I would like to know what you guys/girls think of the Kim family from north korea. I personally don't agree with them because they seem to be enjoying exported goods while the people they claim to represent suffer. Their fight for socialism is okay, but i just don't understand how they can live a comfortable life while the peasants they represent live a hard life. Is this how socialist leaders should behave once they attain power?
The Kims do *not* fight for socialism.
They deserve the Ceausescu scenario.
Kim-Il sung was a good leader and for a long time under his rule the DPRK had higher living standards then the ROK however Since he died the DPRK has continuously gotten worse in almost every way whilst the ROK has continuously been improving itself in standards of living and the economy. I'm not sure why people bother defending the DPRK any more. Also The Kim family have huge amounts of wealth and live in luxury which is in stark contrast to the starving country side, so in no way are they socialist.
They fight not for socialism, but to stay in power.
Kim-Il Sung was originally a guerrilla fighting against Japanese occupation forces in Korea.
Later following the close of WWII, Kim-Il Sung was appointed by Stalin to rule in northern Korea, which had been occupied by Soviet troops.
In short, he was a Soviet puppet, but gradually broke free from the Soviet's grip and maneuvered his country closer to China(whom saved his country from unification with the south through military intervention in the Korean War).
Kim family rule was and is autocratic, if not totalitarian. What's more, I've always seen Korea's form of government compared to a "monarchy" more so then to a socialist state. Fitting, perhaps.
If socialism means rigid control over every facet of life by a ruling family-led government not held accountable by the people through elections, etc., whom are facing constant starvation threats, then I want no part in socialism.
I repeat, what North Korea has ain't socialism.
Everybody fights to stay in power, that's just how life is.
This is typical crypto-liberal idiocy. There is no such thing as "totalitarianism" or "dictatorship"; these are merely slurs against anybody who refuses to sell their country out to world imperialism.
How about some evidence from a source that isn't controlled by capital?
I suppose you also believe that Gaddafi was cluster-bombing his own people, that Saddam Hussein was restarting Iraq's nuclear programme, that Milosevic killed 100000 Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija, that Hugo Chavez is ruining his country, and all those other things they use to justify the villification of those who stand up to capital.
Don't you think that participation of the population in political decisions is a measure that can be applied to countries, or do you consider this entirely irrelevant? I would refuse to call governments "totalitarian" or "dictatorships" for the reason that these are concepts of bourgeois ideology (the word "dictatorship" takes on an entirely different meaning if you're a Marxist after all), but I think that it's perfectly possible to distinguish highly authoritarian states from more democratic ones.
You don't need bourgeois sources to recognize that the entirety of North Korean politics happens "thanks to the peerless leadership of" whoever is currently in power in North Korea. They say so themselves.
Why would I believe all of those things? All are wild accusations-you don't know my own beliefs.
Slurs? "Totalitarian" simply implies, IMHO, a form of authoritarian rule. And yes, dictatorships do exist. What would you call Myanmar? modern Russia?
The D.P.R.K. is a dictatorship. And yes, it was set up by the Soviets as a loyal client state in 1945. And no, my sources are not "ruled by capital." I've studied the 20th century communist movement well, and all historical sources point to the D.P.R.K. being a family-run dictatorship.
I refuse to support the D.P.R.K., if you are curious as to what my beliefs are.
I am a Leninist, but am not one to worship dying vestiges of Stalinist-rule, a.k.a. the Kim family in all it's "glory".
You should better read up on that then. The term was invented to equate Stalinism to fascism. It's pure bourgeois propaganda.
I think the term developed because there were a number of cosmetic similarities between Fascism and certain stages of particularly repressive Stalinism.
Sociologists and political theorists saw certain resemblances and studied them in the hopes of discovering a unifying theory which explained them both. In certain areas they made accurate comparisons, while in others they did not entirely succeed.
I think it's a little simplistic to assume that all attempts to study these two phenomenons are motivated by capital propaganda.
Capital may run the economy, but they still haven't completely overtaken all corners of the social sciences.
Totalitarianism is retarded even in its application towards fascists. They don't even fit the bill. Besides it's clear liberal propaganda when one of it's [totalitarianism's] key features is controlling the economy. It's not just Stalinism they aim to discredit but the very notion of planned economy and society. I disagree with misuzu that dictatorship is an invention of western liberals to demonize their enemies but rather they use it as a smear for those enemies even though every liberal state is a dictatorship itself.
Then you should be able to easily cite sources and allow us to determine their veracity ourselves.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
Well as I said the term dictatorship has different definitions for Marxists and liberals. For liberals a dictatorship is a non-democracy. For Marxists it's class power. These definitions are incompatible, or rather, they describe entirely different aspects of a political system.
He quite clearly used that word in the liberal-capitalist sense.
