it. The nation, defined by pure bloodlines among other things, has primacy over social class in Juche. This ideology is supplemented by domestic policies to guarantee that this blood relations and bloodline is guaranteed by subjecting women suspected of having inter-ethnic foetuses to forced abortions. In Crossing the Line (2006) we also see that foreign residents are not permitted to have relationships with Korean natives, and all foreign residents have foreign partners. Of course, this is sold as 'coincidence' but this is reasonably implausible. We see propaganda extolling racial purity of Koreans and we see North Korea calling Obama a crossbreed monkey belonging in the zoo, and a Cuban diplomat almost being lynched over being of African descent.

It is therefore abundantly clear that we are dealing with a far-right ethnic nationalist absolutist regime. Anyone who refuses to see this is deluding himself. And no, I don't care for the specifics for this self-delusion: any support for such a regime in whatever form it may come should not be tolerated.

[Rafiq]

I don't understand all the drama. Who cares? Are you all truly threatened intellectually by a self proclaimed sympathizer of Juche?

[RedWorker]

Well, you can yell that until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that (1) you can't explain the "Stalinist states", particularly the restriction of the law of value, their behaviour internationally etc. (I am reminded of Robertson's quip that the late Draper, the most left-wing of the Shachtmanites, saw Stalinism not as based on "a configuration of class forces, but a kind of black magic"), (2) your stupid quasi-Shachtmanist line has been proven to be suicidal for the proletariat, in Bolivia, in Hungary and elsewhere, (3) you are the cheerleader for bona fide social democrats.

This doesn't refute any of my points. Is your position that the USSR was a classless society or that only the proletariat existed in these states? Because that is ridiculous. The proletariat was completely disassociated from the means of production, which were coincidentally associated with a group. Note that class in Marxism is derived from production relationships. And how has "my line" been "suicidal"?

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't understand all the drama. Who cares? Are you all truly threatened intellectually by a self proclaimed sympathizer of Juche?

Fair enough.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Tim,

Your use of that quote is wholly spin. And I've seen Crossing the Line, as well, and I'm not sure how anyone can seriously assert that non-Koreans are not allowed to have relations with Koreans in the D.P.R.K. You realize James Joseph Dresnok, one of the most famous defectors to north Korea, has been married to two Korean women since he showed up there, right? And you realize his half-Korean son is a tenured English professor?

It's bizarre you would cite overtly anti-D.P.R.K. propaganda and expect me to buy it wholesale.

As for referring to Obama as a "wicked black monkey" on the K.C.N.A. English website (to correct your paraphrase), that did indeed happen and it was an atrocious thing to say. I can't speak for the copy writer responsible for typing that and it is troubling that this was allowed to reach publication without consideration to the racist connotations of saying so. However, aside from your spin on that Kim Jong-il quote and citing baseless and demonstrably untrue claims about abortions and foreign relations, this is all the evidence you have that the Juche Idea is a far-right ideology.

Let me reiterate: some assholes in government were being stupid assholes in an isolated incident and that means the entire philosophy of Juche, its entire body of work and its influence on north Korean policy, is far-right.

I get that you hate the far-right and want to stamp it out, as do I. But you know what they say about when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Magón]

This doesn't refute any of my points. Is your position that the USSR was a classless society or that only the proletariat existed in these states? Because that is ridiculous. The proletariat was completely disassociated from the means of production, which were coincidentally associated with a group. Note that class in Marxism is derived from production relationships. And how has "my line" been "suicidal"?

If you're not familiar with Trotsky's take on the USSR under Stalin, and subsequent followers of Trotsky's line of thinking, which by tendency, I assume 870 is apart of, you might want to read up.

SPOILER ALERT

Trotsky got killed over it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This doesn't refute any of my points. Is your position that the USSR was a classless society or that only the proletariat existed in these states? Because that is ridiculous. The proletariat was completely disassociated from the means of production, which were coincidentally associated with a group. Note that class in Marxism is derived from production relationships. And how has "my line" been "suicidal"?

And so, once again, someone who criticises the Trotskyist (perhaps I should say "Cannonite" in deference to our comrades in the LRP) position on the glacis and similar states turns out to never have read a Trotskyist treatment of the problem! Because of course a deformed workers' state is not a classless society, that is Detonnaciones-grade nonsense. Do yourself a favour and read. Mandel's "Ten Theses", whatever of the discussion on Cuba in the SWP is online, whatever - but don't pretend to criticise something when you have no idea what it is.

As for Bolivia, again, Robertson put it best:

Dear Comrades
Your latest issue (Volume 4, no 3, Summer 1992), devoted to the Bolivian events of 1952, reprints ‘Trotskyism in Bolivia’ by Juan Rey-Juan Robles from the December 1947 New International, journal of the Shachtman tendency in the United States.
In the 1950s I was a member of Shachtman’s Workers Party—International Socialist League (WP-ISL). Sam Ryan (Roth), leader, along with Dennis Vern, of the Vern-Ryan tendency which came over to the Shachtman tendency in Los Angeles from the SWP, had become very interested in the conduct of the Bolivian Trotskyists in 1952. He had written several pieces for the SWP Internal Bulletin on the subject, and was quite avid, having gotten someone fluent in Spanish to translate everything he could find on the Bolivian Partido Obrero Revolucionario (POR - Revolutionary Workers Party).
The Northern California-based left opposition in the ISL, of which I was a part, was quite impressed by Ryan’s arguments that the FOR had missed a revolutionary situation in Bolivia in 1952. When in 1957 Shachtman came out for liquidating the ISL into the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation, we made contact with the Vern-Ryan group, hoping that they also opposed Shachtman’s liquidationist course. On the contrary. They told us that they had joined the ISL because they thought it was a Social Democratic organisation, and they were very, very happy to be joining a much bigger one (actually the SP-SDF was only slightly bigger than the ISL, but Shachtman was pushing the myth that it was much larger). So that ended our contact with Vern-Ryan.
We were impressed by what Ryan wrote on Bolivia, but it turned out that this line was at some variance with the tendency’s actual political appetites. The literary posture of a group may not correspond with its main direction of political motion. This point has been proved to me over the years again and again, as for example with the Healy tendency in the 1950s, or with the attempt by Al Richardson’s Revolutionary Communist League (Chartists ) in 1972 to make a distinction between the Spartacist League US and the ‘different and superior’ journal Workers Action in California (which was in fact published by the Spartacist League US). This is why we have reserved judgement on the Haston-Grant majority of the British Revolutionary Communist Party of the 1940s. Literary postures, when seen from a great distance, may not be what they appear, when experienced on the ground.
The Shachtman WP-ICL had a journalistic collaborator, apparently a Polish emigré probably resident in Chile, who wrote on Latin American affairs under the name Juan Rey or Juan Robles. When writing on East Europe he used the name Andrzej Rudzienski, which might have been his real name.
In May 1952 ‘Juan Rey’ raised the call for a workers’ government in Bolivia, criticising the FOR, official section of the Fourth International, for tailing the bourgeois nationalist Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR - Revolutionary National Movement):
‘At this moment Bolivia is the most revolutionary country in South America, and it could precipitate the social revolution. But clear revolutionary consciousness is lacking. The FOR (‘Trotskyists’) will not issue the watchword “All power to the workers’ unions”, because it does not want to break with the nationalists. If the workers’ unions do not present an ultimatum to the government, they will miss the revolutionary situation, and they will then be defeated. Only a workers’ government, representing the whole working class, including the nationalists, Stalinists and Trotskyists, could realise the bourgeois-democratic postulates of the revolution, that is, agrarian reform and the economic liberation of the country. But that would be a Socialist revolution.’ (‘Crisis Lies Ahead in Bolivian Revolution as Armed Workers Face Nationalist “Allies”’, Labor Action, 19 May 1952)
This was following the April 1952 destruction of the army at the hands of the pro-MNR national police, joined by armed workers, which then led to the disappearance of the national police, leaving a vacuum ripe for dual power and the seizure of state power, at least on the Altiplano, by the organised Bolivian working class. A very equivocal formation called the Central Obrera Boliviana (COB - Bolivian Workers Central Organisation) did come to exercise considerable but irresolute authority, while American imperialism hastened to reconstitute an officer corps. The tin mines were nationalised, and the Patiño family left for their Paris retreat.
The situation predictably decomposed, facilitated by the Stalinists in the COB and Juan Lechin, an MNR politician popular with the miners. The situation then slid backwards over several years into something resembling the old order.
Juan Rey’s call, in the pages of Labor Action, for authentic workers’ soviet power in Bolivia, was hotly disputed by the journal’s editor, Hal Draper, on the bureaucratic collectivist premise that at no time and under no circumstances should a Stalinist party be willingly allowed to participate in a major public event. In an introduction to Juan Rey’s article, Draper opined:
‘Information on the course of events in Bolivia and on the exact character of the political movements in that country is extremely limited in New York. Yet we feel constrained to point out that if the Bolivian Stalinist movement is similar to its counterparts in other lands, it is very doubtful whether it would be either possible or desirable for the left wing workers there to form a government in affiance with the Stalinists.’
Draper’s position was the first major issue which impelled me into opposition to the ISL leadership. The Stalinists were not some alien conquering force - they stood at the head of sectors of the working class as union leaders. If we couldn’t engage in political struggle with Stalinists in a situation where they depended on a proletarian base, and under conditions approximating to dual power, when could we? I thought Draper’s line tended to treat the Stalinists as if their essential social quality was not based on the configuration of class forces, but some kind of black magic.
Fraternally
James Robertson
International Communist League

[Art Vandelay]

Tim do you characterize calling for immediate political revolution within the DPRK as somehow being a form of support? Or is it simply an anti-imperialist stance, that is analogous to 'support,' in your opinion?

I'm genuinely curious and for the record, despite being of the trot persuasion, I've always taken a somewhat instinctual stance against the theory of deformed workers states. I do find it interesting though that you've essentially called for the banning of all trots on the forum who are affiliated with the ICL, RCIT, IMT, CWI, FI (ICR), USFI, etc...all of whom characterize the DPRK as a deformed workers state...so basically the majority of trots on the forum, which seems pretty ridiculous.

[Rafiq]

Having genuine discussions about the legitimacy of the DPRK and whether it is worth support emits a disturbing degeneration of the political standards of this website.

North Korea is reactionary in the global totality of capitalism. This is a given.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Rafiq,

I've been lurking for a bit, and the political standards of this website didn't have far to fall.

But your statement is more or less just a passive-aggressive jab at people who disagree with you, meaning you're partly responsible for the low bar.

[Tim Cornelis]

To Tim,

Your use of that quote is wholly spin. And I've seen Crossing the Line, as well, and I'm not sure how anyone can seriously assert that non-Koreans are not allowed to have relations with Koreans in the D.P.R.K. You realize James Joseph Dresnok, one of the most famous defectors to north Korea, has been married to two Korean women since he showed up there, right? And you realize his half-Korean son is a tenured English professor?

It's bizarre you would cite overtly anti-D.P.R.K. propaganda and expect me to buy it wholesale.

As for referring to Obama as a "wicked black monkey" on the K.C.N.A. English website (to correct your paraphrase), that did indeed happen and it was an atrocious thing to say. I can't speak for the copy writer responsible for typing that and it is troubling that this was allowed to reach publication without consideration to the racist connotations of saying so. However, aside from your spin on that Kim Jong-il quote and citing baseless and demonstrably untrue claims about abortions and foreign relations, this is all the evidence you have that the Juche Idea is a far-right ideology.

Let me reiterate: some assholes in government were being stupid assholes in an isolated incident and that means the entire philosophy of Juche, its entire body of work and its influence on north Korean policy, is far-right.

I get that you hate the far-right and want to stamp it out, as do I. But you know what they say about when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Dresnok was never married to an ethnic Korean. He does not have a half-Korean son. If he did, this would still not convince me. The fact that 120,000, iirc, half-Jewish people served in the Wehrmacht under Hitler, reluctantly accepted, does not negate the anti-semitic character of the Nazi regime.

