Log in

View Full Version : Kim Jong Il - To sweep away some illusions of I



Saint-Just
5th March 2003, 18:30
Many have made attacks on my ideology in this forum, and on Kim Jong Il. All the following quotes are from Kim Jong Il, who many of you have a wrong opinion of currently.

Firstly, many have seemed to think that I want to suppress the entire bourgeois class, this is not true, simply bourgeois thought.

‘Even a man from the propertied class can become a socialist revolutionary when he is awakened ideologically…. A working class man does not necessarily acquire a revolutionary ideology.’

‘Our ideological work shows that, if ideological work is conducted vigorously to equip people with socialist ideology in socialist society, people from all walks of life can be transformed along socialist lines.’


People have questioned the one party system and the reason for suppressing bourgeois thought. They have stated that a multi party system is needed to represent many different interests. They have criticised me saying I do not allow freedom of speech.

‘In capitalist society, where society is split into classes and people’s interests conflict, one ideology cannot hold undivided sway and it is inevitable that different ideas exist. The imperialists and their mouthpieces claim the existence of these ideas is a source of pride for the “free world”. However, progressive ideas can never develop freely in a capitalist society, where the means of propaganda such a education and the mass media are in the hands of the monopoly capitalists and reactionary rulers.’

‘The reactionary bourgeois ruling class tolerates progressive ideas to some extent, to make capitalist society seem democratic; but when they are considered the slightest threat to its ruling system, it mercilessly oppresses them.’

‘The “freedom” of ideology talked about by imperialists is a deceptive slogan to dress up their oppression of progressive ideas in capitalist society and their resorting to every method to propagate reactionary bourgeois ideas. It is a deceptive slogan to justify their ideological and cultural infiltration into other countries.’

‘Only in socialist society, where exploitation, oppression and class antagonisms have been eliminated, can all members of society be equipped with a single ideology, because of their common aspirations, purpose and interests.’

‘Imperialists and renegade socialists abuse the ideological education carried out in a socialist society as “regimentation” and “ideological indoctrination”. This is an absurd fabrication that throws mud at socialism. It is a falsehood aimed at justifying the deceptive and reactionary nature of bourgeois propaganda.’


It has been argued against me that, why should the masses need a single ideology if socialism is so obviously the best? Will they surely not choose socialism?

‘Socialist ideology develops the masses into independent people who are conscious of their independence and creative ability, while reactionary bourgeois ideas reduce them to servants who obey the domination of capital, to ideological and mental cripples.’

‘[Where]oppression and capital hold sway – the masses’ consciousness of their independence is suppressed. [By] falsehood and deception, imperialists and reactionaries benumb the masses’ uncorrupted minds…. This is the very ideological suppression which stops the development of people’s consciousness of their independence. It is criminal ideological indoctrination, which forces reactionary ideas on people.’


But!, you may say, how is socialism not ideological indoctrination?

‘[Under socialism]Only then can they free themselves once and for all from the influence and shackles of all kinds of outmoded ideas…. Only then can everyone develop his individuality, aspirations, wisdom and talent in an all-round way. Because it is the most revolutionary ideology and champions and realizes the masses independence, socialist ideology serves as a weapon for genuine ideological and human emancipation. It ensures the unlimited development of people’s ideologies and mental qualities. Socialist ideology is the sum total of the development of human ideas’


For Just Joe: Being someone who demands sovereignty and independence for their country, would you agree with this? You defame Kim Jong Il repeatedly, however how do you view him here:

‘Socialist ideology is a weapon for class emancipation as well as national liberation; it is genuine patriotism’

‘Imperialists trample upon the independence of other countries and nations, and incite antagonism and conflicts among nations. The capitalist road is a road of exploitation and oppression, of national inequality and subjugation. This is clearly proved by the history of oppressed nations which had been deprived of their national sovereignty and were forced to suffer at the hands of the imperialists’

‘It is a national duty to the world revolution for the working-class party and people of each country to bring about a successful revolution in their own country. To bring about a successful revolution in their own country they must love their country and nation and maintain their independence. Without realising their country’s and nation’s independence, it is impossible for the masses to win their own independence. Only someone who loves his country and nation can fight devotedly for socialism, with the attitude of being the master of revolution in his own country.’