What do you mean "participation of the population in political decisions"? Do you mean voting? If so, there are indeed elections in the DPRK as well.
People rant about the "gigantic palaces" that the Kims live in, but I've never seen any evidence of them at all (From a source not controlled by capital). I really don't see how Kim Il-sung was a puppet of anybody if the pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese factions were purged from the Korean Worker's Party in the 1950s.
You're willing to believe everything the West says about Korea, why not believe everything else it says?
a) As Misuzu noted, the supposed decadence of the Kims is presented to us first and foremost by a rewording of reports by conservative South Korean media, including tabloid-style materials that can't even be considered real journalism, so be careful to take it with a grain of salt.
b) As everyone who's been following the events of the last months with any detail will know, the decisions first for Kim Jong-Il and now his son to take up the leadership of the state and party were made by senior officials who play a behind-the-scenes role. Especially in the case of Kim Jong-Un, the move is much more symbolic than political, at least for the moment. It is a symbol both to the West and to the North Korean people that the political situation is stable, that the regime is carrying on, and that there is no threat of radical and rapid political changes in a negative direction in the future. Do we have to like these decisions? No. Can we make the implication that North Korea could be considered a monarchy in some ways? Yes. But let's not get carried away and assume that Kim the grandson holds supreme 'totalitarian' power and that his family reigns and lords over the country in a way comparable to the pomp and decadence of European monarchs of the past (and present). Just look for instance at the way Kim's marriage was announced to the world, and compare it to the recent British royal wedding, and you'll get my point...
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
No, I do not mean mere voting. That would be using the word "participation" in the liberal-capitalist sense. There are elections everywhere.
The socialist state is the political organization of the working people. That means that it has to genuinely represent the interests of the people, and this cannot happen if the people are not involved in making decisions concerning the actions of the state. There must be genuine political debate and a high political consciousness of the entire people, there must be direct election of all officials with the right of the working people to revoke them and replace them with better ones if necessary. Juche philosophy seems to respect this, but only partially, when it says that "the people are the masters of everything". The difference however lies on the stress that Juche puts on the leader. In Juche, the leader takes all political initiative, and the people follow him.
The North Korean state is not an organization of the working people. Their new leader was just presented to them. I don't believe any of the working people were asked whether or not they wanted Kim Jong-Un to be their new boss (or Kim Jong-Il previously). I don't believe any of the North Korean working people were asked whether or not it was cool to (unsuccessfully try to) send satellites to space instead of making their lives better. I think that political questions are ever even explained adequately to the North Korean people. Nobody gives a shit about their opinion, because even if you asked them, they probably wouldn't even be able to say anything other than what state propaganda has forced into their heads since birth. I have never even seen any kind of criticism of any kind of government decision on North Korean media (Pravda[/i], which regularly published critical comments, is a honorable counterexample). No, what you get from North Korean state media is Kim looking at things. This is mental castration, and a tragedy.
The mere existence of elections changes nothing about this, unless you believe that by participating in elections in Japan you somehow influence the Japanese government to listen to you, or that this changes anything about the fact that the Japanese government isn't even meant to be a vehicle for the fulfillment of your interests, because you live in an imperialist state. The same applies to North Korea.
No matter. This is not even a reply to what I'd said.
But I don't think decadence is the actual matter at hand here. I'd be more than willing to grant Kim a stupid palace or a bunch of Mercedes if at least he gave a shit about his people. And giving a shit about your people means more than just protecting them from imperialism like a slave owner would protect his slaves from the Union.
No, the personality cult is much, much worse. Let's look at a randomly chosen KCNA article:
Please just count how often Kim Jong Un, his dad and grandpa, or the Party are mentioned in an article about a gold medal at the olympics. How often would Queen Elizabeth or her government be mentioned in a comparable article in the UK?
based on what i have seen in various documentaries(some probably propaganda), i am some what convinced north korea is clearly not even communist or socialist because the wealth gap seems larger than that of capitalist countries. for example kim jong(probably why he is so fat) and the elite party members live in luxury, while peasants resort to eating rats and such to survive. also i think the main reason why the peasants live such hard life is because the country is technically at war, with a pretty large army. with such an army one needs food and resources. it could be that the army is consuming most of the countries resources. i cannot fully verify these until i one day enter north korea. If these are part of the problem and the peasants are suffering this much, then north korea is not a socialist or communist country but just another capitalistic dictator using communism(giving it a bad name too) to better their gains.
Also i saw how people were sent to work camps for putting pictures of the "dear leader" on the floor. seriously??? do you guys believe this or do you think its just another capitalist propaganda, because if that is true then that's a bit too much don't you think.
Anyways farewell comrades
I like what Kim Il Sung did for the Third World by supporting it against colonialism and imperialism, notably the Palestinians.
Happiness is in your ability to love others. - Leo Tolstoy
Yeah? This quote, by Stalin during a meeting with Mao on December 16, 1949, seems to illustrate something else entirely.
"In China a war for peace, as it were, is taking place. The question of peace greatly preoccupies the Soviet Union as well, though we have already had peace for the past four years. With regards to China, there is no immediate threat at the present time: Japan has yet to stand up on its feet and is thus not ready for war; America, though it screams war, is actually afraid of war more than anything; Europe is afraid of war; in essence, there is no one to fight with China, not unless Kim Il Sung decides to invade China?
Peace will depend on our efforts. If we continue to be friendly, peace can last not only 5-10 years, but 20-25 years and perhaps even longer."
Stalin considered Kim a possible threat against the Chinese state... It really shows how much faith Stalin had in him...
Who calls modern Russia a dictatorship if not the Liberal press? This is completely absurd! How is a Bourgeois Democracy, where the populous elects their leaders like any other Bourgeois nation, somehow more Dictatorial that the UK, US, and other nations? What makes Putin a dictator? So he's been in the Kremlin for a while... That's because he's retained his popularity while following guidelines set by the Russian Constitution. No one says a thing about the President of Iceland, whose in his 5th term of office.
Further, Putin isn't 'cracking down' on anti-Putinist protesters, as the Liberal press has been claiming. The group Pussy Riot have been warned in the past for acts of indecency, after they: had an orgy in a museum, had sexual acts with chicken carcasses in a market place, walked around naked with cockroaches on their bodies, assaulted Russian officers(which gave them their official warning), and other acts which constitute hooliganism. The fact that they had that 'punk prayer' against Putin, perhaps on purpose seeing that they knew they were going to be persecuted after their previous warning, in a cathedral, went against their original warnings, which constituted their arrest and persecution. It was quite coincidental, which the opportunistic Liberal press simply took out of context, while feeding the anti-Putinist feelings held by various groups in Russia.
I've read a little article, in the past, regarding the term Totalitarianism. The argument proposed was that it is used to decipher states which control the civics of society, which they equated the civics of society around the idea of economy. Its entire argument was basically, 'since the Soviet government controlled the Soviet economy, and thus engine of societal civics, it was Totalitarian.'
They completely ignored the role of the Soviets, which were by far more Democratic than anything conjured up by Bourgeois Democracy(get a vote every few years, and you have Democracy!). And what civics did the Soviet Bureaucracy control? Was everyone in society to be a well read Marxist-Leninist? No! These are baseless accusations that hold absolutely no water.
Those who consider Nazi Germany to be 'Totalitarian' are also off, because the German race was allowed to do virtually whatever they wished.
Liberals also condemn their own selves with such stances, as the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is equally, if not more, 'Totalitarian' than the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Their tactics of Alienation are simply the end of all their legitimacy.
I don't think that's what Stalin wanted to say. Why would KIS be a threat to the Chinese state? That's absurd.
Stalin only pointed out that at that point there were no immediate threats to the young People's Republic.
Many communists ( including the Russian ones) do, it's a particularly brutal and undemocratic dictatorship of the bourgeoisie of course.
Russia is far behind Western bourgeois states when it comes to general "democratic" freedoms and so on.
I think you're confusing them with the "art group" Voina.
Yes, that was a pretty pointless move but there's no harm in liberals fighting the Putin's regime, the Orthodox Church and Co.
What? Even Social-Democratic ( not to mention communist ) Germans got killed by the thousands.
That is so, and it is really out for interpretation I suppose. The fact is, however, that Kim Il Sung was in a list that included possible threats against the Chinese state.
Compared to my country, the USA, Russia is a safe haven for freedom.
Of course the Communist perspective views Russia as a Bourgeois Dictatorship, but how do we view it as any different from Britain or France? Is one Bourgeois Dictatorship worse than another?
I will cede that I'm repeating things that I've heard from Russian Comrades, who have themselves have sourced various things such as RT and Voice of Russia.
I happen to enjoy objectivity as opposed to slander. Anyway, the law in question is similar to the Soviet-era law which constituted a 10-15 day jail sentence, or 1 month in the labor camps, along with a fine of 10-50 rubles, for hooliganism. An attack against Russia, here, is also an attack against the Soviet Union. I will never side with Liberals anyway, as their slander attempts to satisfy their imperial desires.
I was simply trying to say that there is no such thing as Totalitarianism; I have no business playing Nazi apologism. Fascism has a strange fascination with Nationalism, and it obviously punishes any ideas, or individuals, that bring debt to the Nation.
RT is relentlessly pro-Kremlin. It's a liberal news source.
a month of labour isn't quite the same as 2 years of prison.
Why would we be defending the bourgeois state church in any event? In Spain, our side burned the churches. Now we defend them?
Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Alternative Display:Mobile view