You saying it was an isolated incident of some assholes is absolutely and utterly delusional. The media is tightly controlled by the state and its leadership. Of course, you don't believe this. You will likewise refuse to believe any source I bring up that is not KNCA and denounce it as "propganda". All this rests on faith and I cannot break down this unshaken faith in the DPRK for you. And I will say again, these incidents are as much "Western propganda" fabrications as the Holocaust is fabricated Zionist propaganda.

This characterisation of Obama was not coincidental and not isolated, it originates from the ethnic nationalist ideology of North Korea. You did not refute that quote, you merely said my use of it was "wholly spin". North Korea = ethnic nationalist absolutist regime. Evidence for this is abundant.

Again, you objectively support a far-right regime. You should therefore be treated the same as sympathiser of Golden Dawn.

[Sabot Cat]

Juche is a far-right ideology because it demands absolute loyalty to 'the leader' and the Korean nation.

Quotations from On Juche:

"The core in the Juche outlook on the revolution is loyalty to the party and the leader. The cause of socialism and communism is started by the leader and is carried out under the guidance of the party and the leader. The revolutionary movement will be victorious only when it follows the guidance of the party and the leader. Therefore, to establish a correct outlook on the revolution, one must always put the main emphasis on increasing loyalty to the party and the leader."

"To establish a correct outlook on the revolution, one must have communist revolutionary spirit, This spirit is an infinite devotion to give one's all for the party and the leader, the working class and the people. burning hatred for the enemy of the revolution and an indomitable revolutionary spirit to resolutely fight to the end without the slightest vacillation in any adverse condition, true to one's revolutionary principles."

"Whether one has a correct outlook on the revolution or not is revealed particularly at a time of severe trials. People reveal their true nature in adverse circumstances. He who is determined to be infinitely faithful to the party and the leader even if he would have to give up his life and who remains loyal to his revolutionary principles on the scaffold, is a true revolutionary with a firm Juche outlook on the revolution."

"Koreans must know well Korean history, geography, economics, culture and the custom of the Korean nation, and in particular our Party’s policy, its revolutionary history and revolutionary traditions. Only then will they be able to establish Juche and become true Korean patriots, the Korean communists.

In order to establish Juche in thinking, it is necessary to possess high sense of national dignity and revolutionary pride.

Without the sense of national pride that one's nation is inferior to none, without the pride and honor of the revolutionary people, it would be impossible to live up to one's conviction in an independent manner, uphold national independence and dignity and emerge victorious in the difficult revolutionary struggle. A nation with a strong sense of national dignity and revolutionary pride is unconquerable, but a nation without this attribute is powerless. The peoples of small countries who have long suffered oppression by foreign forces need so much the more the sense of national dignity and revolutionary pride. In the small countries where nihilism and flunkeyism towards big powers are nationally deep-rooted as a result of the imperialist policy of assimilating colonies and obliterating their national culture, they must give special attention to the struggle to increase the sense of national dignify and revolutionary pride.

We must ensure that all the people cherish the dignity of the resourceful and courageous Korean nation, the sense of pride and honor of a people who is making a revolution under the guidance of the great leader in particular."

["Fun" Fact: The words 'leader' or 'leadership' occur 72 times, and the words 'nation' or 'national' occur 90 times.]

The amount of leader-worship found in On Juche, the North Korean constitution, and so forth, all point to an authoritarian system. This is incredibly obvious from the official returns of the parliamentary elections, or the reality on the ground for these people, or essentially any aspect of this country if one were to look at it honestly.

[Rafiq]

But your statement is more or less just a passive-aggressive jab at people who disagree with you, meaning you're partly responsible for the low bar.

Well, let's be clear. I agree that there is something deeply ridiculous about the existence of so-called "tendencies" - but I also think that calls for their unification is even more ridiculous. Mere disagreement is not a basis for political difference. It is about where you stand, and why you posses the views that you do. Ultimately, if they are deprived of a social basis and social context, they are not really political anyway. A Communism that does not derive from present circumstances can only ever be reactionary.

For a self-proclaimed "student organizer" to think himself superior in dedication simply by merit of doing "things" in real life - I would assume this would be rather off-putting to others. I don't care if your'e doing "things", if those "things" are worthless, insignificant and of no consequence, the only thing being fulfilled is your own personal relief of guilt - rather than our cause being satisfied, all that is being satisfied is your self righteousness and your contentedness. It's better to be a keyboard warrior than someone who thinks "doing his due" and then having a beer is better than in-depth theoretical discussion. This is the logic of charity, not of Communist politics. Ultimately, the revolution takes more than self-pride and proving to yourself that you are willing to engage in activity. As Lukacs said, with regard to Lenin's views on the subject - The, highest lofty feelings and most self-sacrificing devotion become an empty phrase if the theoretical essence of the situation does not render it possible to carry into effect true revolutionary practice. But I don't personally blame you. There are plenty of people who have this kind of stupid mentality.

It is good for people to have the kind of vitality which allows them to "walk the walk" - in the end, however, this doesn't amount to much if you don't know what you're doing. It is more important to serve the revolution than to serve the internalized reputation of being "dedicated" - often times the latter impedes the former. Which is why Lenin was able to brilliantly overlook and get over his own confused revolutionary ego, his own personal struggles and political temptations by disagreeing with both the Revolutionary ascetics and the "legal" Marxists. What this signified is that the hysterical insecurity of being illegal, and bringing about the destruction of the social order of things with all the odds against you is erased - he "got over it", signifying the affirmative development of revolutionary politics - no longer is revolutionary ideology dependent and bound upon its constant state of opposition to the ruling order, it is its own embryo and its own standard now. Dedication to the cause of Communism is impossible if you do not know what Communism actually means, and its implications. Dedication is very important, everyone knows what I think on this matter. But it is only one of the two necessary components - the other being theoretical sophistication.