‘Someone who loves his country and nation respects the sovereignty of other countries and nations and fights strongly against any encroachment of it. One’s national duty and international duty to the revolution are in unity, and communists who are unfailingly loyal to the cause of popular independence, are true patriots and, at the same time, genuine internationalists.’


For the anti-revisionists, you know who you are….. some thoughts from Kim Jong Il on revision of Marxism-Leninism in history.

‘Modern-day revisionists and renegade socialists have quibbled about their leader’s position and authority and destroyed the achievements gained by their revolutionary predecessors. They thus corrupted and demolished socialism and tarnished its image.’

‘If ideological work is not carried out, people’s revolutionary enthusiasm may gradually cool down. The tendency to live in comfort may grow among them, since they are free from any worries in socialist society and continue to lead stable lives. Then they cannot devote themselves to the struggle of socialism and worse still, they may be duped by misleading imperialists’ and reactionary propaganda into harbouring illusions about capitalism and going the length of betraying socialism. This is testified by how socialism collapsed in several countries which abandoned ideological work and opened their door to the ideological and cultural infiltration of imperialism.’

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 8:08 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

ComradeJunichi
6th March 2003, 14:50
Hey Mao,

D'you have any links or books on the DPRK's history and the biographys of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung. I've been reading a lot about them and hearin a lot, but that's strictly from South Korean and American media.

I'd like an unbiased or pro approach, since I've seen the negative.

deadpool 52
6th March 2003, 15:00
Those are just words.

Larissa
6th March 2003, 15:26
Quote: from deadpool 52 on 12:00 pm on Mar. 6, 2003

Those are just words.I don't think they are just words, sorry. Most of them are backed by real facts.

For instance,
"Even a man from the propertied class can become a socialist revolutionary when he is awakened ideologically…. A working class man does not necessarily acquire a revolutionary ideology."
Is what actually happened with Che and Fidel. Neither of them were born socialist, but burgeois, and became strong socialist after they realised what socialism was all about.

deadpool 52
6th March 2003, 16:03
That is not what I meant.

Even though a leader may be ideologically pure, how he or she mananges the nation is what counts.

Saint-Just
6th March 2003, 18:25
'Hey Mao,

D'you have any links or books on the DPRK's history and the biographys of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung. I've been reading a lot about them and hearin a lot, but that's strictly from South Korean and American media.

I'd like an unbiased or pro approach, since I've seen the negative.'

This is an explanation of the DPRK’s economy:

http://www.kdvr.de/english/famine.html

This is a view of the bourgeois lies against Kim Jong Il:

http://www.kdvr.de/english/dictator.html

These are some works of Kim Jong Il:

http://www.cnet-ta.ne.jp/juche/defaulte.htm

This is a short history of Kim Il Sung:

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/kimilsun.htm


'I don't think they are just words, sorry. Most of them are backed by real facts.

For instance,
"Even a man from the propertied class can become a socialist revolutionary when he is awakened ideologically…. A working class man does not necessarily acquire a revolutionary ideology."
Is what actually happened with Che and Fidel. Neither of them were born socialist, but burgeois, and became strong socialist after they realised what socialism was all about.'

I thoroughly agree


'That is not what I meant.

Even though a leader may be ideologically pure, how he or she mananges the nation is what counts.'

That is how he manages the nation, to see some of what I mean you can go to the links I provided for Comrade Junichi.

Larissa
6th March 2003, 19:09
Chairman Mao, Thanks for the links.

deadpool 52, thanks for your explanation.

Cassius Clay
6th March 2003, 19:19
Excellent links Chairman Mao, I haven't read through all of them yet but when I have the time I will. I'm still of the opinion the DPRK is far from perfect but I will welcome being proved wrong.

ComradeJunichi
6th March 2003, 19:20
My sincere thanks and salutations to you, comrade Mao.

