Kim Ill Sung and the DPRK

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

There doesn't seem to be to much talk of North Korea on here; I'd think some of my fellow anti-revisionists might have a few good words to say about Kim Il-Sung. I hold him to be a great leader,brilliant thinker, and admire deeply his "creative aplication of Marism-Leninism" Juche. The cult of personality which grew up around him, I beleive, was born out of the genuine admiration a man who fearlessly fought US imperialism and japanese fascism. What's going on these days however, is quite a different story:the cult of Kim Jong Il was born out of respect for his father and has been manipulated in order to consolidate power,it only continues out of fear for persecution or brainwashing. Veneration of the senior Kim has been escalated to the point where he posthumously holds the office of Eternal President, and school children are taught that he is some sort of deity who created the world, and that his son was sent down bodily from heaven. It is illegal not to adhere to Juche, of which Kim Jong Ill is the only legitimate interpreter by state law, and other forms of Marxist lituature are banned to the public. Kim Jong Ill has even developed a new idea called "Songun", which he calls "the most advanced culmination of Juch thought", that illicitely designates the military and not the proletariat as the revolutionary class,making it the primary focus of all state fundings and the highest office in the military hierarchy the de facto head of state. Conveniant since he holds the title "Chairman of National Defense". Now don't get me wrong, I support many of Kim Ill Sungs ideas, but I am angered by his son's perversions of his thought, for very obvious reasons. What I was wondering of you is what you think of Kim Ill Sungs legacy, is he good or bad, Stalinist puppet and copycat or legitimate thinker in his own right? and also how do you think that relates to the state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in North Korea Today?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are many threads on north Korea here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=93712
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52278
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=80170
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=82009
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=93765

Those are just the more recent ones.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As for Kim Jong Il, it's pretty clear that he's a privileged bureaucrat-hangeron that is where he is only because of his father.

Here's an article you should check out: Communist perspectives on Korea (http://powr-prm.org/communistsonkorea.html)

[Revy]

Kim Jong-il did not create the personality cult or the dictatorship, he inherited it directly from his father. He did not exacerbate it, it was already there in full force.

North Korea is what it is because of its Stalinist roots. As we have seen, time and time again, Stalinism only has the capacity to create a dictatorship, either of a party, or of a man.

North Korea will either remain in the same state that it's in, or become capitalist and re-unify with South Korea. I see little hope for socialism after what the Kim family has done. The North Korean system is state-capitalist, but it is also a monarchy and a cult. The invention of "Juche" was a further way to keep the populace from any ideological access to Marxism and socialist ideas in general.

It's spelled "Il" not Ill. Though, it's a nice pun.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So wait.. it's already capitalist, but it may "become capitalist?"

Or it could "remain in the same state." For how long? Indefinitely?

Oh, but it's also a monarchy. What's that based on? I'm guessing that Kim Jong Il is the son of Kim Il Sung. Of course the handing of power from one relative to another doesn't make a monarchy. Monarchy's can be elective (ala in tha Vatican).

What is any of this based on besides your own shaky assertions?

Have you done any investigations into the history of Korea? How about the current property relations in the North? How about the relations of the bureaucrats to the means of production?

No, just as in the thread on China you simply make some semi-emotional statements and expect people to accept them at face value. Some folks might fall for that, but those of us who think - those of us who are communists - will not.

[Revy]

Capitalism as it exists in South Korea. What exists in North Korea is state capitalism, a different form of capitalism. Don't forget history. When East Germany collapsed it dissolved right into West Germany, to form Germany. That is the inevitable possibility with the two divided Koreas.

It's a monarchy. There's no denying that. It's hereditary rule. One of Kim's sons will succeed him.

Stalinism keeps any hope for socialism stagnant with its forced cult-like fervor and rampant brutality. And this is the system they are taught is socialism! So do you really think that they are going to rise up for socialism, when they've been manipulated to believe the system they are oppressed under is socialism? History follows this pattern. In all the former countries of the Soviet Union, the socialist and communist parties are not powerful.

[Sankofa]

If you check out all of our previous threads on North Korea, you'll discover why its not discussed much. Anti-Revisionism and Revleft do not mix well. The shit storm started the moment you created the thread and will only get bigger. People don't react rationally, repeat baseless slander, which leaves any serious arguments totally useless.

So, let me just say that the DPRK should be supported against imperialism/colonialism, regardless on how you feel about the leadership. A unified Korea Peninsula under a U.S. capitalist fist sets us back 60 years...and that's about all I'm going to say about that.

Good luck with your thread and all.

[Vanguard1917]

how do you think that relates to the state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in North Korea Today?

Which 'Dictatorship of the the Proletariat' are you referring to? The one where the proletariat isn't even allowed to form trade unions?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Capitalism as it exists in South Korea. What exists in North Korea is state capitalism, a different form of capitalism. Don't forget history. When East Germany collapsed it dissolved right into West Germany, to form Germany. That is the inevitable possibility with the two divided Koreas.

It's a monarchy. There's no denying that. It's hereditary rule. One of Kim's sons will succeed him.

Stalinism keeps any hope for socialism stagnant with its forced cult-like fervor and rampant brutality. And this is the system they are taught is socialism! So do you really think that they are going to rise up for socialism, when they've been manipulated to believe the system they are oppressed under is socialism? History follows this pattern. In all the former countries of the Soviet Union, the socialist and communist parties are not powerful.You don't even make an attempt at any form of serious debate. Don't expect anyone to take the time to reply to your baseless nonsense.

[Revy]

You don't even make an attempt at any form of serious debate. Don't expect anyone to take the time to reply to your baseless nonsense.

You're for world revolution but you don't believe that revolution should be accessible to those in so-called "bureaucratized proletarian" states, which are nothing of the sort.

So it seems to me, that you simply don't support world revolution. Because you'd never support a genuinely socialist movement that aims to topple the Kim regime. For you to support a people's revolution, if it were to arise, would have to be, from the perspective of your ideology (and that of bobkindles, who mirrors you in many ways) "imperialist". Which it is not, since it's the people of North Korea themselves that would be toppling it in this scenario.

I believe in world revolution, and that means the workers of all countries overthrowing their respective oppressive ruling bourgeois classes, including their own in North Korea. These "proletarian" states are simply a front for a new totalitarian bourgeois ruling class. What "gains" have been made in North Korea under the Kim regime? Seriously? Other than gains for the party, the Kim family, and the military? Workers have no place in this system other than people to be ruled, to praise the Juche gods, etc. - and if they utter one word of protest or dissent, they might never be heard from again.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're for world revolution but you don't believe that revolution should be accessible to those in so-called "bureaucratized proletarian" states, which are nothing of the sort.That's nothing but a caricature of the actual communist position, which I have explained numerous times here, and which can be viewed in "Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)" and "Communist perspectives on Korea (http://www.anonym.to/?http://powr-prm.org/communistsonkorea.html)" (which I linked to earlier in this thread).


So it seems to me, that you simply don't support world revolution.Which is based on nothing but your assertions.. sort of like every other "argument" you have made.

In fact, communists don't surrender gains already made precisely because we fight for world revolution.

As Trotsky pointed out, "The workers’ state must be taken as it has emerged from the merciless laboratory of history and not as it is imagined by a 'socialist' professor, reflectively exploring his nose with his finger. It is the duty of revolutionists to defend every conquest of the working class even though it may he distorted by the pressure of hostile forces. Those who cannot defend old positions will never conquer new ones."


Because you'd never support a genuinely socialist movement that aims to topple the Kim regime.Another point articulated by Trotsky is relevant here: "It is one thing to solidarize with Stalin, defend his policy, assume responsibility for it – as does the triply infamous Comintern – it is another thing to explain to the world working class that no matter what crimes Stalin may be guilty of we cannot permit world imperialism to crush the Soviet Union, reestablish capitalism, and convert the land of the October revolution into a colony. This explanation likewise furnishes the basis for our defense of the USSR."

I don't think he was correct on everything as "Trotskyists" do, and his theories around the USSR needed to be worked out more, tested by history and separated from his personal problems with Stalin et. al., but the underlying point remains.


For you to support a people's revolution, if it were to arise, would have to be, from the perspective of your ideology (and that of bobkindles, who mirrors you in many ways) "imperialist".I don't know what a "people's revolution" is. Revolutions are made by classes against other classes.

Other than that, you're way off. You either grossly misunderstand my position or are purposely distorting it to fit your own ends.

Communists support struggles of the proletariat in the bureaucratic proletarian states. We simply warn that there has to be a basis for this and that phony 'political revolution' have often been lead/spearhead by the imperialists and their collaborators, and point out that material conditions gave rise to the bureaucracies and a change in the material conditions (e.g. extension of the revolution) can bring about their downfall. We argue for world revolution as the only path to communism.


What "gains" have been made in North Korea under the Kim regime? Seriously?The casting off of the imperialist yoke, the destruction of the capitalist state, the overthrow of capitalist property relations, the collectivization of property, the institution of a planned economy, a state monopoly on foreign trade, universal health care, universal education.


I believe in world revolution, and that means the workers of all countries overthrowing their respective oppressive ruling bourgeois classes, including their own in North Korea.You assert that north Korea is capitalist, so prove it.

A state is an institution of organized violence used by a ruling class to defend its rule and the forms of property that its rule is based on and to repress the classes it rules over. It is the objective relationship between the dominant economic system and the apparatuses of organized violence. Its nature is defined by its origins and the property relations it rests upon and defends. Its nature cannot be modifed by a simple changing of the guards of usurpation of political power by a bureaucratic caste.

The defining feature of a proletarian state is not workers democracy. Of course workers democracy is necessary -- and on a world scale -- if we are to progress to socialism and then communism. But we cannot confuse political control of a state with its economic basis.

In China, Viet Nam, Laos and north Korea the capitalist states were smashed and capitalist property relations were overturned. The expropriators were expropriated. New states were set up based on the new forms of collectivized property, with a monopoly on foreign trade. Planned economies were instituted.

Because of this, the bureaucratic proletarian states have all been free of the cyclical crises inherent to capitalism. During the great depression and mid-70's world recession, the USSR's economy continued to grow. Despite increasing capitalist penetration, the bureaucratic proletarian states still in existence are still not plunged into crisis by the current world slump.

They are not capitalist states.

Sure the conditions that they occured in caused them to be grossly distorted (and the bureaucracy undermines the state itself by allowing capitalism to penetrate), but that doesn't make them capitalist states.

Only the destruction of these states could make a return of the dominance of capitalism. That hasn't happened.

By the way, communism is not a religion. It doesn't matter what you "believe in." We don't make up principles and then try to force the real world to follow them. We try to understand the world as it is, so that we can improve it.


if they utter one word of protest or dissent, they might never be heard from again.Sounds a lot like south Korea with their National Security Act. Why don't you talk about that? Or about the acts of your own government against people who "uttered words of dissent" like Fred Hampton? Why do you spend so much time slagging off the same countries that your own imperialist government has in its crosshairs?

As I've pointed out before, even if north Korea were just a regular old capitalist state, that still would be no reason for you to side with imperialism against it.

[Revy]

I would never side with imperialism against North Korea (obviously), but I do side with the workers of North Korea, against both imperialism and the regime there. That is the principled position to take.

I am certainly aware of the repression , historical and present that has been committed by this government. HOWEVER, I am not claiming that the United States of America is a proletarian state with no bourgeois ruling class.