Proclaiming support for Juche doesn't "hinder" your actions, but it defines them. It characterizes them. What are the implications of supporting Juche? What exactly are you fighting for? "Socialism"? Why? Who cares about "socialism"? What does this mean. Socialism did not develop in North Korea because people thought it was a good idea. It was the product of a failed social revolution - the aims of this revolution primarily was the consolidation of political power by one class over another - not "socialism" - socialism is merely the logical consequence.

The problem with Juche is not that the core ideas or tenets are outwardly opposable. Who could oppose the "self-determination of the North Korean people"? Who, even, could oppose the demand for a "free market society which entails pure economic liberty". The point is context - what this actually means. Politically, it means the desperate attempt for the North Korean state to survive the failure of Communism by mutating into something more appropriate as far as the developments of global capitalism go.


Well, if they banned all the actual revolutionary socialists, then the people who remained would be more willing to listen to their nonsense about the Zapatistas and about SYRIZA etc

I would fully support the banning of "revolutionary socialists" in place of Stalinists any day. It is not that their politics are the main problem - but their dishonest and trollish ediquette as an internet clique. At least "Stalinists" tend to be somewhat resourceful - what do people like you offer to the forum? Nothing. Apparently everything that is beyond Trotskyism is the same - Zapatistas and Syriza are the same - so called "Kautskyists" are the same as the anarchists. What identifiable trend among "Kautskyists" entails support for the bombings of the Near East? This is why you should be banned, 870. You're a troll, and nearly all of your posts are worthless drivel. And this is besides your politically reactionary views - namely that China is a workers state, or closet sympathy for the Donetsk People's Republic. Want to know the joke, everyone? The organization that 870 sympathizes with - regards North Korea is a deformed worker's state, even to this day. Like a mindless drone, he adopts this inexcusable, laughable position because his "Friends", the sparts do.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Tim,

Now you're just straight up denying reality, ironic given the way you're treating me.

Dresnok has been married twice, both to ethnic Koreans, and has a half-Korean son who is a tenured English professor. But I like how, in denying these facts, you still slapped together a defense against them: that they "wouldn't convince you."

As for the K.C.N.A., I never denied that the news media was controlled by the state, but it's getting pathetic when you can't imagine anything less than the uppermost echelons of the state micromanaging everything on the English K.C.N.A. website. I'd put Orwell down for a minute and try to approach things more realistically. In fact, you asserted that calling it an isolated incident was "delusional," but you neglected to demonstrate that by bringing up even one other such incident.

It really makes you seem desperate to contradict me whatever the cost.

And you make it sound like you've been giving me all different kinds of citations when all you've actually cited is a movie with an overtly anti-D.P.R.K. agenda. This is your basis for saying I deny all sources that aren't the K.C.N.A., and it's equally pathetic the leaps you made to associate me with Holocaust deniers. Have you no shame?

And again, all you really do in all of these posts is just say "North Korea is objectively far right" without providing anything to substantiate that claim, and you use that as your premise for saying I ought to be regarded in the same vein as a neo-Nazi.

I'm not sure what the problem is with you, but I'm going to try to resolve it by first informing you that using the words "objectively" and "absolutist" don't actually make you right.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Rafiq,

Those "things" I do are aid in struggles related to the rights of undocumented students, and I was a part of the efforts to have a tuition equity bill passed in my home state. It strikes me as no surprise you'd regard that as being insignificant compared to your crusade against Fake Communists.

If you seriously don't see how improving the conditions of workers is part and parcel of building a solid revolutionary base, then I await in eager anticipation of the revolution you spark by posting correct theory on the internet.

You talk a big talk about context, but the context of my positions is going out and doing work that opposes the systemic chauvinism of the capitalist order. You can tell me all you like that I don't know what I'm doing, but what are the contexts of your positions? Does an internet pissing contest with someone you don't like amount to very much concrete gain for the working class?

You don't build class consciousness and revolution with theory isolated from practice, and practice is indicative of the integrity of theory.

[Tim Cornelis]

To Tim,

Now you're just straight up denying reality, ironic given the way you're treating me.

Dresnok has been married twice, both to ethnic Koreans, and has a half-Korean son who is a tenured English professor. But I like how, in denying these facts, you still slapped together a defense against them: that they "wouldn't convince you."

As for the K.C.N.A., I never denied that the news media was controlled by the state, but it's getting pathetic when you can't imagine anything less than the uppermost echelons of the state micromanaging everything on the English K.C.N.A. website. I'd put Orwell down for a minute and try to approach things more realistically. In fact, you asserted that calling it an isolated incident was "delusional," but you neglected to demonstrate that by bringing up even one other such incident.

It really makes you seem desperate to contradict me whatever the cost.

And you make it sound like you've been giving me all different kinds of citations when all you've actually cited is a movie with an overtly anti-D.P.R.K. agenda. This is your basis for saying I deny all sources that aren't the K.C.N.A., and it's equally pathetic the leaps you made to associate me with Holocaust deniers. Have you no shame?

And again, all you really do in all of these posts is just say "North Korea is objectively far right" without providing anything to substantiate that claim, and you use that as your premise for saying I ought to be regarded in the same vein as a neo-Nazi.

I'm not sure what the problem is with you, but I'm going to try to resolve it by first informing you that using the words "objectively" and "absolutist" don't actually make you right.


His wives were not ethnic Korean. Romanian and Togolese-Korean. Notice how the Togolese-Korean is forever excluded from the pure Korean race. Notice how all foreigners in that documentary are married to other foreigners. This is not coincidental.
The KNCA is of course subject to the leadership's directives. Has there been any retraction? To the contrary, they have further justified it. This bizarre tirade is, of course, an instrument of 'diplomacy' so not it does not constitute 'micro-managing'. It is illusory to think that the media was autonomous in this. This racist tirade, undoubtedly sanctioned by the regime's leadership, is not coincidental either, it is an expression of their ethnic nationalist ideology.
I didn't say North Korea is objectively far-right. This is the third time you are misinterpreting what I wrote. You objectively support a far-right regime -- the difference here lies in subjectively supporting and objectively supporting.


None of this will convince you of course. It doesn't matter what facts I produce, you will deflect them. Trying to have a substantive discussion with fascists, Juche-ists, or Creationists is a waste of time. Every source, every fact I provide is 'Anti-DPRK or Western propganda'. What 'substantive' posts do you expect me to make if the rules of the game are that I'm only allowed to reiterate North Korean's narrative?

