Trotskyists, the DPRK and nuclear weapons.

[Andy Bowden]

Would Trotskyists defend the DPRK and support it's development of a Nuclear weapons armanent as a defence against Imperialism, or would Trotskysits oppose it, on the basis it is a repressive state, and nuclear weapons would strenghten it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I know the SWP (USA) supports it, but I'm not sure if they can really be defined as Trotskyist anymore.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would say we should oppose any attempt by the US to reinvade the country jsut as with any other country.

But as I see it, the nuclear weapons by North Korea are simply a ploy, a political manuever. They know they could never compete with the US arsanal, so it's more of just a big stick for the N. Korean government. Economically, the country is in bad shape since the end of the USSR and so I think they want weapons in order to get their foot in the door, rather than for any practical protection or deterrant.

Iran, on the other hand would probably have a real intrest in developing these weapons.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

well, i dont think we should be giving north korea any special treatment as they arent communist anymore, so i think the question is, do you support nuclear weaponry programmes in general?

[Andy Bowden]

I know the Spartacist league also supports the DPRK's acquisiton of Nuclear Weaponry.

On the one hand I oppose any invasion of the DPRK, but it's leadership are grossly repressive, and Nuclear weapons would strengthen them.

[viva le revolution]

North Korea true may not be the perfect picture of socialism nor a model to be followed, however as far as support for it's self-defence capabilities should not be withheld. The arguement that nuclear weapons will only make it stronger, is grossly simplistic. The entire state machinery does not rely on defensive measures. the nuclear weapons are meant to counter-act external threats, not internal political upheaval, what will they nuke protesters, as far as the government being strengthened goes, nuclear weapons are of no use.
Any nation that pursues a policy for strengtheneing defence against external threats should not really be an issue. North Korea is another front-line state against anti-imperialist struggle and the hold of the yankees over the global order. As far as that goes, they should be supported.
As far as the nuclear weapnry debate goes, the stance that nuclear weapons should not be pursued is totally simplistic. When the west and it's comprador states are armed to the teeth in nuclear weaponry, it would be fatalistic not to pursue every means possible for the defence of the nations sovreignity. It would be suicidal not to develop nuclear weapons to counter-act the strength of the capitalist world governments who would not think twice about bombing a country nor crushing any progressive current in the world.

[h&s]

In my organisation we oppose all nuclear proliferation, but that by no means covers all Trotskyists (though we like to think that we are 'true' Trots :lol: ).
We do not see North Korea as any special case on this issue - nuclear weapons are a disgusting invention that should never be developed.
I know that North Korea is not as strong militarily as the US, but with or without these weapons that is always going to be the case, but using nuclear weapons is not anti-imperialistic - it is pure terrorism.
We would support the people of North Korea fully in any struggle against the US, but that does not involve the state developing nuclear weapons.

[bolshevik butcher]

what hands said. Yeh, i have to agree, nuclear weapons are not of any military use, they are used to kill large numbers of working people.

I would support north korea against an american invasion, but i dont support their reigieme as it is quite clearly a repressive stalinist dictatorship.

[donnie_middel1]

ok no one should even critisize the DPRK, they are an example for all of us, i know ppl whove been there and wow

[bolshevik butcher]

Sorry but do you seriously think we're going to take that dprk is great form someone who has
[SIZE=7][COLOR=red]WE MUST FIGHT THEM IN THE STREETS, WE MUST FIGHT THEM IN THE OFFICE, TOGETHER WE CAN ACHEIVE A PURE ANTI-REVISIONIST REGIME!!!!!

in their sig and your avvy?

[donnie_middel1]

man ur a guy who has takin everyong to the extreme and has done nothing for the cause, free from coke and pepsi, and u fucking me lol, and the playdoh hammer and sickle , do u even know what juche or the dprk are about?

[I'm the red under your bed]

No self respecting trotskyist would support the improvement of a stalinist state.Be it nuclear weapons or anything else.But i see your point about imperialism.

[bolshevik butcher]

Btw, i have done work for both hands off venezuela and soicalist appeal so that'd a blatant lie. And what have you done? How have i taken it to the extreme?

From my knowledge, juche is about one supreme workers leader who will lead the workers against capitalism. To me in practise that means a crazy dictatorship.

[Led Zeppelin]

"donnie_middel1", you do realize that the DPRK no longer describes itself as Marxist-Leninist, right?