Sorry, we never got to finish our conversations. Haha, next time :P

InnocentCivilian
7th March 2003, 19:13
yes even though i don't know much, i am very interested in the situation of north korea and would like to find a neutral view on it rather than capitalist media...........the links will help......thanks mao

Kapitan Andrey
8th March 2003, 06:29
Chairman Mao...I'd always supported the Northern Korea!!! Long Live Kim Ir Sen and Kim Chen Ir (This is with my Russian)!!!

Liberty Lover
8th March 2003, 09:29
If North Korea is such a fantastic utopia then why not apply for citizenship?

Saint-Just
8th March 2003, 18:03
'Chairman Mao...I'd always supported the Northern Korea!!! Long Live Kim Ir Sen and Kim Chen Ir (This is with my Russian)!!!'

I have noticed very recently that you do. I can give you information and many links on the DPRK:

http://www.kcna.co.jp/

http://www.korea-dpr.com/

http://www.hikoryo.com/

http://www.kdvr.de/english/english.html

http://www.cnet-ta.ne.jp/juche/defaulte.htm

http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk/

http://www.aha.ru/~zentsov/korea.htm

http://dprk2001.home.chinaren.com/

http://www.korea-publ.com/

http://www.ndfsk.dyn.to/ndfsk/T-ndfsk.htm

http://kimilsung.galeon.com/



'If North Korea is such a fantastic utopia then why not apply for citizenship?'

Despite your sarcastic comment, I would like to live there. However, I like my own country very much too, and wish to spread Marxism-Leninism here.

thursday night
8th March 2003, 18:24
“If North Korea is such a fantastic utopia then why not apply for citizenship?”

I have been asked the exact same thing regarding Cuba many, many times, to which I always reply that I would love nothing more than to be a citizen of that glorious socialist state. However, my personal life (family, love, job, friends) as well as the fact that I do not speak Spanish and it would be, frankly, unrealistic for me to just land in Cuba without any ties to that country and just start a new life. Perhaps, however, if I one day do learn Spanish and I move my personal life to Cuba then I will be able to dwell there.

Capitalist Imperial
9th March 2003, 16:49
Jong and the DPRK are Stalinist relics, and as soon as the US is done with Iraq we will address their grandstanding that is big on talk, but short on action to back it up.

The DPRK is known for saber rattling as a way to save face politically, albiet a hollow attempt. However, even one of Jong's most loyal bodyguards has said that in reality, Jong knows that he cannot beat the USA.

I think we all know this.

Saint-Just
9th March 2003, 17:17
Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:49 pm on Mar. 9, 2003
Jong and the DPRK are Stalinist relics, and as soon as the US is done with Iraq we will address their grandstanding that is big on talk, but short on action to back it up.

The DPRK is known for saber rattling as a way to save face politically, albiet a hollow attempt. However, even one of Jong's most loyal bodyguards has said that in reality, Jong knows that he cannot beat the USA.

I think we all know this.

I doubt the U.S. would risk a conflict with the DPRK.

It is the U.S. who is saber rattling, they who are threatening war. The DPRK has an army of 1,250,000 and highly advanced technology, in thier own country they can defeat the U.S.


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:38 pm on Mar. 9, 2003)

thursday night
9th March 2003, 17:46
I wish I could express in typing how wild my laughter is.

Capitalist Imperial
9th March 2003, 19:15
Quote: from Chairman Mao on 5:17 pm on Mar. 9, 2003



I doubt the U.S. would risk a conflict with the DPRK.

It is the U.S. who is saber rattling, they who are threatening war. The DPRK has an army of 1,250,000 and highly advanced technology, in thier own country they can defeat the U.S.


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:38 pm on Mar. 9, 2003)


Firsty off, Mao, lets not kid ourselves. The DPRK is threatening violence, while the US is still looking for a diplomatic solution on the peninsula. That is a fact.


I'm sorry, Mao, but the USA has already defeated North Korea once in history (and in their own territory), even when the North had help from China.

While I agree that the DPRK is more technologically advanced than a nation like Iraq, they cannot compare to the sophistication and power of US military technology and ability, or even come close. They have yet to deploy a rocket capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the continental US.

As for your standing army of 1 million+, I must advise that your number is a bit misleading. The US may have fewer troops in the region, but more can be deployed quickly. Besides, troops are merely 1 measure of power. What about economics? The US has infinately more $$ than the DPRK, and the DPRK is already in economic crisis and famine. Jong will not be able to feed, equip, and maintain his equipment over a sustained combat scenario against the USA. His weapons, which are already inferior, wil not be maintained or repaired with the speed, quality, and magnitude of US capabilites, especially considering the lethality of US weapons systems. His ability to maintain logistical coordination will also deteriorate over time, as will supplies of fuel, spare parts, and other supplies. The DPRK just doesn't have the resources to match the USA. So, your standing army of 1,250,000 is a paper tiger.

What about other assets? The DPRK Navy cannot match even 1 US carrier battlegroup, let alone the whole US Navy.

Your air forces are no competition. Our planes are much more advanced, more numerous, and our pilots have many more hours of training than DPRK aviators.

Your land systems are far inferior to US tanks and other combat vehicles, and again, your supplies will not keep up with the attrition that US weaponry will inflict.

If the DPRK, out of desperation, attempts a nuclear solution, it will be suicide for the DPRK. US nuclear capability can destroy the world 20 times over. North Korea would be eradicated within minutes, or perhaps seconds.

The situation for Jong is hopeless. He must stand down or face dire consequences.


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 7:23 pm on Mar. 9, 2003)

Capitalist Imperial
9th March 2003, 19:20
Quote: from thursday night on 6:24 pm on Mar. 8, 2003
“If North Korea is such a fantastic utopia then why not apply for citizenship?”

I have been asked the exact same thing regarding Cuba many, many times, to which I always reply that I would love nothing more than to be a citizen of that glorious socialist state. However, my personal life (family, love, job, friends) as well as the fact that I do not speak Spanish and it would be, frankly, unrealistic for me to just land in Cuba without any ties to that country and just start a new life. Perhaps, however, if I one day do learn Spanish and I move my personal life to Cuba then I will be able to dwell there.


Translation: You have me there, I talk big but don't back up what I say.

The bottom line is, if you really thought it was that great, and you would "love nothing more" than to move to Cuba, then that would be your #1 priority, and you would overcome every possible obstacle to make your dream come true.

But, you are bigger on rhetoric than action, typical of most leftists here, though.

One month in Cuba tops and you would be on you knees begging to come back.

Saint-Just
9th March 2003, 20:04
Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:15 pm on Mar. 9, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 5:17 pm on Mar. 9, 2003



I doubt the U.S. would risk a conflict with the DPRK.

It is the U.S. who is saber rattling, they who are threatening war. The DPRK has an army of 1,250,000 and highly advanced technology, in thier own country they can defeat the U.S.


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:38 pm on Mar. 9, 2003)


Firsty off, Mao, lets not kid ourselves. The DPRK is threatening violence, while the US is still looking for a diplomatic solution on the peninsula. That is a fact.


I'm sorry, Mao, but the USA has already defeated North Korea once in history (and in their own territory), even when the North had help from China.

While I agree that the DPRK is more technologically advanced than a nation like Iraq, they cannot compare to the sophistication and power of US military technology and ability, or even come close. They have yet to deploy a rocket capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the continental US.

As for your standing army of 1 million+, I must advise that your number is a bit misleading. The US may have fewer troops in the region, but more can be deployed quickly. Besides, troops are merely 1 measure of power. What about economics? The US has infinately more $$ than the DPRK, and the DPRK is already in economic crisis and famine. Jong will not be able to feed, equip, and maintain his equipment over a sustained combat scenario against the USA. His weapons, which are already inferior, wil not be maintained or repaired with the speed, quality, and magnitude of US capabilites, especially considering the lethality of US weapons systems. His ability to maintain logistical coordination will also deteriorate over time, as will supplies of fuel, spare parts, and other supplies. The DPRK just doesn't have the resources to match the USA. So, your standing army of 1,250,000 is a paper tiger.

What about other assets? The DPRK Navy cannot match even 1 US carrier battlegroup, let alone the whole US Navy.

Your air forces are no competition. Our planes are much more advanced, more numerous, and our pilots have many more hours of training than DPRK aviators.

Your land systems are far inferior to US tanks and other combat vehicles, and again, your supplies will not keep up with the attrition that US weaponry will inflict.

If the DPRK, out of desperation, attempts a nuclear solution, it will be suicide for the DPRK. US nuclear capability can destroy the world 20 times over. North Korea would be eradicated within minutes, or perhaps seconds.

The situation for Jong is hopeless. He must stand down or face dire consequences.


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 7:23 pm on Mar. 9, 2003)



Who withdrew from the U.S.-DPRK framework?
The U.S. imposes blocades on the country and has a military presence right next to it. The DPRK has rightly threatened to remove that presence. The U.S. has threatened pre-emptive strikes. I agree the U.S. is looking for diplomatic solution, both countries are, but both countries know there is unlikely to be one because the terms are so unacceptable. The U.S. has scuppered diplomatic moves, refusing to talk to the DPRK until it halts its nuclear programme and so forth. The U.S. has forces in the South, and severly slows economic development in the North.

The truth is the U.S. would like to remove the regime from the North. Indeed, the North would like to remove the U.S. presence in the South.

The U.S. did not defeat the North, at that time, the DPRK military was relatively weak, it was only 6 years after the end of WWII. Now it would not need help from China, it does not need 300,000 extra troops as it has 1,250,000+.

The U.S. can deploy more troops very quickly, however, 1,250,000 highly trained and committed soldiers. In addition DPRK have around 4000 tanks, 400+ ships, 509 aircraft and numerous missiles including cruise and ICBM’s. They have biological, chemical and nuclear (atom bomb) payloads, and possibly thermonuclear in the future if they choose to develop such.

I know the U.S. can sustain war for longer. However, it is not going to use all its resources, it won't be WWII. It is difficult to transport weapons such a distance and put them in position without disruptive attacks from the enemy. It is more difficult to invade a country than to defend one very often. I agree with everything you say about the U.S. having a superior army, better navy, airforce and so on. I think the DPRK has more motivated soldiers however.

In nuclear war, of course the Americans would win. However I do not think either side will start a nuclear war, if for example there was Chinese nuclear intervention, it may be a different story. It is unclear whether the Chinese would intervene in such a way were there to be nuclear attack on the DPRK however.

In the Korean war, even though the Americans had far superior army they were not able to avoid being pushed back to the parallel. So all it took was 300,000 Chinese to defeat them.

You are saying he must 'stand down or face dire consequences', what do you mean by stand down?

Capitalist Imperial
9th March 2003, 22:27
I mean he must stop the threats of war in response to sanctions and grandstanding to the US while we are distracted with Iraq, and discontinue the re-initiation of his nuclear facility systems. Only then will the US consider re-instating economic subsidies and fuel oil shipments.

BTW, in my opinion I don't think that Chinese forces defeated US forces on the peninsula, as the US acheived our objective in the south, which was to maintain a Free south Korea. Though I concede that China did push us back south a little, their attrition rates were much higher than ours.

I agree with what you say, however, that an objective of defending held territory is an advantage compared to having to attack foreign soil, especially with a land-force as substantial (though a bit aged) as the DPRK's.

Saint-Just
9th March 2003, 22:41
Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:27 pm on Mar. 9, 2003
I mean he must stop the threats of war in response to sanctions and grandstanding to the US while we are distracted with Iraq, and discontinue the re-initiation of his nuclear facility systems. Only then will the US consider re-instating economic subsidies and fuel oil shipments.

BTW, in my opinion I don't think that Chinese forces defeated US forces on the peninsula, as the US acheived our objective in the south, which was to maintain a Free south Korea. Though I concede that China did push us back south a little, their attrition rates were much higher than ours.

I agree with what you say, however, that an objective of defending held territory is an advantage compared to having to attack foreign soil, especially with a land-force as substantial (though a bit aged) as the DPRK's.

That is a reasonable assessment of it all. It depends on your assessment of the war:
-whether the U.S. real intentions were to remove the socialist regime from the North. Its difficult to say when the U.S. moved massive forces before the war started, whether they wanted to incite war or because they knew one was coming (this is from a politically less bias point of view). And so on....