Since you don't come across as an idiot, I am fully confident you will not be a Jucheist for very long at least not your entire life. I will let time play its course since I do not want to waste additional time on you.


To Rafiq,

Those "things" I do are aid in struggles related to the rights of undocumented students, and I was a part of the efforts to have a tuition equity bill passed in my home state. It strikes me as no surprise you'd regard that as being insignificant compared to your crusade against Fake Communists.

If you seriously don't see how improving the conditions of workers is part and parcel of building a solid revolutionary base, then I await in eager anticipation of the revolution you spark by posting correct theory on the internet.

You talk a big talk about context, but the context of my positions is going out and doing work that opposes the systemic chauvinism of the capitalist order. You can tell me all you like that I don't know what I'm doing, but what are the contexts of your positions? Does an internet pissing contest with someone you don't like amount to very much concrete gain for the working class?

You don't build class consciousness and revolution with theory isolated from practice, and practice is indicative of the integrity of theory.

Without altering a word, this can be used to justify National-Bolshevism.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Tim,

You're now actually lying about the ethnicity of Dresnok's wives. Plus, do you really think people marrying other people of the same ethnic background is due to coercion by north Korea? Seriously, cite an actual law or something.

I never said the copy writers or editors were acting autonomously, but, again, you fail to demonstrate how this is a systemic problem with Juche.

And what difference do you see in saying that north Korea is far-right and saying that I objectively support a far-right regime? Again, contradiction for the sake of contradiction.

You can go ahead and pre-emptively defend your post by predicting my "deflection," but it still doesn't make you right.

It's also funny how keep referring to "every source," when you've mentioned exactly one that I described as anti-D.P.R.K. propaganda. So, I guess in some way you're not wrong on that point, given it's a 1:1 thing. As for "every fact," you've failed to actually post any facts, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Tim Cornelis]

To Tim,

You're now actually lying about the ethnicity of Dresnok's wives. Plus, do you really think people marrying other people of the same ethnic background is due to coercion by north Korea? Seriously, cite an actual law or something.

I never said the copy writers or editors were acting autonomously, but, again, you fail to demonstrate how this is a systemic problem with Juche.

And what difference do you see in saying that north Korea is far-right and saying that I objectively support a far-right regime? Again, contradiction for the sake of contradiction.

You can go ahead and pre-emptively defend your post by predicting my "deflection," but it still doesn't make you right.

It's also funny how keep referring to "every source," when you've mentioned exactly one that I described as anti-D.P.R.K. propaganda. So, I guess in some way you're not wrong on that point, given it's a 1:1 thing. As for "every fact," you've failed to actually post any facts, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Like I said, I'm not going to waste time on entertaining your illusions. Everything I will say is "anti-DPRK" propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Dresnok#In_North_Korea

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

Like I said, I'm not going to waste time on entertaining your illusions. Everything I will say is "anti-DPRK" propaganda.

I concede that I was wrong on the issue of the ethnicity of Dresnok's wives, and I apologize for leaping to the conclusion that you were lying. That was out of line.

However, I'm still waiting for you to cite anything that demonstrates any of this has to do with state coercion of any kind. It's like pointing to a Black-Hispanic couple and citing that as evidence of anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S.

[Tim Cornelis]

Again, this is a pointless discussion. Again, because you require an unreasonable amount of evidence to be convinced and everything can be deflected as 'incidental' or 'propaganda'. That foreigners marry foreigners exclusively can be brushed off as amazing coincidence when we ignore the entire institutional context of the Korean regime. That is, if we ignore the constant barrage of ethnic nationalist propaganda and policies.

"The celebration of racial purity and homogeneity is everywhere in North Korea ... "Our nation has always considered its pure lineage to be of great importance," a North Korean general told".

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/north_koreas_race_problem

'Ah incidental, only one general!'. Yes, if we ignore the the institutional context of ethnic nationalism this can be made somewhat believable. And somewhat is enough for the willing faithful.

"North Korea has often been called "solipsistic," but strong racial pride always entails intense awareness of an inferior other. For the North Koreans, foreigners are inferior -- even the friendly ones. Typical is a panoramic painting of a procession of exultant tourists during 1989's Pyongyang World Festival of Youth and Students. In whatever direction they happen to be looking, their faces are partly obscured by a sinister shadow. A fat Caucasian woman wears a low-cut blouse, while a few African women appear in halter tops; in Pyongyang today, such clothing is considered indecent. Here and there, unsavory-looking men sport long sideburns and denim, more signs of Western decadence. The only well-groomed and attractive person in view, and the only one whose face is evenly lit, is the Korean guide -- an innocent young girl, naturally -- who leads the way in traditional dress.

Although popular imagery strongly implies that all foreigners are morally inferior, and occasionally criticizes the Jews' influence on world affairs, it subjects the Japanese and Americans to the worst routine vituperation. Like the "Japs," the former occupiers, the Yankees are condemned as an inherently evil race that can never change, a race with which Koreans must forever be on hostile terms."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/north_koreas_race_problem

'Oh, only one painting; the shadows are surely coincidental'. Yes, if we ignore the the institutional context of ethnic nationalism this can be made somewhat believable. And somewhat is enough for the willing faithful.

"Even today, the North Korean authorities often force abortion on women who return home pregnant after going to China to find food, according to defectors and human rights groups."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/world/asia/02race.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

'Oh, only anecdotal evidence corroborated independently by different people, is there a law that says this?' Yes, if we ignore the the institutional context of ethnic nationalism this can be made somewhat believable. And somewhat is enough for the willing faithful.

"North Korea forces women to undergo abortions and young mothers to drown their newborn babies, and has starved and executed hundreds of thousands of detainees at secret prison camps — atrocities that the chairman of a U.N. panel that documented the abuses compares to those of Nazi Germany.