[TC]

Would Trotskyists defend the DPRK and support it's development of a Nuclear weapons armanent as a defence against Imperialism, or would Trotskysits oppose it, on the basis it is a repressive state, and nuclear weapons would strenghten it?

I am not a trot, but as i understand Trotsky's position, the socialist camp's government is made up of bureaucratically degenerate workers states, thats to say, that the workers remain the ruling class, but that the system is corrupted, limited and made less efficent by so called Stalinist party bureaucracy.

So, basically, Trotsky and his followers support Socialist *states* including the USSR and its Great Patriotic War allies, but they do not support the current administrations of those states (or rather, they support the State but not the current Government or governing party faction to use more european terminology).

So, they don't think for instance, the way some anti-revisionists do, that these states have reverted to capitalism or could even be characterized as 'social imperialist',, they just think they're a retrograde type of socialism. Therefore they always side with the socialist camp against the imperialist camp, including in the military expansion of the socialist camp (for instance, the Spartacists have supported most Soviet and PRC and Vietnamese aggressive wars, as well as defensive ones).



But as I see it, the nuclear weapons by North Korea are simply a ploy, a political manuever. They know they could never compete with the US arsanal, so it's more of just a big stick for the N. Korean government. Economically, the country is in bad shape since the end of the USSR and so I think they want weapons in order to get their foot in the door, rather than for any practical protection or deterrant.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the DPRK's strategy.

The DPRK figures a couple of things that anyone really, could realize if they thought about it for a bit:

1. Like all states, the preservation of the state and its national territory from foriegn invasion is the #1 priority.

2. The United States is a belligerent power that would like to militarily destroy all of its enemies, and the DPRK is clearly and publically on that list.

3. The United States, like all states, is still a rational actor, and will only actually carry out an attack or invasion on a state too weak to inflict politically devistating casulities (i.e., fmr. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect.).

4. The DPRK has the human, financial and technological resources to maintain a conventional army large enough to inflict heavy casulities on an invading army. As long as such an army is maintained, even if the United States is *militarily* capable of defeating them, they wont be *politically* capable of doing so since they would be unwilling to suffer the casulities, which would be at least in the tens of thousands according to american estimates and even far more devistating to the Republic of Korea.

5. Given the gross differences in the American and DPRK economy and population sizes, maintaining a conventional force sufficent to deter an invasion is extraordinarily expensive and restricts growth in other areas...which is therefore not in their best interest if they can find another way.

6. Any nuclear weapons capabilities will be sufficent in of themselves to deter an American invasion: Nuclear powers have never gone to war with each other, its far too dangerious. The point of course, wouldn't be to "win" a nuclear war with the United States, they couldn't hope to compete on that level, nor do they need to. They just need to establish their ability to enflict massive civilian casulities on Americans. No matter how much the United States might want to destroy north Korea, they wont do it if it means in all probability losing say, 400k civilians in Hawaii, so it is effective in detering the threat of invasion.

7. If the DPRK has nuclear weapons, then its conventional deterent would be redundent, and most of its army expenditures could be redirected towards the civilian sector...maintaing a couple of nuclear missiles is a whole lot cheaper then maintaining a million regular soldiers and millions of reserves. Alternatively, if the DPRK could be given huge economic aid incentives in exchange for shutting down its nuclear program, then the financial gain from that diplomatic victory could offset the costs of continueing to maintain a conventional deterent, which then could also be reinvested into the civilian sector. Either way, the north Koreans win finanically and end up with their economy in a lot better shape then they went in with it...plus the prestige of either being nuclear armed or forcing the imperialists to buckle to their demands.


So, really, nuclear weapons for the north represents both a practical deterrent and a way to free up more money for its civilian economy. What they're doing is completely logical and really, brilliant political maneuvering where essentially all possible outcomes will result in a gain for the DPRK and a loss for the Americans (since, either in allowing the north to remain nuclear or in giving concessions, the Americans would have failed to fulfill their policy on the north).


WE MUST FIGHT THEM IN THE STREETS, WE MUST FIGHT THEM IN THE OFFICE, TOGETHER WE CAN ACHEIVE A PURE ANTI-REVISIONIST REGIME!!!!!

Thats pretty retarded you know. The DPRK isn't a "pure anti-revisionst regime" at all, they're geopolitical and historical perspective is much more neuanced. Pure anti-revisionist regimes like Albania and Mao's China are isolationist with regard to the rest of the Socialist camp whereas the DPRK embraced both the "revisionist" USSR and Mao's China, as well as the highly revisionist modern People's Republic. I don't think Hoxha would approve.