"A state is an institution of organized violence used by a ruling class [Workers' Party of Korea] to defend its rule and the forms of property that its rule is based on and to repress the classes it rules over. It is the objective relationship between the dominant economic system [state capitalism] and the apparatuses of organized violence. Its nature is defined by its origins and the property relations it rests upon and defends [state capitalism]. Its nature cannot be modified by a simple changing of the guards of usurpation of political power by a bureaucratic caste. "

Like all authoritarian state capitalist regimes, the Party's upper ranks have become the new bourgeois ruling class, and thus use the state as their enforcer in state capitalism! No different than Stalin's regime.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're right, no different .. because they were both bureaucratic proletarian states.

The bureaucrats don't own the means of production. They are a caste not a class. They are similar to the bureaucracies at the heads of unions.

"The attempt to represent the Soviet bureaucracy as a class of 'state capitalists' will obviously not withstand criticism. The bureaucracy has neither stocks nor bonds. It is recruited, supplemented and renewed in the manner of an administrative hierarchy, independently of any special property relations of its own.... Its appropriation of a vast share of the national income has the character of social parasitism." - Trotsky

And if you agree that the October Revolution was a proletarian revolution that smashed the capitalist state and created a proletarian state (which I assume you do) then you'll have to explain how a capitalist ruling class was able to take control of it. In the real world the existing state must be smashed to go from one to the other. Just as the workers cant' seize the capitalist state and use it ourselves, the capitalists can't seize a proletarian state and use it themselves. The restoration of capitalism requires the destruction of the proletarian state, as we saw in the USSR in 1991.

[Vanguard1917]

They are not capitalist states.

No, but does that make them workers' states? How are they workers' states? If a state is not capitalist in nature, does it mean that it must necessarily be a workers' state?

What makes a proletarian state distinct from a capitalist state? Workers' rule. The existence of a proletarian state implies that the working class is in political power. In order to secure it's political rule, it must establish its control over the state apparatus. Then, as Lenin explained, it can begin the work of regulating the economy: thus the creation for the first time ever in human history the conscious planning of economic forces.

It's true that Trotsky always held on to the view of the Soviet Union as a workers' state. As such, however, he went against and contradicted the arguments he made elsewhere. See his writings during the Civil War, for example, where, in polemics against opponents of the dictatorship of the proletariat (e.g. Kautsky), he insists on the absolutely fundamental role of the soviets -- the "absolutely irreplaceable apparatus in the proletarian State" -- in the establishment of the workers' state:

"If the party and the trade unions were organizations of preparation for the revolution, the Soviets are the weapon of the revolution itself. After its victory, the Soviets become the organs of power."

So, during the Civil War at least, Trotsky knew full well that workers' rule depended on the power of the insitutions of the working class: the trade unions, the workers' party and the soviets. The dictatorship of the proletariat relies on those organs of workers' power, Trotsky argued. (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch07.htm))

This position was explicitly contradicted in later writings, where Trotsky argued that workers remained in power in the Stalinist state despite the fact that the organs of workers' power (the party, the soviets) had all been defeated and long disappeared:



The former Bolshevik party was turned into an apparatus of the caste. The world organization which the Communist International once was is today a pliant tool of the Moscow oligarchy. Soviets of Workers and Peasants have long perished. They have been replaced by degenerate Commissars, Secretaries and GPU agents.

But, fortunately, among the surviving conquests of the October revolution are the nationalized industry and the collectivized Soviet economy. Upon this foundation Workers’ Soviets can build a new and happier society.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/workers.htm

[BobKKKindle$]

In the real world the existing state must be smashed to go from one to the otherDuring the period of bureaucratic degeneration both the state and the Bolshevik party apparatus did undergo qualitative changes in the way they functioned, and so by the time Trotsky had been removed from the party and forced into exile, the workers state had been smashed. The process of "smashing" took the form of political dissidents being imprisoned for trying to challenge the rule of the bureaucracy and maintain the democratic organs which had come into being during the course of the revolution in 1917, culminating in the "civil war" conducted by the bureaucracy against the working class during the 1930s, whereby the bureaucracy was able to establish itself not only as the center of political power but also as a new ruling class. The fact that North Korea is able to provide its citizens with certain benefits such as guaranteed employment and a basic standard of healthcare at no cost to the consumer does not make North Korea a non-capitalist economy for the simple reason that these benefits have also been provided by regimes which are universally accepted as capitalist - the British government was able to maintain full employment for the duration of both WW1 and WW2 precisely because a capitalism based on market competition was temporarily transformed into state capitalism to meet the demands of the imperialist bourgeoisie. In addition, the idea that healthcare is free in North Korea is problematic, as even though there are no formal costs, refugees who have left North Korea and spoken about their experiences report that anyone who wants to obtain treatment faces pressure to offer bribes to medical staff or give them something in return.

This does, not however, mean that communists should welcome the imperialist encirclement of North Korea and ultimately the only way North Korea can be defended against imperialism is if state capitalism is swept away by the Korean working class and the revolution is extended to encompass other countries in the same region and throughout the world, especially China.

[Robespierre2.0]

I agree with OP for the most part, but don't you think you're a little hard on Kim Jong-Il? Sure, I doubt he is as competent a leader as his father, and I'd rather the North Koreans have chosen someone with public speaking skills as Il-Sung's successor, but considering that Kim Jong-Il has managed to keep the DPRK not only independent, but a hardline socialist state, in a unipolar, U$-dominated world, we should give him credit where credit is due.

Oh, and I wish I had a better word to describe what the DPRK is than 'hardline socialist'. I think Juche is revisionism, but at the same time, the fact that their economy is still 99% state-owned and that they still have a defiant, 'ballsy' attitude towards imperialism even in this bleak decade puts them several pegs higher above the other revisionists.

[JimmyJazz]

I believe in world revolution, and that means the workers of all countries overthrowing their respective oppressive ruling bourgeois classes

Your candidate:


Honorable President-Elect Obama:

Congratulations on your electoral victory to become the 44th president of the United States. Your campaign was hard-fought, and victory well-earned.

We wish you the best in your four-year Democratic Administration and hope and pray for the change you have promised to improve the nation’s economy and general well-being.

As the true Socialist in this race, I sincerely hope that you will be willing to make the type of changes that will achieve a meaningful re-distribution of wealth, and a sharing in the benefits equally for all Americans.

If we can be of any assistance in developing new ideas and programs for the country, we are at your service.

It was a pleasure competing against you, despite the limiting nature of the Socialist Party’s limited resources, lack of ballot access and national media recognition. However, we believe our ideas and programs, advocated and popularized in the first half of the last century under the inspiring leadership of Eugene V. Debs and Norman M. Thomas, led to the various social programs and human rights that now make up the fabric of our democratic society.

As Socialists, and as Americans, we earnestly hope that you will break from the safety of the status quo and follow in the grand tradition of men like Debs and Thomas in fighting for economic and social justice for all of the people of the United States, as well as our fellow citizens across the globe.

My telephone number is ___________, and e-mail address is ______________ ([email protected]), should you wish to communicate with us.

With deep respect for the position and mantle you are about to assume, we remain your humble servants as mutual citizens.

Respectfully, and Cordially,

Brian P. Moore
Socialist Party Presidential Nominee, 2008

[BobKKKindle$]

a defiant, 'ballsy' attitude towards imperialism even in this bleak decade puts them several pegs higher above the other revisionistsThe same thing could be said of Iran, which has persisted in exercising its right to develop nuclear power despite threats from the imperialist powers to invade on the grounds that Iran is using a civilian program to hide the fact that they are actually trying to attain nuclear weapons. The fact that a country is resilient in the face of imperialism may be inspiring, but it does not make that country socialist - what aspects of North Korea's political and/or economic system allow us to describe North Korea as "hardline socialist"? If we understand "hardline socialist" to mean a society organized in accordance with what socialism should be like, then North Korea is the exact opposite of socialism, because socialism is supposed to involv an egalitarian distribution of wealth, and the working class democratically managing the means of production, whereas in North Korea a class of bureaucrats controls production and enjoy material benefits which are beyond the reach of ordinary workers.

[Robespierre2.0]

The same thing could be said of Iran, which has persisted in exercising its right to develop nuclear power despite threats from the imperialist powers to invade on the grounds that Iran is using a civilian program to hide the fact that they are actually trying to attain nuclear weapons. The fact that a country is resilient in the face of imperialism may be inspiring, but it does not make that country socialist - what aspects of North Korea's political and/or economic system allow us to describe North Korea as "hardline socialist"?

Did you read the entire sentence? I said their economy was also almost entirely planned. And now I will summarize the next few posts so we don't have to go through the same old spiel again

YOU (or someone else who disagrees): But simply having central planning does not make a system socialist! (OPTIONAL: We must have workers' self-management!)

ME: True. It takes more than central planning to be socialist. These economic plans, and the utilization of resources in general, must be in the interests of the proletariat. Also, workers' self management is a stupid buzzword used to excuse one's own liberal individualism or to distract people from your pseudo-socialist capitalist system (see: Tito's Yugoslavia).

YOU: But how are the resources being used in the interests of the proletariat?
It's a... (PICK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING)
A. State-Capitalist
B. Deformed Workers' State
C. Stalinist Dictatorship
!!!!
The bureacracy is abusing their power, building statues and monuments, blah blah blah etc. etc.

ME: The state provides a comfortable life for its people, and according to the North Koreans, they have a complex system of relaying information from local factories all the way up to the highest party organs that allows the will of the people to influence the government's decisions.

Now, exactly how this system works is unclear, as the North Koreans have a siege mentality, and thus, knowledge concerning the inner workings of their government is scarce. Now, I'm pretty skeptical of ANY information regarding the DPRK, regardless of where it's from, but I simply cannot believe the bourgeois claim that the government is completely unresponsive to the people, and simply forces everybody to work at gunpoint. In fact, what little exposure to the North Korea people we actually get gives me the impression that they are fanatically devoted to their way of life, the socialist system, and their Leader, and don't mind dealing with hardship in order to preserve their independence.

Now some might claim that is because they don't know any better because they live in a bubble, and it is our job to encourage the overthrow of the DPRK's leadership and 'free' the people. That kind of thought is the same 'white man's burden' bullshit that the United States has used to justify it's century-long rape and slaughter of the Third World. North Korea is more than willing to open up to the outside world- However, according to the Western Powers, 'opening up' is synonymous with throwing out the planned economy and letting the free market devastate your country. The only way this 'opening up' will ever truly occur is if the rest of the world quits trying to violate their independence and force their system on the DPRK.

Well, I was going to go on for longer, but I'm tired. The DPRK is socialist, and should be upheld, but not as an example of proper Marxism-Leninism.

[BobKKKindle$]

That was quite amusing, but you didn't actually explain why North Korea is a socialist state. You acknowledged that a planned economy on its own is not enough to make a country socialist and then suggested that such an economy must also serve the interests of the working population - but even if we accept that this is the main criterion we should use to determine whether a country is socialist or not, North Korea would not be a socialist country because the way resources are used does not benefit the working class and is actually one of the main factors (in addition to factors which are beyond the control of the state such as the weather and the ongoing economic embargo) contributing towards the poor conditions that workers and peasants are forced to endure. As in the case of other state-capitalist regimes, the bureaucracy channels resources into projects which do not embody any meaningful benefits for the working population but serve to maintain the legitimacy of the regime in the eyes of the international community and create an illusion of economic strength, most notably in the form of the Ryugyong Hotel which has taken more than two decades to construct and reportedly cost around 2% of North Korea's GDP,[1] even during a period of intense food shortages and other economic problems which had a negative impact on the working population.