“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world,” the U.N. Commission on Inquiry said in a 372-page report released Monday on North Korea’s atrocities. These crimes are ongoing because “the policies, institutions and patterns of impunity that lie at their heart remain in place.”"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/17/un-warns-north-koreas-kim-jong-un-strongly-worded-/?page=all

"The report documents crimes against humanity, including “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.”"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/17/un-warns-north-koreas-kim-jong-un-strongly-worded-/?page=all

"According to witness accounts, North Korean women repatriated from China are forced to undergo abortions because they are believed to be carrying babies conceived by Chinese men. The women are not asked about the fathers’ ethnicity.

“Secondary sources and witness testimonies point to an underlying belief in a ‘pure Korean race’ in the DPRK to which mixed race children (of ethnic Koreans) are considered a contamination of its ‘pureness,’” the report says, referring to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the North’s official name."

One witness said she saw seven women given injections to induce abortions. In most cases, guards at the detention facilities “force either the mother or a third person to kill the baby by drowning it in water or suffocating it by holding a cloth or other item against its face or putting the baby face down so that it cannot breathe,” the report says.

Most of the abortions and infanticides were committed at holding centers, and interrogation and detention centers known as State Security Department (SSD) facilities. A former SSD official explaining the concept of “pure Korean blood” to the commission said having a child who is not “100 percent” Korean makes a woman “less than human.”"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/17/un-warns-north-koreas-kim-jong-un-strongly-worded-/?page=all

The Party Newspaper:

"Mono-ethnicity is something that our nation and no other on earth can pride itself on. There is no suppressing the nation’s shame and anger at the talk of ‘a multi-ethnic, multi-racial society’, which would dilute even the bloodline of our people."

http://nilebowie.blogspot.nl/2011/12/understanding-north-korea_28.html

'Oh, but this may only be representative of the views of the author'. Yes, if we ignore the the institutional context of ethnic nationalism this can be made somewhat believable. And somewhat is enough for the willing faithful. The institutional context, previously indicated by similar quotes by the Kims about blood lines and blood relations, underscores this.

"In 2006 the Dear General successfully saw the acquisition of a nuclear deterrent that would protect the Korean race forever. Truly, the son had proven himself worthy of his great father," state media. Again, references to race.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/15/the-doctrine-of-kimilsungism/

"That notion, of course, has been contorted to allow the most non-parental kind of leadership, but North Korea still goes to alarming lengths to maintain its racial purity. North Korean women often cross into China looking for work or an escape; if those women are impregnated and later forcibly repatriated to the North, they are subject to either forced abortions or infanticide.

The United Nations said in a recent human rights report that this practice points[B] “to an underlying belief in a ‘pure Korean race’ in the DPRK to which mixed race children (of ethnic Koreans) are considered a contamination of its ‘pureness.’ ” The report referred to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

North Korea has proved its willingness to advertise all forms of contempt, racial or otherwise. Last month, its state news agency lashed out against the openly gay leading author of the U.N. human rights report, calling him a “disgusting old lecher.” And last week, the North called South Korean President Park Geun-hye an “old prostitute.”"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korean-screed-against-obama-illustrates-race-based-worldview/2014/05/08/9bc7a68f-7b71-4110-b4f1-85ae05c92777_story.html

I can go on and on, and each source individually can be dismissed as propaganda or as incidental. But combine each source, each additional piece of evidence, with the avowed words of Kim exalting the Korean nation based on bloodlines, and an abundantly clear image is painted: North Korea is a racist absolutist ethnic nationalist regime.

See what I did now? I took the time to find these sources and I already know it was wasted time. Because of course, all these are incidents and fabrications and propaganda. But of course, consistent 'incidents' due to institutionalisation is systemic.

Ultimately I cannot and will not convince you for the same reason I will not convince someone refusing to believe Bielefeld exists. Anything short of personal empirical verification can be dismissed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy

[Sabot Cat]

I really do have to question if the racist comments about Obama were just an honest mistake of someone typing for their news agency that could have been caught by higher ups if there had been better supervision. This is because they didn't go "oh, I'm sorry black comrades, we should have caught that mistake".

The KCNA stated this instead: "The resentment expressed by individuals of the DPRK at Obama recently was a proper reaction to him who malignantly insulted and slandered the dignified DPRK during his junket to south Korea." [http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2014/201405/news12/20140512-21ee.html]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/12/north-korea-defends-its-racist-comments-about-obama/]

They're also astoundingly and officially homophobic (http://kcnawatch.nknews.org/article/038). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/04/22/north-korean-state-media-slams-u-n-human-rights-report-because-it-was-led-by-a-gay-man/] Among other reactionary insults that have been in no way retracted (http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2014/201404/news27/2014-0427-20ee.html).

This is also all straight from their official news agency, so it'd be hard to dismiss it as imperialist propaganda.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

Please note that this post was made before I ultimately came to the conclusion that Juche wasn't worth defending. I'm electing not to delete it or anything just for posterity.

To Cornelis,

I can appreciate that you went to all this effort, although you did defensively predict that it was "wasted" as a measure of shutting down counter-argument. And I can appreciate the sophisticated presentation, as well.

But, as you predicted, I do have problems with it, none the least of which was the utter lack of citation in the Nile Bowie article (besides admitting the vast majority of its information was lifted from The Cleaneast Race, which even a dogmatist like you can understand to have problems with credibility).

Ignoring for the moment that you dismissively mock the notion of anti-D.P.R.K. propaganda in the West, you posted links to the New York Times and the Washington Post. You may have excused yourself from having to confront things like this by imagining all propaganda is formulated by a centralized state committee, meaning it couldn't possibly happen in more than one source, but a Marxist ought to take a structuralist view of what information gains currency in society. These sources all lack independent verification of any kind, and it is not so outrageous for a Marxist to acknowledge that they are perpetuating an imperialist narrative not because they are directly controlled by state agencies (although the influence of the same is a reality), but because the market is conditioned in such a way that this narrative sells and opposition to it is prepared for ridiculue.

As for the actual north Korean propaganda, I will concede that their representations of foreign nationals, particularly their long-time enemies the Japanese and the Americans, are grossly problematic in that they make use of grotesque caricature to highlight features of "otherness," which undeniably plays on undercurrents of racial chauvinism. That I have only just now acknowledged this is a shortcoming on my part, and I apologize that this conversation has gone in the direction it has when we could have had a much more substantial discussion engaging good-faith criticisms of these problems.

However, this discussion began because it was asserted that the Juche Idea is, itself, a far-right ideology that encourages such racial chauvinism. You were right in predicting that I would have problems with the lack of cited sources for the problematic quotes attributed to the leadership (which begs the question why you didn't approach them in a more deliberative way, rather than shame me out of pointing out the problem). Even so, I have no interest in denying that these types of things could be said and probably have been, although the direction of progress in this area isn't made clear by the sources.

What I'm saying is that the "rules" of Juche, the methodology of Juche articulated by Kim Il-sung and Jong-il, are not what lead to these attitudes. Now, we could have a very good critical discussion of north Korean policy in addressing these attitudes, which has so far been underwhelming to put it mildly. But the biggest hurdle one has in justifying Juche's categorization as a far-right ideology comes from the notion of some anti-miscegenation policy and stories about women being forced to undergo abortions. Again, we run into the problem of independent verification, which the articles to which you link sorely lack. You can't deny that the conjuration of atrocities to attribute to an enemy is part and parcel of propaganda, something you in fact demonstrated by citing north Korean propaganda, and the fact is that these sources are not all independently coming to the same conclusions, as if drawing from the same wellspring of facts. Fact is they're pulling from one another and, as has been the case many times in the past (the example in mind being Kim Jong-un feeding his uncle to a hundred dogs), from south Korean news agencies that are, in fact, controlled by their own state, as well. Stephen Gowans wrote an excellent piece on this called "Why Everything You Hear About North Korea is Nonsense," which cites academic studies in the West of informaiton disseminated about north Korea and the conclusion drawn being that sensationalized stories gain more momentum because, by the time anyone has been able to disprove them, the media's attention has moved onto another sensationalized claim and give no platform to refutation.

So, Tim, I appreciate the work you put into this, because this is precisely what I asking for the whole time. Although you may not like that I have problems with it, I can concede where I have been wrong and I can concede that I understand your concerns. But I emphatically disagree that my threshold is unreasonable, especially given who tends to benefit from perpetuating narratives of smaller, "despotic" countries committing atrocities. Articles and "evidence" of chemical genocide and weapons of mass destruction pervaded disucssion of the Middle East in the West during the Bush administration, for example, and we're seeing a repeat of those same stories now that Obama has inherited the office of chief executive of the empire and has decided to turn his attention to new enemies.

If you can't respect that, then we have no common ground for discussion on either side. But I suggest you make peace with the fact that I am not being restricted any time soon, despite pleas to the contrary. You've given me a platform to disseminate the procress by which I come to the conclusions I do, and I've made it perfectly clear I have no place in my heart for far-right regimes and ideologies and that I will readily abandon Juche as a political method when it can be ultimately demonstrated to me that it will lead to my complicity in far-right movement.

Until then, though, I can only recommend we agree to respect one another, and I hope you won't disappoint me by trying to have the last word in insulting me as some individuals have, who have put far, far less effort into the discussion than you have.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Sabot Cat,

Please note I haven't dismissed any of that as imperialist propaganda. Mind that you actually draw from what I'm saying than draw from what others are saying about what I'm saying.


To Cornelis,

In fairness, despite my most recent response, I find my resolve to defend Juche weakening. Make no mistake that I will defend north Korea's right not to be subjugated to sanction and imperialist warfare and that I do feel many of their efforts are positive, but as for the Juche ideology itself, I'm beginning to see less and less reason to embrace the specific "Juche" formulation of certain ideas and am becoming inclined to adopt an outlook that adopts what I find positive about it without consigning myself to "Jucheism" specifically.

To be perfectly clear, although I spend a good deal of energy just know poking holes in your most recent post and although I feel the points I made in general are valid in a broad sense, you've demonstrated there's little benefit in defending the Juche formulation of the ideas I tend to like.

We owe this to the effort you at last put into your argument. I'm taking "Juche" off my profile, although I can still say I have an interest in what it is and what it does in north Korean politics.

Thank you (although at no point was it right to call me lowlife scum).


To RedWorker,

Fuck you sideways.

[Sabot Cat]

To Sabot Cat,

Please note I haven't dismissed any of that as imperialist propaganda. Mind that you actually draw from what I'm saying than draw from what others are saying about what I'm saying.

Duly noted, my apologies.


To Cornelis,

In fairness, despite my most recent response, I find my resolve to defend Juche weakening. Make no mistake that I will defend north Korea's right not to be subjugated to sanction and imperialist warfare and that I do feel many of their efforts are positive, but as for the Juche ideology itself, I'm beginning to see less and less reason to embrace the specific "Juche" formulation of certain ideas and am becoming inclined to adopt an outlook that adopts what I find positive about it without consigning myself to "Jucheism" specifically.

To be perfectly clear, although I spend a good deal of energy just know poking holes in your most recent post and although I feel the points I made in general are valid in a broad sense, you've demonstrated there's little benefit in defending the Juche formulation of the ideas I tend to like.

We owe this to the effort you at last put into your argument. I'm taking "Juche" off my profile, although I can still say I have an interest in what it is and what it does in north Korean politics.

Thank you (although at no point was it right to call me lowlife scum).

It can be personally difficult to admit a change or reevaluation of one's opinion, so I appreciate your intellectual honesty here. :)

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Sabot Cat,

I appreciate that. It's also hard when one is inclined to be stubborn and the conversation was generally a hostile one, but I can't really allow a lack of civility (for which I'm a good deal responsible) to prevent an honest examination of who I am and what I do.

I want to apologize for dragging this whole thing out, which, really, was what presented the opportunity for all the hostility in the first place.