In light of this misuse of scarce resources, and based on the criterion that you suggested, North Korea is not socialist. It is wrong to assume that self-management is incompatible with socialism, because unless workers are actively involved in deciding how the economy should be run and which goods should be produced, there is no way to ensure that the output of the economy reflects the consumption preferences of the working population, and the bureaucracy will take advantage of their position by making sure that their own preferences are given priority even if this comes at the expense of more pressing needs such as making sure everyone is given a decent house, or has enough food to eat. Moreover, arguing that North Korea is not socialist is not the same as saying that North Korea should become market-capitalist or that the imperialist powers have the right to invade and take control of North Korea - the solution is socialist revolution, and socialism on an international scale.

[1] "North Korea builds record-height hotel". Engineering News-Record: 41. November 15 1990

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

First of all I'm new to the board so thank you for telling me about the other threads and secondly thanks you very much for that informative article "communist perspective on North Korea". and Vanguard, what i meant by "the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat" in North Korea was merely it's current hypothetical stage in Marxist terminology. Know what I mean? The 40's was the Revolution, and the current regime, for the sake of discussion, is the dictatorship transitory to a classless society. But I do understand that there are those who would argue the DPRK isn't a dictatorship of the proletariat. Indeed, support of North Korea in the face of imperialism should be obvious, and I hope that nobody here would disagree with that.Even though I may disagree with Kim's ideological assertion that the military is now the revolutionary class I do see his military expansion as necesary in light of the swarming mobs of imperialists to the south.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time dealing with Vanguard1917 over this as he doesn't even make an attempt at principled debate. This question was recently discussed here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1289748&postcount=1)


What makes a proletarian state distinct from a capitalist state? Workers' rule. The existence of a proletarian state implies that the working class is in political power.

As I said before, the defining feature of a proletarian state is not workers democracy.

You are confusing the political character of the ruling clique with the dominant social class and forms of property represented by the state.

Trotsky wrote about such folks: "Shachtman revises not only the present policy of the Fourth International but also the past. Since we are against Stalin we must therefore be against the USSR too. Stalin has long held this opinion. Shachtman has arrived at it only recently. From his rejection of the Kremlin’s politics flows complete and indivisible defeatism."

Lenin pointed out that "the rule of the proletariat is expressed in the fact that landlord and capitalist property has been abolished.... First of all the question of property. When the question of property was decided in practice, the rule of the class was assured."

Of course, I already explained what makes China, DPRK, etc., proletarian states. You simply refuse to engage this argument, preferring instead to plug up your ears and repeat the mantra "nationalizes property doesn't equal a workers state" over and over.

China, north Korea, Laos and Vietnam, like the USSR, etc., that existed before them are/were proletarian states because: (1) the capitalist state was smashed and capitalist private property was collectivized in an anti-capitalist revolution (2) a proletarian state was formed which had a monopoly on foreign trade (3) a planned economy was instituted.

That is why these states "have all been free of the cyclical crises inherent to capitalism. During the great depression and mid-70's world recession, the USSR's economy continued to grow. Despite increasing capitalist penetration, the bureaucratic proletarian states still in existence are still not plunged into crisis by the current world slump."


The former Bolshevik party was turned into an apparatus of the caste. The world organization which the Communist International once was is today a pliant tool of the Moscow oligarchy. Soviets of Workers and Peasants have long perished. They have been replaced by degenerate Commissars, Secretaries and GPU agents.

But, fortunately, among the surviving conquests of the October revolution are the nationalized industry and the collectivized Soviet economy. Upon this foundation Workers’ Soviets can build a new and happier society.

Here Trotsky was clearly saying that despite the degeneration of the CPSU into a body of the bureaucracy the fundamental character of the state it ruled remained the same, i.e. that the existing state doesn't have to be smashed by the working class, only seized. I'm not sure what you're reading into it.


During the period of bureaucratic degeneration both the state and the Bolshevik party apparatus did undergo qualitative changes in the way they functioned, and so by the time Trotsky had been removed from the party and forced into exile, the workers state had been smashed. The process of "smashing" took the form of political dissidents being imprisoned for trying to challenge the rule of the bureaucracy and maintain the democratic organs which had come into being during the course of the revolution in 1917, culminating in the "civil war" conducted by the bureaucracy against the working class during the 1930s, whereby the bureaucracy was able to establish itself not only as the center of political power but also as a new ruling class.

No sorry, that wasn't the smashing of the state. It was political maneuvering and shuffling of the bureaucracy. A state is an institution of organized violence (police, military, courts, prisons). That wasn't broken up in the 1930s.

When the state born out of the October Revolution was actually smashed in 1991 it brought about a massive fall in living standards.

* * *

The whole theory of "state capitalism" is bogus to the core. It has its roots in Kautsky's condemnation of the USSR as "state capitalist" from its foundation, something that to him (and later the Shachtmanites, et. al.) was worse than Tsarism or "democratic" capitalism.

If you claim that the USSR was a capitalist state post 1930, then you're claiming that a capitalist "bureaucracy" was capable not only of overcoming the contradictions of capitalism (and growing while the rest of the world was in depression) but maintaining a planned economy geared (even if only in name) towards meeting human need instead of making a profit. You're saying that capitalism still has a progressive role to play in the backward countries and that capitalism can exist without cyclical crises, something which is completely alien to communist theory and reality.

Indeed the whole notion of a single monopoly owning the means of production under capitalism is completely unrealistic. Marx explained that "Conceptually, competition is nothing other than the inner nature of capital, its essential character, appearing in and realized as the reciprocal interaction of many capitals with one another." Because of this, he said that "Capital exists and can only exist as many capitals." (Emphasis added.)

Lenin likewise ruled out the possibility of a single monopoly running production according to a plan: "On the contrary, monopoly which is created in certain branches of industry, increases and intensifies the anarchy inherent in capitalist production as a whole...."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

First of all I'm new to the board so thank you for telling me about the other threads and secondly thanks you very much for that informative article "communist perspective on North Korea".

No problem. Welcome to the board. I'm glad you find the article useful as well. I think it puts forward a solid communist position based on an analysis of the material conditions in Korea.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

I agree with OP for the most part, but don't you think you're a little hard on Kim Jong-Il? Sure, I doubt he is as competent a leader as his father, and I'd rather the North Koreans have chosen someone with public speaking skills as Il-Sung's successor, but considering that Kim Jong-Il has managed to keep the DPRK not only independent, but a hardline socialist state, in a unipolar, U$-dominated world, we should give him credit where credit is due.

Oh, and I wish I had a better word to describe what the DPRK is than 'hardline socialist'. I think Juche is revisionism, but at the same time, the fact that their economy is still 99% state-owned and that they still have a defiant, 'ballsy' attitude towards imperialism even in this bleak decade puts them several pegs higher above the other revisionists.

I do agree with you on that: the younger Kim has fought hard to preserve one of the last Communist outposts and I hope the next leader has the balls, so to speak, that he does when it come's to maintaing socialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

No sorry, that wasn't the smashing of the state.

There were qualitative changes in the form of the state, which reflected changes in the relations of production and the emergence of the bureaucracy as an independent class. The state apparatus was initially rooted in the Soviets which functioned not only as a means by which the working-class could exercise violence against the invading armies and the remnants of the bourgeoisie, but also as the basis for economic organization and the planned economy, as the Soviets allowed workers to organize and run their workplaces democratically. Thereafter the state apparatus changed and ultimately exhibited the same crucial feature as the state of any other capitalist society - armed bodies of men, separated from the rest of the population.


and growing while the rest of the world was in depression

This does not prove that the USSR was non-capitalist. In 'Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America', Andre Gunder Frank argued that economic depressions can actually lead to higher growth rates for countries which are part of the imperialist periphery, because the ties of dependency between the core and periphery are weakened during these periods and so periphery states are able to focus on developing their own economies and not merely serving the interests of the core by providing a source of cheap labour and raw materials. The USSR may not have been a part of the periphery, but the relative economic independence of the USSR was certainly one of the factors which allowed the regime to sustain economic progress for the duration of the recession even when other countries were experiencing negative growth, and so we cannot describe the USSR as non-capitalist on this basis alone.


maintaining a planned economy geared (even if only in name) towards meeting human need instead of making a profit

The fact that the economy was planned does not make the USSR non-capitalist, because imperialist states have also employed planning during war as a means to sustain the production of armaments and other goods which are necessary to conduct a war, and several periphery states including South Korea have also used planning to promote economic development. It is also deceptive to describe the USSR as a "planned economy" because the concept of planning suggests that the economy was highly organized and production was carried out in accordance with precise instructions set down by the state, whereas in reality the planning process was chaotic, at least in its early stages, and most enterprises were either unable to reach the targets they had been set, or only managed to do so through extensive cost-cutting measures which had a negative impact on safety and product quality.


You're saying that capitalism still has a progressive role to play in the backward countries

State-capitalism has shown itself to have a progressive role, as the only countries which have been able to develop during the post-war period are those which have utilized extensive state intervention in the form of barriers to external trade, regulations on foreign investment, government control of strategic secors of the economy, and, in some cases, planning.


that capitalism can exist without cyclical crises

Capitalism was able to function for more than 30 years without a crisis in the imperialist countries during the post-war period as a result of extensive arms expenditure and imperialist domination of the periphery, both of which allowed these countries to avert a fall in profitability. A similar phenomenon also took place in the case of the USSR, as the regime was able to sustain growth for a long period of time but eventually encountered a crisis resulting from the failure of the planning system in the 1980s. In other words, crises are inherent to capitalism as you suggest, and the economic history of the USSR confirms this.


Indeed the whole notion of a single monopoly owning the means of production under capitalism is completely unrealistic.

Monopoly ownership is not unrealistic, because this is not the same as competition ceasing to exist. The USSR did exhibit competition between rival capitals, because directors competed amongst themselves for access to resources as each individual director faced pressure to meet the target they had been set although there were insufficient resources for the economy as a whole, and conflicts between different factors of the bureaucracy also assumed a political form in the case of China during the Cultural Revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Thereafter the state apparatus changed and ultimately exhibited the same crucial feature as the state of any other capitalist society - armed bodies of men, separated from the rest of the population.

This is a fancy way of saying the bourgeoisie seized control of the state. You offered no proof that the state was smashed because you cannot. You're 'running the film of reformism in reverse.' If the bourgeoisie can seize control of a proletarian state, "change it," and then use it for its own ends, then the proletariat must be able to seize control of the capitalist state and use it itself.


State-capitalism has shown itself to have a progressive role, as the only countries which have been able to develop during the post-war period are those which have utilized extensive state intervention in the form of barriers to external trade, regulations on foreign investment, government control of strategic secors of the economy, and, in some cases, planning.

So there you go folks. Capitalism is not in decline. It still has a progressive role to play in the world. Put away your red flags for a while.


Capitalism was able to function for more than 30 years without a crisis in the imperialist countries during the post-war period as a result of extensive arms expenditure and imperialist domination of the periphery, both of which allowed these countries to avert a fall in profitability.

World War II ended in 1945. There was a recession in 1953. That's 8 years. Cyclical crises tend to happen about every 10 years or so under capitalism (after 53 there were recessions in 57, 67, 74, 1981, 1991, 2001 and now in 2008). Sometimes they can be put off temporarily in extraordinary circumstances, but never eliminated.


A similar phenomenon also took place in the case of the USSR, as the regime was able to sustain growth for a long period of time but eventually encountered a crisis resulting from the failure of the planning system in the 1980s. In other words, crises are inherent to capitalism as you suggest, and the economic history of the USSR confirms this.

So not only does capitalism still have a progressive role to play in the world, it can also be tweaked to go 60-70 years without a cyclical crisis? That's news to me (and Marx).

In the real world, as Marx explained, "The enormous power, inherent in the factory system, of expanding by jumps, and the dependence of that system on the markets of the world, necessarily beget feverish production, followed by over-filling of the markets, whereupon contraction of the markets brings on crippling of production. The life of modern industry becomes a series of periods of moderate activity, prosperity, over-production, crisis and stagnation."


Monopoly ownership is not unrealistic, because this is not the same as competition ceasing to exist. The USSR did exhibit competition between rival capitals, because directors competed amongst themselves for access to resources as each individual director faced pressure to meet the target they had been set although there were insufficient resources for the economy as a whole, and conflicts between different factors of the bureaucracy also assumed a political form in the case of China during the Cultural Revolution.

So was it state capitalist or not?

If a bunch of different enterprises owned by a bunch of different people are competing in a market then its just regular old capitalism.

But of course they didn't. You admit yourself in a round-about way when you recognize them as directors, not owners.

And political conflicts between bureaucrats are not the same as capitalist competition. Pretty basic stuff. Cliff is the one who tried to change the meanings of these types of things ("competition") to fit his argument.

[Vanguard1917]

As I said before, the defining feature of a proletarian state is not workers democracy.


According to Lenin, and Trotsky himself in his writings prior to the Stalinist reaction, the defining feature of the proletarian state is the working class - at least its vanguard - being in control over the state apparatus, through the institutions of workers' power, like the communist party, the trade unions and the soviets.

You are, of course, free to form your own particular definition of what a workers' state is.



You are confusing the political character of the ruling clique with the dominant social class and forms of property represented by the state.


Why is the working class the 'dominant class'? This has never been explained by you. All you have done is based your argument on the assumption that nationalised property is in the interests of the working class. If the capitalists are expropriated, and the working class takes over the means of production, but then fails (due to national and international circumstances) to secure its power, the working class somehow remains the 'dominant class', even though it lacks any control over the state or the means of production, due to the fact that property is nationalised. That's your answer.



Trotsky wrote about such folks: "Shachtman revises not only the present policy of the Fourth International but also the past. Since we are against Stalin we must therefore be against the USSR too. Stalin has long held this opinion. Shachtman has arrived at it only recently. From his rejection of the Kremlin’s politics flows complete and indivisible defeatism."


Shactman has nothing to do with this. You should look deeper into the arguments being made rather than trying to fit them into the neat catogories (Shachtmanite, state capitalist, etc.) you have set up in your head.



Lenin pointed out that "the rule of the proletariat is expressed in the fact that landlord and capitalist property has been abolished.... First of all the question of property. When the question of property was decided in practice, the rule of the class was assured."


Yes, and the question of property is a question of relationship, not form: "The rule of the class is determined only by the relationship to property." (Lenin) Or as Marx pointed out: "To try to give a definition of property as of an independent relation, a category apart, an abstract and eternal idea, can be nothing but an illusion of metaphysics or jurisprudence."

What is decisive is the relationship of the working class to the means of production. Property forms aren't decisive.



Of course, I already explained what makes China, DPRK, etc., proletarian states. You simply refuse to engage this argument, preferring instead to plug up your ears and repeat the mantra "nationalizes property doesn't equal a workers state" over and over.

China, north Korea, Laos and Vietnam, like the USSR, etc., that existed before them are/were proletarian states because: (1) the capitalist state was smashed and capitalist private property was collectivized in an anti-capitalist revolution (2) a proletarian state was formed which had a monopoly on foreign trade (3) a planned economy was instituted.


Lol, you're something else. I very patiently dealt with each of those points one by one. The problem is that you failed to address the challenges to your position. Here it is again. *


That is why these states "have all been free of the cyclical crises inherent to capitalism. During the great depression and mid-70's world recession, the USSR's economy continued to grow.

Yes, they were free from the cyclical crises of capitalism because they were not capitalist. The USSR sometimes even continued to grow when capitalism was in crisis. But, as we now know, it was never able to put up a sustained challenge to capitalism in terms of raising productivity and developing the means of production. And while the Stalinist system was indeed capable of bringing about some economic achievements in backward countries like Russia and China, when applied to advanced capitalist economies like Czechoslovakia, it only brought stagnation.



Here Trotsky was clearly saying that despite the degeneration of the CPSU into a body of the bureaucracy the fundamental character of the state it ruled remained the same, i.e. that the existing state doesn't have to be smashed by the working class, only seized. I'm not sure what you're reading into it.


Trotsky is arguing that workers remain in power despite the fact that the institutions of workers' power (the party, the soviets) have "long perished". What i pointed out is that this directly contradicts Trotsky's arguments during the Civil War, when he argued that such institutions where absolutely key to the dictatorship of the proletariat.



The whole theory of "state capitalism" is bogus to the core. It has its roots in Kautsky's condemnation of the USSR as "state capitalist" from its foundation, something that to him (and later the Shachtmanites, et. al.) was worse than Tsarism or "democratic" capitalism.


The USSR was not a capitalist society, and i have not said that it was. The 'state capitalist' theorists accept the same flawed premise that you accept: that if a society is not capitalist, it must mean that the working class is in power.

----------------------------------


* OK, one at a time, once again...


Anti-capitalist revolutions which result in the political overthrow and expropriation of the capitalists as a class

We have already discussed this. Expropriation of the capitalists and the taking of state power do not mean that the proletariat has secured its control and class rule. The socialist government needs to be successful in securing the position of the working class as ruling class - otherwise the revolution can't be a successful one. As i said before, expropriating the capitalists is a relatively straightforward task. It does not on its own mean that workers' rule is secured. Workers' don't become rulers by default, but by conscious and active revolutionary struggle to enforce their class interets. That's the only way in which the proletarian state can be defended.


the taking of key industry, finance and foreign trade into public ownership...the establishment of a monopoly on foreign trade do.

As we have established, there is nothing inherently socialistic about state control over the economy.


the institution of a planned economy

Yes, a consciously planned economy (i.e. conscious regulation) is only possible through workers' control; in other words, a planned economy presupposes workers' control. Such an economy did not exist in Stalinist societies, where chaos and spontaneity in production prevailed. Lenin had argued that for a planned economy to be achieved, workers must first secure their political power. Then they can begin to take responsibility for regulating economic forces and establish a planned economy. Only a process of conscious decision-making by the working class can achieve conscious planning of economic forces.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

According to Lenin, and Trotsky himself in his writings prior to the Stalinist reaction, the defining feature of the proletarian state is the working class - at least its vanguard - being in control over the state apparatus, through the institutions of workers' power, like the communist party, the trade unions and the soviets.

I've already refuted that in this thread:

"[T]he rule of the proletariat is expressed in the fact that landlord and capitalist property has been abolished.... First of all the question of property. When the question of property was decided in practice, the rule of the class was assured." - Lenin

"Shachtman revises not only the present policy of the Fourth International but also the past. Since we are against Stalin we must therefore be against the USSR too. Stalin has long held this opinion. Shachtman has arrived at it only recently. From his rejection of the Kremlin’s politics flows complete and indivisible defeatism." - Trotsky

This is why I quit participating in the other debate around a similar question. You don't address anything, you simply keep repeating your own rehearsed mantras.

[Pogue]

Its arguments like this in which Leninists defend places like North Korea which drew me to Anarchism. Less bullshit, you see.

[Vanguard1917]

I've already refuted that in this thread:

"[T]he rule of the proletariat is expressed in the fact that landlord and capitalist property has been abolished.... First of all the question of property. When the question of property was decided in practice, the rule of the class was assured." - Lenin

Yes, relations of property, not forms. We have been through this at least 7 or 8 times now in the space of around a week.

Again: "The rule of the class is determined only by the relationship to property." (Lenin, my emphasis) The institutions of workers' power (the soviets, trade unions, the Bolshevik party) still retained their influence in the Soviet state. It was thus correct to refer to the Soviet state as a bureaucratised workers' and peasants' state, as Lenin did. However, Lenin recognised full well the destructive impact that bureaucratisation was having on the proletarian state and the organs of proletarian power, which is why he dedicated a large part of the very last years of his working life to trying to address the problem. By the time of his death, however, as a result of national and international circumstances, only fragments of the workers' dictatorship remained. A few years on, and the process of complete destruction of these remnants of workers' rule was in full force.



This is why I quit participating in the other debate around a similar question. You don't address anything, you simply keep repeating your own rehearsed mantras.


The weakness of your arguments is astonishing. Your utterly inability to address basic points and arguments esposes your position for what it is: incorrect.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yep, we've been over it. Your argument basically boils down to your assertions and the reverse reformist notion of a state changing its character.


The USSR was not a capitalist society, and i have not said that it was.

I was responding to Bob with that. Hence me quoting him immediately prior.

I missed this gem earlier:


Shactman has nothing to do with this. You should look deeper into the arguments being made rather than trying to fit them into the neat catogories (Shachtmanite, state capitalist, etc.) you have set up in your head.

Once again you misunderstand. The point of the quote was to show that Trotsky was criticizing Shachtman for confusing the political with the economic, something he said Stalin was also guilty of.


Its arguments like this in which Leninists defend places like North Korea which drew me to Anarchism. Less bullshit, you see.

Yep, it's much easier to attack the same states as the imperialist government you live under as "totalitarian hellholes" than to do any sort of investigation or have the backbone to defend every conquest, no matter how limited or distorted, in order to move forward.

I'm not a "Leninist" though.

[JimmyJazz]

Its arguments like this in which Leninists defend places like North Korea which drew me to Anarchism. Less bullshit, you see.

It's the fact that anarchists let the capitalist media and capitalist politicians make their anti-NK case for them that drew me to Marxism. Less bullshit, you see.

At least most Marxist parties/groups can articulate a Marxist case against the states they do not uphold, relying on major factors to do with the character of the economy and the government, not CNN reports about the number of statues in the country.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

At least Marxists even have large scale societies which adhere to their ideology that they can regard as either models of what to do and what not to do. Anarchists have nothing of the sort. I recognize common goals between the two, but Marxism, especially through the vehilce of Lenninism, with it's idea of democratic centralism and a vanguard party, is really the only method by which one can hope to acheive these common goals of a classless society free from the taxing chains of past traditions and false class consiousness. Lenninism is a direct action plan for the creation of a proletariant state. In my opinion even a beuracritized proletarian state is better than unhinged bourgeosis capitalism. Sometimes some sort of beaurocracy is even necesary in order to direct revolutionary fervor, so long as it reflects the people's will. North Korea fits the basic definition of what a worker's state should be, even though it is somewhat undemocratic at times. Somewhat was understatement I know yes.

[Vanguard1917]

Yep, we've been over it. Your argument basically boils down to your assertions and the reverse reformist notion of a state changing its character.

You have astonishingly failed to address even my most basic arguments against your feeble 'thesis', so you are in no position to pretend to claim you know what my position 'boils down to'.



Its arguments like this in which Leninists defend places like North Korea which drew me to Anarchism. Less bullshit, you see.


Depends on what you mean by 'defend'. Do i support North Korea against all attacks by the imperialist powers and do i support its right to sovereignty? I certainly do. The working people of North Korea cannot liberate themselves from tyranny and achieve self-determination if North Korea is under the control of imperialist forces.

Do i support the North Korean state, its government, its bankrupt economic forms and its repressive social organisation - one which forbids working men and women the most basic political and social rights? As a socialist, i certainly don't.

[JimmyJazz]

North Korea fits the basic definition of what a worker's state should be

It does? :confused:

Is there working class input in the planning of production in NK? I have never read anyone argue that there is. Central planning by itself is not socialist. It's only different from, not necessarily better than, capitalism. As in Stalin's USSR, it's quite possible to economically oppress a nation's laborers even under central planning (ostensibly for "need"), by pushing too hard for rapid industrialization, participating heavily in an expensive arms race, and other such decisions.

If the whole argument in favor of NK is that it is oppressed by imperialism (and from what I've seen that is the whole argument), it doesn't hold water. Even under a crippling U.S.-led embargo, Cuba has maintained the basic form of a workers' democracy (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/conference/docs/Institute%20of%20Employment%20Rights%20Report%20on %20Workers%20and%20Trade%20U.pdf) (pdf).

Also:


The assembly deputies are nationally elected every five years. Half of the candidates are nominated at public meetings before gaining approval from electoral committees, while the other half are nominated by public solidarity organizations (such as trade unions, farmers' organizations and students' unions).

I'm totally indifferent toward NK until I hear a good case made that it is a workers' democracy with working class input into economic planning. I doubt that one is forthcoming, since I haven't heard one yet, and there isn't exactly a lot of new info coming out of the country.

[scarletghoul]

It is hard to judge DPRK well because we do not have a whole picture of it. Juche seems like a cool idea, but the current government does not seem very nice. But yes we have limited information on this.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

Gosh, I'm not really used to an intelligent discussion! Let me clarify:the next part of the sentence said "even though it's undemocratic". Now, that may seem like a conflicting statement but I meant was that it had a planned socialist economy. I'm not looking to get into an argument or anything though man. NK has it's good and it's bad, a bit more bad than good these days but, we can learn from the current situation there.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

from what I've seen that is the whole argument

Then you haven't seen too much.

See this: Communist perspectives on Korea (http://www.anonym.to/?http://powr-prm.org/communistsonkorea.html)

[JimmyJazz]

Then you haven't seen too much.

See this: Communist perspectives on Korea (http://www.anonym.to/?http://powr-prm.org/communistsonkorea.html)

The historical part of that was fascinating, and useful.

But it was only the end stuff that actually had a bearing on the nature of NK's economy. And the perspective was the same as the one you usually take in these discussions, which is that a centrally planned economy without workers' control is historically progressive (i.e., a step towards genuine socialism). That's more of a conclusion than an argument, and I'm not at all sure I agree. In fact I'm pretty sure I don't.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The historical ties in to the rest.

The nature of the state is a key question. There was a revolutionary overthrow of capitalist rule and an expropriation of the capitalists and imperialists. This no one can deny. A new state was established on those grounds. Unless you can point to a time when that state was smashed (which would be impossible since it was in fact strengthened), then you have to a agree that it still exists. A state cannot be reformed into having a completely different nature. The proletariat cannot reform the capitalist state into its own, and the capitalists cannot reform a state formed in an anti-capitalist revolution which took away their property into their own. A destruction of the existing state (e.g. 1991 USSR, which came along with a massive fall in living standards) is required for them to rule again.

Part of being a communist is accepting things as they are (and working to understand them, in order to change them), not simply wishing things were how you want them to be.

Again, "The workers’ state must be taken as it has emerged from the merciless laboratory of history and not as it is imagined by a 'socialist' professor, reflectively exploring his nose with his finger. It is the duty of revolutionists to defend every conquest of the working class even though it may be distorted by the pressure of hostile forces. Those who cannot defend old positions will never conquer new ones."

We defend the revolutionary the overthrow of capitalist rule, the expropriation of the capitalists, the state that was born of that, the planned economy and the monopoly on foreign trade. We fight for the ouster of the bureaucracy and the institution of workers' democratic control over the state, recognizing the best way to do so is to extend the revolution to south Korea. We unconditionally defend north Korea from imperialism and its servants. None of that implies lending political support to Kim Jong Il or the rest of the bureaucracy.

[JimmyJazz]

NHIA:

Thanks. I could do a line-by-line reply, but those usually get bogged down and both people lose sight of the main argument.

You say, "It is the duty of revolutionists to defend every conquest of the working class even though it may be distorted by the pressure of hostile forces." Of course I agree.

But if there is not and never was workers' control in NK (and I'm going on your link when I say that there wasn't, because I don't have much other good info), then why should a so-called "bureaucratized proletarian" state be considered a "conquest of the working class"? How is it a "bureaucratized proletarian" state if it was, as your link says, bureaucratic from the beginning?

Furthermore--and here is the meat of my objection to your position and the PoWR's position on these "bureaucratized proletarian" states--what makes you think that they are historically progressive? In other words, why do you somehow see a bureaucratized proletarian state as being more likely to move towards genuine socialism/workers' democracy than a thoroughly capitalist state is? Marx had a good materialist analysis of why capitalism would lead to its own demise, but do you have something similar for bureaucratized proletarian states? Moreover, do you have one that you believe shows these states are more likely than capitalist states to lead to their own demise and the establishment of socialism, and hence that from a pragmatic communist POV they should be defended?

Similarly, do you have reason to believe that a North Korean revolution would more likely lead to socialism than to full-blown capitalism and a stampede of FDI from Western and Japanese corporations?

From my perspective, the contradictions in a capitalist economy like South Korea are undeniable, whereas in a centrally-planned state like NK--which does ensure everyone's basic food and healthcare and education needs are met--things are probably much more stable. But even if some kind of political upheaval is sparked there, at this stage in world history it's more likely to lead to a capitalist counterrevolution than to anything progressive including the establishment of socialism. To make the Cuba comparison again, I am 100% certain, based on what I know, that Cuban workers and farmers would fight to defend their revolution if it was threatened by imperialism or by the restoration of capitalism. They might fail, but they would fight. But would North Koreans do the same thing? If the country's economy is so highly bureaucratized, then I would imagine not--bureaucracy, past a certain point, is as alienating as capitalism*. And if not, then what progressive thing could possibly be achieved by a political upheaval in NK? If the industrial and agricultural workers of that country wouldn't self-mobilize to fight against a restoration of capitalism, what is there to make anyone think that an upheaval wouldn't lead to a restoration of capitalism?

What happened to the Soviet Union in 1991? Your article, after all, says that NK was originally modeled after the USSR, which was then in a "bureaucratized proletarian" state, just as NK is today.

I agree with you fully on your pragmatic stance, and with rejecting idealist socialists such as the "professor, reflectively exploring his nose with his finger." It's just your logic that I question. (And your terminology, since I don't see what's so "proletarian" about a "bureaucratized proletarian" state, preferable though it may be to capitalism from the perspective of the average citizen).


*I realize this sounds like it's contradicting my former statement that a socialist revolution is more likely in a capitalist country than in a "bureaucratized proletarian" state, but people don't wage revolutions based on alienation alone. As I said, barring outside intervention (HA!), I think NK is more stable than a capitalist country, since it at least meets everyone's basic needs to some degree. Alienation only determines how (un)attached you are to the present system, not necessarily how likely you are to actively overthrow it--that usually requires material immiseration.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But if there is not and never was workers' control in NK (and I'm going on your link when I say that there wasn't, because I don't have much other good info), then why should a so-called "bureaucratized proletarian" state be considered a "conquest of the working class"?

Because it was the toilers who carried out the revolution that lead to the overthrow of capitalist rule, the expropriation of capitalist private property, etc. Not to mention that the overthrow of capitalism anywhere is a victory for the international proletariat.

"While bureaucratized proletarian states are a far cry from the proletarian states we fight for, they still represent a gain for the working class. Despite their distortions, the bureaucratic proletarian states exist over top of collectivized property form born out of the overthrow of capitalism, thus allowing working people much better living conditions than they had prior to (or in the cases of those which no longer exist) after the states’ existence. More importantly on a historic scale, the very existence of these states contributes to the defeat of world imperialism, thus removing all barriers for the construction of genuine socialism in every country and paving the way for a communist world." - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)


How is it a "bureaucratized proletarian" state if it was, as your link says, bureaucratic from the beginning?

A union is a workers organization, right? Even when the leadership is held by bureaucrats, its still a workers organization at base, right? If a section of the bureaucratic leadership of one of the unions decides to split off and form a new union (with themselves still in control, and patterned on the bureaucrat-controlled union they know and love), and they bring a section of the membership with them, they have formed a new bureaucratically-controlled workers organization, right?

The same principle applies here.

"The bureaucrats who controlled these states came from various backgrounds. Some were communists who had genuine revolutionary intentions but viewed “actually existing socialism” in the bureaucratized proletarian states that has already come into existence as the model for socialism and/or looked to the leaders of bureaucratized-socialist states (especially the USSR), who nationalistically subjected the interests of the international working class as a whole to the interests of their own countries, for leadership and direction. Others were opportunists, looking for a way to “get ahead.” Finally, some were professional, administrators, et. al., in the old society seeking privileged positions for themselves in the new society.

"In the states liberated from fascism by the Red Army during World War II (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany), the soon-to-be bureaucrats were placed a top bureaucratic states constructed by the Red Army on the model of the Soviet state.

"In the states created through mass revolutions (China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Ethiopia and north Korea), the soon-to-be bureaucrats insured the creation of bureaucratic proletarian states by patterning themselves on the bureaucratic castes that ruled the existing bureaucratized proletarian states." - From the previous link.


Similarly, do you have reason to believe that a North Korean revolution would more likely lead to socialism than to full-blown capitalism and a stampede of FDI from Western and Japanese corporations?

Actually, I have a reason to believe that forces claiming to fight for "democracy" can in fact be manipulated/lead by pro-imperialist and capitalist-restorationist forces (as was the case in Poland, for example).

That's why we say: "Communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, but they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements. We struggle for the ouster of the bureaucrats and their governing system, to be replaced by genuine workers’ democracy, while pointing out the need for the preservation of the gains represented by collectivized property, economic planning, and control of trade.

"The best way for the working class to defend the gains in these countries is to defend the countries themselves from attack by the imperialist powers while at the same time fighting for socialist revolutions in the remaining capitalist countries. The victory of socialist revolutions in the capitalist countries can create the openings necessary for the removal of the bureaucratic castes in the bureaucratized proletarian states (e.g. by revitalizing the working class internationally, reducing the ability of the bureaucracies to prop their rule by pointing to the need to defend the country from the imperialists, etc.)." - From the previous link.


To make the Cuba comparison again, I am 100% certain, based on what I know, that Cuban workers and farmers would fight to defend their revolution if it was threatened by imperialism or by the restoration of capitalism. They might fail, but they would fight. But would North Koreans do the same thing?

Possibly not. They have been excluded from political power for a long time.

But who is to say? In east Germany things could have went the other way. There were mass rallies calling for the preservation of socialism with the introduction of socialism, against vandalism of monuments for anti-fascist fighters, etc.


What happened to the Soviet Union in 1991? Your article, after all, says that NK was originally modeled after the USSR, which was then in a "bureaucratized proletarian" state, just as NK is today.

"While relying on its existence for their positions, the bureaucrats simultaneously undermine the bureaucratized proletarian state by pursuing their own narrow interests (especially by seeking out ways to get more privileges and to secure wealth and positions of power that can be inherited by their offspring).

"The tendency of the bureaucracies to attempt to 'peacefully coexist' with imperialism, allow increasing capitalist penetration into the economy and seek out new property forms, combined with the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, can lead to an eventual collapse of the bureaucratized proletarian state under the weight of its own contradictions. In the wake of such a collapse the bureaucracy will split, with the largest section most likely going over the internal and external forces of capitalist counterrevolution which will take full advantage of the situation to take power and forge a capitalist state. This is what occurred in the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany.

"But this is not the only danger. The bureaucracy, along the proletarian state itself, cant be directly overthrown by counterrevolutionary forces, as was the case in Ethiopia." - Again from the above link.

That's one of the reasons why key to furthering the revolution in north Korea is overthrowing capitalism in the south.


(And your terminology, since I don't see what's so "proletarian" about a "bureaucratized proletarian" state, preferable though it may be to capitalism from the perspective of the average citizen).

It's origins in anti-capitalist revolution, the property forms and relations it was formed to defend, etc.


Moreover, do you have one that you believe shows these states are more likely than capitalist states to lead to their own demise and the establishment of socialism, and hence that from a pragmatic communist POV they should be defended?

The proletarian state is already in place. That's the key. Our job is to fight what is useful that already exists. If left unchecked, the bureaucracy will continue to undermine the proletarian state. Eventually it will collapse or become weakened to the point that it can be easily overthrown. To lose what gains already exist would be a setback (as was shown by the period of reaction and massive rollbacks for workers all around the world that was ushered in by the destruction of the "Socialist Bloc").

The workers in the bureaucratic proletarian states don't have to destroy the massive state machinery and the property forms it rests on. They simply need to seize control of it! That's a huge difference from the situation faced in the capitalist countries where we have to politically defeat the capitalists, destroy their institution of organized violence and take their property out of their hands.

We need to extend the revolution to the remaining capitalist countries, which can facilitate the casting off of the bureaucracies in the bureaucratized proletarian states.

[Vanguard1917]

since I don't see what's so "proletarian" about a "bureaucratized proletarian" state

Nothing at all was 'proletarian' about the oppression of workers in Stalinist societies. The workers had no power over society, the state and the economy, as some of us have pointed out in this thread and other recent discussions.

[JimmyJazz]

Because it was the toilers who carried out the revolution that lead to the overthrow of capitalist rule, the expropriation of capitalist private property, etc. Not to mention that the overthrow of capitalism anywhere is a victory for the international proletariat.

But the overthrow of capitalism doesn't necessarily mean the victory of socialism. Corporatist Fascism, while not a qualitative break with capitalism by any means, put a lot more economic power in the hands of the state, and did so to the incredible detriment of the international proletariat.

A bureaucratically planned economy is most certainly not fascism, but it's not socialism. I'm not simply anti-capitalist, I'm socialist.

I realize I'm retreading my last post, but I feel like you're still simply asserting that the overthrow of capitalism is a victory for socialists without really backing it up.


More importantly on a historic scale, the very existence of these states contributes to the defeat of world imperialism, thus removing all barriers for the construction of genuine socialism in every country and paving the way for a communist world.

I agree, and I also agree that this point is "more important" than the other one about existing "bureaucratic proletarian" states being closer to socialism than capitalism is, since I don't really think you've substantiated that one.

But for the purpose of opposing imperialism, I don't support NK any more than I support entirely capitalist states which are aggressed against by imperialist powers and resist out of pure nationalism. I'm socialist and anti-imperialist, but I don't conflate socialism with anti-imperialism. (At least I do my best).


A union is a workers organization, right? Even when the leadership is held by bureaucrats, its still a workers organization at base, right?

In some sense, sure. But I by no means believe that every union can be democratized and recovered as a real revolutionary instrument of the working class. Many, perhaps most of them, cannot.

I think this is a perfect analogy, in fact. Today's class collaborationist unions were created by toilers too, just like NK's economy was, but collaborationist unions are a huge obstacle to the overthrow of capitalism, not potential revolutionary vehicles.


Actually, I have a reason to believe that forces claiming to fight for "democracy" can in fact be manipulated/lead by pro-imperialist and capitalist-restorationist forces (as was the case in Poland, for example).

Right...


That's why we say: "Communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, but they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements.

Well I agree with this of course, but it is rather vague. I would like to hear an example of how this works out in practice. It sounds rather impossible (for reasons stated in my last post--namely that the fall of the Kim Jong-il regime will probably lead to a restoration of capitalism).

Granted, you do say this:


The victory of socialist revolutions in the capitalist countries can create the openings necessary for the removal of the bureaucratic castes in the bureaucratized proletarian states

...but, on this point, I guess you are simply much more of an optimist than me. I do foresee a socialist world revolution, eventually, but certainly not in time to save the remaining non-capitalist states (Cuba, NK, perhaps others I am forgetting) from first restoring capitalism. I just don't see that they can withstand the pressure for anywhere near as long as it will take for a world revolution to occur. Capitalism appears to me extremely strong in the countries where it is most advanced (like the U.S.).

If I shared your optimism, of course I would see a "bureaucratic proletarian" state as a progressive victory for the proletariat and something to be first defended, then reformed. But as far as I can imagine there is just no way the DPRK will last until there is a revolution in the United States or other major capitalist powers.


Possibly not. They have been excluded from political power for a long time.

But who is to say? In east Germany things could have went the other way. There were mass rallies calling for the preservation of socialism with the introduction of socialism, against vandalism of monuments for anti-fascist fighters, etc.

Even in places where the working class is willing to fight to defend their revolution, I am doubtful whether they can hold out forever under the crushing pressure of the capitalist world. I guess I am just a pessimist. Even Cuba I do not expect to last until a U.S. revolution, and I have already said that I believe Cuba to be genuinely socialist and to have the support of Cuban workers and farmers.


The proletarian state is already in place. That's the key. Our job is to fight what is useful that already exists.

I've already said that, if I believed the world revolution were forthcoming, I would support "bureaucratic proletarian" states over against a restoration of capitalism. So don't get me wrong when I say the following.

But it is not as though there is nothing useful about liberal democracies that we can take advantage of in our fight for genuine socialism. Liberal, individual rights like the freedom of speech and the freedom to assemble, farcical though they do show themselves to be when the capitalist system itself is challenged, can at least provide an initial springboard for organizing the working class. They can at least be used as a first step, until our radical intentions are revealed, at which time, history shows, they will be hypocritically revoked.

There is in my mind still a question of who will tend to defend their privilege and power with more effectiveness: a bourgeoisie, or a bureaucratic clique. I think the answer is probably a bourgeoisie, but I also don't think that it's an absolutely settled question.

And just to reiterate once again, my ambivalence toward highly bureaucratic "socialist" systems like the DPRK has more to do with my pessimism about an imminent world revolution than anything else. Because if I had to roll the dice, I'd certainly bet on the chances of reforming a bureaucratic, centrally-planned state being better than the chances of overthrowing a bourgeoisie, under favorable global conditions. But in a sea of global capitalism, I certainly don't see much of a chance that a bureaucratic, centrally-planned state is going to transform into genuine socialism or anything else besides full-blown capitalism.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

The overthrow of capitalism DOES mean the victory of SOME FORM of socialism. The pro-DPRK argument is that despite being an authoritarian regime, it should be defended as it is a socialist country with a regime which adhere to a communist ideology. And by socialist country I mean one that is not capitalist and redistributes the wealth.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

North Korea, is a degenerated worker's state, but, for those who voice their support for it, that's better than nothing and we should keep it going.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Kim Jong Il still succeeds in defending the DPRK from capitalist intervention.
Therefor I think he too is a great leader.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

The North Korean controversy amongst the proponents of leftist ideologies is merely another form of the theoretical argument of whether or not a planned socialised economy automatically makes a certain country a "workers state". Semantic arguments made against regimes dubbed by their detracters as "stalinist" (such as the Kim "dynasty" as it were) usually rely on a single point: the perceived lack of a direct democracy which therefore renders the government "state capitalists" assuming that the definition of state capitalism in this case is where the vanguard party develops into a bourgeosis of sorts, a red aristocracy. The counterstrike is this: unrealistic and dreamy idealism is a poison, pseudo-supporters of North Korea such as myself and Nothing Human Is Alien would say that even a beuracritized workers state is better than no workers state at all; to which the revisionist says that it isn't even a worker's sate of anyform in the first palce due to the previously mentioned perceived lack of direct democracy. This however is a weak and unconstructive argument and here's why: after years of brainwashing under the capitalist system and lsting after the possibility of upward mobility many might be reluctant to the new order and cling to their free market induced squaler with the hope of advancing on the social hierarchy. In some cases we find a necesity for a one party dictatoroship to ensure the national well being during the early stages of building socialism(although NHIA might disagree on that point); on the other hand any government in which alleviation and aid of the working class to such an extent that this aim is the cornerstone of party ideology this entity of governance is worthy of being called a "workers state". It may not be the IDEAL workers state but it is A FORM of workers state.

[Gleb]

Kim Jong Il still succeeds in defending the DPRK from capitalist intervention.
Therefor I think he too is a great leader.

Well, it's kinda true. He has defended North Korea from intervention by other capitalists. You can tick the option "I'm a true communist" and paint your house red if you want to, but it doesn't make you a socialist; that's not how we are going to create a proletarian state: we need something actual, and that's something what Papa-Kim and his sonny and their nice little juche-ideology have so far not been able to give to the Korean working class.

North Korea is a dictatorship. It's managed by a clique of party aristocrats who are in no way responsible for their actions to their little subjects. There is no democratic control over the means of production; they are in hands of the state which is in the hands of undemocratically chosen party leaders and managers.
My dear AngelCity Neo-Stalinist: it's not an ideal workers' state, we all know that, but it's not even a form of workers' state. It's a bloody aristocracy with its bizarre party nobility system where the worker exists only to do his work; democratic participation in politics is definately out of question.

DPRK is nothing but a faux socialist oligarchy, which used to be one of the most prosperous Asian countries and nowadays is suffering from severe famine and is one of the most isolated little arseholes in the whole, wide world.

[tehpevis]

DPRK isn't a Degenerated Worker's State, as it's never been a Worker's State. They've just been a Dictatorship for almost all of their history. Not to mention that they have strayed even farther from Marxism than "Comrade" Stalin, what with the cult-of-personality around the Kim family. All the DPRK is doing is indirectly providing the Imperialists & Capitalists with more fuel for their Propaganda Machine by classifying their Corrupt Dictatorship as Communist (Allowing Capitalist propaganda to use a technique along the lines of: "North Korea is a fucked-up dictatorship. North Korea says they are communist. Therefore, Communism=fucked up Dictatorship")

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

North Korea is not as bad as the capitalists say it is. It has problems, yes, because the only ones who don't try to starve them out are other Communists, and the only Communists who can help somehow are the Chinese. The other Communists cannot because of the imperialist blockade (attempt to starve the nation out and enslave it to the Americans).

[Cumannach]

DPRK isn't a Degenerated Worker's State, as it's never been a Worker's State. They've just been a Dictatorship for almost all of their history. Not to mention that they have strayed even farther from Marxism than "Comrade" Stalin, what with the cult-of-personality around the Kim family. All the DPRK is doing is indirectly providing the Imperialists & Capitalists with more fuel for their Propaganda Machine by classifying their Corrupt Dictatorship as Communist (Allowing Capitalist propaganda to use a technique along the lines of: "North Korea is a fucked-up dictatorship. North Korea says they are communist. Therefore, Communism=fucked up Dictatorship")

It hardly matters how much fuel they're provided with- they'll just make it up if they have nothing real to go on- like the Ukrainian Famine, the Red Terror, the Purges, the Gulag and all the other ridiculous nonsense forever streaming out of the bourgeois press. Letting UN inspectors in to see that he had no weapons of mass destruction hidden in his closet didn't save Saddam Hussein did it? They can get very far before reality impinges on their fantastic lies to any significant degree.

So I don't see any reason to resent the Koreans for their mistakes in terms of 'fueling anti-communism'.

Also, Marxism, of course, aims to establish a dictatorship - a dictatorship of the working class- as opposed to what we have know in most of the world - the dictatorship of the bourgoisie, of capital.

[Revolution4TheHellOfIt]

North Korea is a degenarate workers state that has been plagued by cultism over a family far less important to korean comunism or socialism than the late general Kim Jwa Jin father of Kim Doo Han.

It is responsible for many attrocities such as countless purges of its own people to keep its vanguard party in power.

As a Korean Bon Guk is far beyond a degenerate workers state and would actually be better off reuniting with Han Hook.

It saddens my heart to say it but Kim Jong Il and his Vanguards are bastards and betrayers and responsible for the deaths of many true leftists.

[Pogue]

The North Korean controversy amongst the proponents of leftist ideologies is merely another form of the theoretical argument of whether or not a planned socialised economy automatically makes a certain country a "workers state". Semantic arguments made against regimes dubbed by their detracters as "stalinist" (such as the Kim "dynasty" as it were) usually rely on a single point: the perceived lack of a direct democracy which therefore renders the government "state capitalists" assuming that the definition of state capitalism in this case is where the vanguard party develops into a bourgeosis of sorts, a red aristocracy. The counterstrike is this: unrealistic and dreamy idealism is a poison, pseudo-supporters of North Korea such as myself and Nothing Human Is Alien would say that even a beuracritized workers state is better than no workers state at all; to which the revisionist says that it isn't even a worker's sate of anyform in the first palce due to the previously mentioned perceived lack of direct democracy. This however is a weak and unconstructive argument and here's why: after years of brainwashing under the capitalist system and lsting after the possibility of upward mobility many might be reluctant to the new order and cling to their free market induced squaler with the hope of advancing on the social hierarchy. In some cases we find a necesity for a one party dictatoroship to ensure the national well being during the early stages of building socialism(although NHIA might disagree on that point); on the other hand any government in which alleviation and aid of the working class to such an extent that this aim is the cornerstone of party ideology this entity of governance is worthy of being called a "workers state". It may not be the IDEAL workers state but it is A FORM of workers state.

I think the problem with your argument is that you argue incredibly objectively, which in most circumstances is good but when dealing with the conditions of regimes and the suffering of people within them, its not good. You're presupposing that what makes a state good in the Marxist sense is how well it correlates to some scientific definition of a workers state. This completely ignores the reality and conditions on the ground in such a state and how the workers live there. You completely ignore the humanistic side and become detached from the suffering and livelihood of the people in the state. I judge states based on how they treat people (both in their coutnry and in others) and from this its clear that the DPRK is a failed state, regardless of how their economy works (or in their case, fails to work).

Do you honestly think that the proletariat would rather live in a beurecratic dictatorship following some strange form of state capitalism where you cannot express your opinions such as DPRK over an (albeit capitalist) liberal democracy like the United Kingdom? If you stifle all political dissent that involves stifling those who want to turn what you call a 'deformed workers state' into a proper workers state or just a democracy of some sort, there is no opputunity for reform and the abolition of the deformed state in place of a real workers state and ultimately communism. In liberal democracies there is the free exchange of ideas, socialist ideas, which gives us a starting point at which to create class concoisuness and thus the abolition of capitalism, and that is much more beneficial to the socialist movement than a state which masquerades under some form of socialism (if Juche even qualifies as that).

[Wanted Man]

I think the problem with your argument is that you argue incredibly objectively, which in most circumstances is good but when dealing with the conditions of regimes and the suffering of people within them, its not good. You're presupposing that what makes a state good in the Marxist sense is how well it correlates to some scientific definition of a workers state. This completely ignores the reality and conditions on the ground in such a state and how the workers live there. You completely ignore the humanistic side and become detached from the suffering and livelihood of the people in the state. I judge states based on how they treat people (both in their coutnry and in others) and from this its clear that the DPRK is a failed state, regardless of how their economy works (or in their case, fails to work).
Of course, arguing objectively and scientifically is the whole point. The struggle for "human rights" within capitalism is basically idealist and utopian. "Rights" are abstract, and in practice they still permit exploitation and oppression, as we are seeing right under our noses, in our daily lives. The victims of capitalism and imperialism are the only ones who suffer from the "human rights" crusade, just look at Iraq. Of course, then you can say that Bush and his lackeys "don't truly believe in human rights", but that's purely subjective. So it's obvious that someone arguing from a marxist point of view will not deal with "the humanistic side" because it's irrelevant. Not because he's detached from "the suffering of the people" or anything dramatic like that. It's just a recognition of the fact that, on the long term, it doesn't take precedence.

For you, the thing that takes precedence is "how they treat people", i.e. a humanism that's completely detached from material reality, including the economic circumstances. It's basically the problem of anarchism, libertarian socialism, and other currents in the left that basically combine libertarian anti-statism, opposition to capitalism on a moral basis, and liberal humanism. It's part of the left, and contributes to it, but it doesn't give any insights into the world as marxism does.


failed stateThat one again... It's a nice term for the imperialists, because it basically assigns the blame of their failures to their victims. It's a useful propaganda tool, to push for war, for example. After that, there's no point in asking "why" that state failed. Well, except that they had an evil dictator (or an aged stalinist bureaucracy, or a genocidal maniac, or whatever...) who treated his citizens wrong...


Do you honestly think that the proletariat would rather live in a beurecratic dictatorship following some strange form of state capitalism where you cannot express your opinions such as DPRK over an (albeit capitalist) liberal democracy like the United Kingdom? If you stifle all political dissent that involves stifling those who want to turn what you call a 'deformed workers state' into a proper workers state or just a democracy of some sort, there is no opputunity for reform and the abolition of the deformed state in place of a real workers state and ultimately communism. In liberal democracies there is the free exchange of ideas, socialist ideas, which gives us a starting point at which to create class concoisuness and thus the abolition of capitalism, and that is much more beneficial to the socialist movement than a state which masquerades under some form of socialism (if Juche even qualifies as that).Well, basically the same as above. "Freedom" and "human rights" are given more importance than economic concerns, because at least there is a "free exchange of ideas, socialist ideas" in "liberal democracies", so they give us a head start, so to speak. Again, it's the elevation of "liberal or authoritarian" over "capitalist or socialist". It's all about "where the proletariat would rather live"...

In short, this is why people keep calling you a liberal.

[tehpevis]

It hardly matters how much fuel they're provided with- they'll just make it up if they have nothing real to go on- like the Ukrainian Famine, the Red Terror, the Purges, the Gulag and all the other ridiculous nonsense forever streaming out of the bourgeois press. Letting UN inspectors in to see that he had no weapons of mass destruction hidden in his closet didn't save Saddam Hussein did it? They can get very far before reality impinges on their fantastic lies to any significant degree.

So I don't see any reason to resent the Koreans for their mistakes in terms of 'fueling anti-communism'.

Also, Marxism, of course, aims to establish a dictatorship - a dictatorship of the working class- as opposed to what we have know in most of the world - the dictatorship of the bourgoisie, of capital.

by Dictatorship, I did not mean of the Proletariat.

[tehpevis]

In short, this is why people keep calling you a liberal.

Is that really so bad?

[Pogue]

Of course, arguing objectively and scientifically is the whole point. The struggle for "human rights" within capitalism is basically idealist and utopian. "Rights" are abstract, and in practice they still permit exploitation and oppression, as we are seeing right under our noses, in our daily lives. The victims of capitalism and imperialism are the only ones who suffer from the "human rights" crusade, just look at Iraq. Of course, then you can say that Bush and his lackeys "don't truly believe in human rights", but that's purely subjective. So it's obvious that someone arguing from a marxist point of view will not deal with "the humanistic side" because it's irrelevant. Not because he's detached from "the suffering of the people" or anything dramatic like that. It's just a recognition of the fact that, on the long term, it doesn't take precedence.

For you, the thing that takes precedence is "how they treat people", i.e. a humanism that's completely detached from material reality, including the economic circumstances. It's basically the problem of anarchism, libertarian socialism, and other currents in the left that basically combine libertarian anti-statism, opposition to capitalism on a moral basis, and liberal humanism. It's part of the left, and contributes to it, but it doesn't give any insights into the world as marxism does.

That one again... It's a nice term for the imperialists, because it basically assigns the blame of their failures to their victims. It's a useful propaganda tool, to push for war, for example. After that, there's no point in asking "why" that state failed. Well, except that they had an evil dictator (or an aged stalinist bureaucracy, or a genocidal maniac, or whatever...) who treated his citizens wrong...

Well, basically the same as above. "Freedom" and "human rights" are given more importance than economic concerns, because at least there is a "free exchange of ideas, socialist ideas" in "liberal democracies", so they give us a head start, so to speak. Again, it's the elevation of "liberal or authoritarian" over "capitalist or socialist". It's all about "where the proletariat would rather live"...

In short, this is why people keep calling you a liberal.

And once more I think you are detached from reality, in that you use Marxist material anaylsis without taking into consideration how people are actually treated. My analysis of DPRK is not a nation which is a victim of imperialism but a victim of oppresive pwoer structures inherent in capitalism and the way the world is when it isn't organised in a communist way.

I don't understand how having a concern for how the proletariat are treated makes me a liberal, and I also see it as a good thing that I prefer free expression and democracy vevr stifling regimes. I think you've become so broken down by the theories of certain Marxists that you fail to udnerstand how people feel about being treated in certain ways. When the DPRK is just another oppresive state in a world full of them I'll criticise it as much and even more than the states which perform somewhat better. I oppose all states but oncemore, I know everyone in the world would rather live in a liberal democracy with rights, freedoms and some form of welfare as opposed to an authoritarian state where they live in absolute poverty.


In short, this is why people keep calling you a liberal

I would say that these people have no idea what they are talking about and misunderstand what makes one a liberal, but as I have offered ot several individuals at different times and also to anyone who would take me up on it, I will personally request to be restricted to the Opposing Ideologies section of the forum if anyone can justify this clame. Comrade Alastair didn't reply to my offer for a debate, and Hessian Peel and another poster whose name I cannot recall at this present time both refused to enter this debate.

I believe you are detached from reality and have sunk into Marxist dogma which means you value some form of scientific analysis over how the world really is, leading you to see it as wrong that I would value more free and fair societies over cruel dictatorships.

[Wanted Man]

My analysis of DPRK is not a nation which is a victim of imperialism but a victim of oppresive pwoer structures inherent in capitalism and the way the world is when it isn't organised in a communist way.This is somewhat true, actually. The DPRK isn't really a direct "victim" of imperialism, because it isn't in its grasp. But it's facing the consequences of that every day. A country that doesn't step in line will face the threat of war, the brand of being a "failed state", economic sanctions, etc. So more accurately, the DPRK resists imperialism, but it's paying the price for it every day. Anyway, to get to the meat of your post...

(I can't deal with the liberalism accusation any further, I don't think you're a liberal, I just think you tend towards it, and I understand that people are calling you it, not because you happen to be anti-DPRK or anti-USSR or whatever, but because your analysis of them comes from a liberal perspective)


I don't understand how having a concern for how the proletariat are treated makes me a liberal, and I also see it as a good thing that I prefer free expression and democracy vevr stifling regimes. I think you've become so broken down by the theories of certain Marxists that you fail to udnerstand how people feel about being treated in certain ways. When the DPRK is just another oppresive state in a world full of them I'll criticise it as much and even more than the states which perform somewhat better. I oppose all states but oncemore, I know everyone in the world would rather live in a liberal democracy with rights, freedoms and some form of welfare as opposed to an authoritarian state where they live in absolute poverty.So how is the world really? You seem to know. I think that's pure arrogance, to suggest that you know "how the world really is", and that this has some sort of superiority to "marxist dogma". How do you know that "everyone" wants to live so-and-so? I can think of plenty of people who would attach much more importance to having housing, healthcare and education provided to them for free. Maybe we are so used to it in our welfare system that we just take it for granted, and then it's easy to place importance on more abstract concepts.

As for "how the proletariat are treated..." The proletariat isn't some passive entity that can be either treated "well" or "badly" by "good" or "bad" rulers. It's ridiculous to make grand proclamations about how all the other people "want to live". Some countries do have welfare, but not because liberal democracy is so nice. It's because the working class itself has struggled for it for 100 years, instead of just being treated "well" or "badly". Besides, would it be affordable if the relations between the countries of the world were equal, instead of based on imperialist exploitation?

Anyway, even if it's undoubtedly true that "the people prefer liberal democracy" (if only because its harder edges have been rounded off), that still only makes a poor populist argument. Revolutionaries don't just want to comfort "the people" about the fact that they have some "rights", and be smug about "look at how bad it is in North Korea, surely you much prefer it here, at least 0.0001% of you may someday get to read our boring newspaper because it's legal here, so there's a free exchange of socialist ideas!" We want the defeat of our bourgeoisie's imperialist efforts abroad, and push for revolution in our own countries.

If that happens, the DPRK will be free from economic isolation and military encirclement, they will have fair trade relations, etc. The need for a "military-first" policy or a nuclear arms program will disappear, because there will no longer be imperialist powers using food to take small, mountainous countries hostage. In time, the revisionist/militarist clique at the top, and their ideas that throw back to religious ideas of the past (the reverence for individual leaders, like the Kims) will lose its relevance.

When all that's done, everyone will be better for it. By putting forward a clear class struggle and anti-imperialist position, and pushing for it consistently, we can accomplish a lot more than just smugly going on about how badly those poor people are treated, and how we can at least be happy with our "rights and welfare" here. After all, we, humanity, can do a lot better than that. We'll both be happy with it.

This is completely contrary to so-called "marxist dogma", some kind of mechanical approach that forgets about the "little man". It just has the marxist analysis as its main ingedient, but it is also steeped in internationalist solidarity, as well as other emotions and sympathies that are important to us, as long as we don't lose sight of the bigger picture. That's why I place a much higher value on this kind of long-term vision, rather than just short-term humanism that only applies universal moral judgement to things that are really experienced differently by everyone.

[Pogue]

This is somewhat true, actually. The DPRK isn't really a direct "victim" of imperialism, because it isn't in its grasp. But it's facing the consequences of that every day. A country that doesn't step in line will face the threat of war, the brand of being a "failed state", economic sanctions, etc. So more accurately, the DPRK resists imperialism, but it's paying the price for it every day. Anyway, to get to the meat of your post...

(I can't deal with the liberalism accusation any further, I don't think you're a liberal, I just think you tend towards it, and I understand that people are calling you it, not because you happen to be anti-DPRK or anti-USSR or whatever, but because your analysis of them comes from a liberal perspective)

So how is the world really? You seem to know. I think that's pure arrogance, to suggest that you know "how the world really is", and that this has some sort of superiority to "marxist dogma". How do you know that "everyone" wants to live so-and-so? I can think of plenty of people who would attach much more importance to having housing, healthcare and education provided to them for free. Maybe we are so used to it in our welfare system that we just take it for granted, and then it's easy to place importance on more abstract concepts.

As for "how the proletariat are treated..." The proletariat isn't some passive entity that can be either treated "well" or "badly" by "good" or "bad" rulers. It's ridiculous to make grand proclamations about how all the other people "want to live". Some countries do have welfare, but not because liberal democracy is so nice. It's because the working class itself has struggled for it for 100 years, instead of just being treated "well" or "badly". Besides, would it be affordable if the relations between the countries of the world were equal, instead of based on imperialist exploitation?

Anyway, even if it's undoubtedly true that "the people prefer liberal democracy" (if only because its harder edges have been rounded off), that still only makes a poor populist argument. Revolutionaries don't just want to comfort "the people" about the fact that they have some "rights", and be smug about "look at how bad it is in North Korea, surely you much prefer it here, at least 0.0001% of you may someday get to read our boring newspaper because it's legal here, so there's a free exchange of socialist ideas!" We want the defeat of our bourgeoisie's imperialist efforts abroad, and push for revolution in our own countries.

If that happens, the DPRK will be free from economic isolation and military encirclement, they will have fair trade relations, etc. The need for a "military-first" policy or a nuclear arms program will disappear, because there will no longer be imperialist powers using food to take small, mountainous countries hostage. In time, the revisionist/militarist clique at the top, and their ideas that throw back to religious ideas of the past (the reverence for individual leaders, like the Kims) will lose its relevance.

When all that's done, everyone will be better for it. By putting forward a clear class struggle and anti-imperialist position, and pushing for it consistently, we can accomplish a lot more than just smugly going on about how badly those poor people are treated, and how we can at least be happy with our "rights and welfare" here. After all, we, humanity, can do a lot better than that. We'll both be happy with it.

This is completely contrary to so-called "marxist dogma", some kind of mechanical approach that forgets about the "little man". It just has the marxist analysis as its main ingedient, but it is also steeped in internationalist solidarity, as well as other emotions and sympathies that are important to us, as long as we don't lose sight of the bigger picture. That's why I place a much higher value on this kind of long-term vision, rather than just short-term humanism that only applies universal moral judgement to things that are really experienced differently by everyone.

I don't deny that the gains of lbieral democracies were gained through workers struggle, nor do I assume liberal democracies are wonderful, but they are preferable to the DPRK. There is nothing in the DPRK (purely in terms of rights, freedoms and welfare) which is better than in the UK, because they suffer from capitalist and an unequal distrbiution of wealth and no freedoms and means to combat this.

[Wanted Man]

Did you even read my post, and might you be interested in responding seriously to it? You keep going on about what is "preferable" or "better", and then you compare it to the UK, one of the world's leading imperialist countries. Of course it's not going to be "better than the UK"! Just like Laos is probably not "better than the Netherlands".

It's inane to compare the DPRK to the UK, just because you think they're both "capitalist". Firstly, I don't think the DPRK is just another capitalist state. Even if you believe in the idea of "state capitalism", the differences should be obvious. Even if it's capitalist, it's not integrated into the system of imperialism, and it's paying in blood for it. Why are you afraid to address this? Communists address it, they dare to challenge previously held notions. Liberals just ask: "Do they know it's Christmas?"

So, basically, are we going to talk or are we going to talk? In any case, it will have to be tomorrow, it's too late for yet another long reply. If that was your reason as well, never mind his rant.

[tehpevis]

Even if it's capitalist, it's not integrated into the system of imperialism, and it's paying in blood for it.

True, the DPRK certainly isn't Imperialist, but it is still a form of State Capitalism and Totalitarianism that goes even farther than Stalinist Russia.

Jeebus Christ, even if it isn't bad as Imperialist propaganda makes it out to be (probably true, sorta), they still have a "Dear Leader" with a cult of Personality around him, & Kim Il Sung is treated like a God by holding presidential office long after he died!


Did you even read my post, and might you be interested in responding seriously to it? You keep going on about what is "preferable" or "better", and then you compare it to the UK, one of the world's leading imperialist countries. Of course it's not going to be "better than the UK"! Just like Laos is probably not "better than the Netherlands".

I certainly would prefer to live in the UK as opposed to the DPRK, but why not overthrow the Governments of both for true Socialism?

[Wanted Man]

True, the DPRK certainly isn't Imperialist, but it is still a form of State Capitalism and Totalitarianism that goes even farther than Stalinist Russia.

Jeebus Christ, even if it isn't bad as Imperialist propaganda makes it out to be (probably true, sorta), they still have a "Dear Leader" with a cult of Personality around him, & Kim Il Sung is treated like a God by holding presidential office long after he died!



I certainly would prefer to live in the UK as opposed to the DPRK, but why not overthrow the Governments of both for true Socialism?
Another dude who didn't read my post. Don't respond to things you didn't read.

[Cumannach]

I don't deny that the gains of lbieral democracies were gained through workers struggle, nor do I assume liberal democracies are wonderful, but they are preferable to the DPRK. There is nothing in the DPRK (purely in terms of rights, freedoms and welfare) which is better than in the UK, because they suffer from capitalist and an unequal distrbiution of wealth and no freedoms and means to combat this.

But you're talking about countries as if they lie in splendid isolation from the rest of the world. The outstanding characteristic of capitalism, especially today, is that it is international. The UK is linked inextricably into the system of global capitalism. In that system, (according to e.g. The Lancet ) 16,000 children died of hunger today, and another 16,000 will die tomorrow.

Alright, that's being a bit dramatic but it's true.

It's not just a pick and choose game between liberal democracies, 'state capitalist' autocracies, monarchic plutocracies etc. You want North Korea to just revert back to liberal democracy (never was one) the socialists to just start over again and see can they get it right this time?

Likewise North Korea is not standing aloof. Since the moment the Koreans overthrew the minority capitalist ruling class, and made the means of production the property of the people, they have been under merciless, relentless assault from a capitalist world. A horde of reactionaries with infinitely more resources and firepower than the Koreans could ever muster. When permanent bureaucracies and other things then develop it's not the fault of capitalist encirclement of course, but of communism.

And if communist states are so repressive and so completely stamp out all freedom, how exactly did they all fall over and collapse so easily, with scarcely a drop of blood spilt?! What liberal democracy ever fell to socialism without vast, bloody slaughter?

I think the best we can do for North Koreans is not support the overthrow of their communist state, no matter how 'degenerated' it has become, but use our 'great' 'freedoms' to pressurize our governments into relaxing their murderous stranglehold on North Korea

[BobKKKindle$]

It is utterly naive to assume that if the government of North Korea releases control of the economy and implements privatization, the country will be able to attain the same level of development and provide the same standard of living as an imperialist state such as the UK or the United States. Regardless of whether we see North Korea or any other self-described socialist state as an accurate representation of how socialism should operate, and even if we refuse to give support to North Korea as a nation facing the threat of imperialist intervention, history has shown that when countries with a high degree of state involvement in the economy move towards market capitalism, there are always negative impacts on the working class in terms of life expectancy and a whole range of other social indicators - in the USSR, gross domestic product fell by over 80 percent from 1991 to 1997, and according to official statistics, capital investment dropped over 90 percent. By the middle of the 1990s, 40 percent of the population of the Russian Federation was living below the official poverty line and a further 36 percent only a little above it, and consequently average male life expectancy fell from 64.2 in 1989 to just 57.6 in 1994 primarily due to the total collapse of healthcare provision as well as the growing prevalence of alcoholism and other social problems associated with economic collapse. The state of the Soviet economy prior to collapse was better than the current state of North Korea and so the impacts of market capitalism (a guaranteed consequence of a successful imperialist intervention, as can be seen from the reforms undertaken in Iraq by the occupation government as soon as Saddam's forces had been defeated) would be much more severe.

Of course, HLVS is blind to this, because he is a naive and ignorant liberal.