[Tim Cornelis]

How does the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea not have independent verification? http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx
What do you mean then by "independent verification"? Hopefully not Bielefeld Conspiracy type verification.
I acknowledge that sensationalist rumours, such as feeding the uncle to the dog and killing his ex-wife, have been found unsubstantiated and, whether you believe this or not, I was sceptical of them as they entered widespread circulation in mass media. These sources are different in that they are come from a UN report or are not sensationalist (an observation made about a painting during the world democratic youth festival) and were not widespread in the mass media. To underscore this:

"963. From 1977, foreigners of other countries were similarly abducted by the DPRK. The abductions have been carried out by force at times, and by luring the foreigners to the DPRK in other cases. Reasons for the abductions include teaching foreign languages in spy and military training schools, for technical expertise, and, in the case of many abductees, to be “given” in marriage to foreigners in the DPRK, to prevent inter-racial marriage with ethnic Koreans." (source: the report).

We see then that racial purity is actively pursued by the state.

I've previously made the connection between these 'incidents' and Juche ideology. By redefining nation as involving bloodlines Juche introduces the element of racial purity.

"The Korean nation is a homogeneous nation that has inherited the same blood and lived in the same territory speaking the same language for thousands of years. All the Koreans in the north, south and abroad belong to the same nation with the blood and soul of the Korean nation and are linked inseparably with the same national interests and the common national psychology and sentiment. No force can ever split into two forever the single Korean nation that has been formed and developed through a long history, nor can it obliterate our nation and our national traits. The present division of our nation into north and south is a temporary misfortune and tragedy in the context of 5,000 years of its history. The reunion of our nation that has been divided by foreign forces is an inevitable trend of our nation's history and the law of national development."

It may, to the willing faithful, appear as if this is a mere observation, or a modest endorsement, but by placing the popular masses, the 'nation', in place of class as progressive force, Juche has created the basis for ethnic nationalism and supremacism.

"The political and ideological might of the motive force of revolution is nothing but the power of single-hearted unity between the leader, the Party, and the masses. In our socialist society, the leader, the Party, and the masses throw in their lot with one another, forming a single socio-political organism. The consolidation of blood relations between the leader, the Party and the masses is guaranteed by the single ideology and united leadership."

It then becomes of fundamental importance to preserve 'racial purity' via an absolutist leader and leadership. These racist and sexist atrocities are therefore a direct reflection of the Juche philosophy. You cannot excuse them on the basis that they are separate from Juche.

Again, racial purity is actively pursued by the regime. Social stratification and militaristic social hierarchy is an integral part of Juche ideology. Nation replaces class. As such, Juche is a far-right ideology.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To Tim,

I need time to think about this. I can't accept anything at face value, but I'm also not going to slide back into the practice of dismissing things I don't like.

[John Nada]

How does the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea not have independent verification? http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx
What do you mean then by "independent verification"? Hopefully not Bielefeld Conspiracy type verification.

I acknowledge that sensationalist rumours, such as feeding the uncle to the dog and killing his ex-wife, have been found unsubstantiated and, whether you believe this or not, I was sceptical of them as they entered widespread circulation in mass media. These sources are different in that they are come from a UN report or are not sensationalist (an observation made about a painting during the world democratic youth festival) and were not widespread in the mass media.His uncle's lieutenants attacked NK troops to keep a lucrative fishing dock, killing several of them. Wasn't fed to dogs AFAIK, but I'm not shocked he got executed.

This is what that FP article says:
The celebration of racial purity and homogeneity is everywhere in North Korea. The citizens pictured on the country's new currency, for example, could pass for members of the same family, which in a sense they are. A worker in one painting appears much like a farmer or soldier in another, while the children pictured in schoolbooks are downright identical.Yeah, because they all look the same to the author of that article.:rolleyes:
To underscore this:

"963.From 1977, foreigners of other countries were similarly abducted by the DPRK. The abductions have been carried out by force at times, and by luring the foreigners to the DPRK in other cases. Reasons for the abductions include teaching foreign languages in spy and military training schools, for technical expertise, and, in the case of many abductees, to be "given" in marriage to foreigners in the DPRK, to prevent inter-racial marriage with ethnic Koreans." (source: the report).

I've read that report. IIRC they only interviewed defectors in countries allied with the US, whereas most probably live in China. In South Korea there's a probationary period of 6 months to help them "adjust" to (regular) capitalism. Is it true? Who knows, if it is it's fucked up shit.
We see then that racial purity is actively pursued by the state.

I've previously made the connection between these 'incidents' and Juche ideology. By redefining nation as involving bloodlines Juche introduces the element of racial purity.

"The Korean nation is a homogeneous nation that has inherited the same blood and lived in the same territory speaking the same language for thousands of years. All the Koreans in the north, south and abroad belong to the same nation with the blood and soul of the Korean nation and are linked inseparably with the same national interests and the common national psychology and sentiment. No force can ever split into two forever the single Korean nation that has been formed and developed through a long history, nor can it obliterate our nation and our national traits. The present division of our nation into north and south is a temporary misfortune and tragedy in the context of 5,000 years of its history. The reunion of our nation that has been divided by foreign forces is an inevitable trend of our nation's history and the law of national development."

It may, to the willing faithful, appear as if this is a mere observation, or a modest endorsement, but by placing the popular masses, the 'nation', in place of class as progressive force, Juche has created the basis for ethnic nationalism and supremacism.

"The political and ideological might of the motive force of revolution is nothing but the power of single-hearted unity between the leader, the Party, and the masses. In our socialist society, the leader, the Party, and the masses throw in their lot with one another, forming a single socio-political organism. The consolidation of blood relations between the leader, the Party and the masses is guaranteed by the single ideology and united leadership."

It then becomes of fundamental importance to preserve 'racial purity' via an absolutist leader and leadership. These racist and sexist atrocities are therefore a direct reflection of the Juche philosophy. You cannot excuse them on the basis that they are separate from Juche.

Again, racial purity is actively pursued by the regime. Social stratification and militaristic social hierarchy is an integral part of Juche ideology. Nation replaces class. As such, Juche is a far-right ideology.Those select quotes are probably an attempt to justify reunification by the standards of Marxism And The National Question (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm), which was critical of the Austrian Social Democrat's program of national-cultural determination, as was Rosa Luxemburg: http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm