Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Students required to get Kim Jong-un haircut

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 31 Mar 2014, 23:30
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Hoxha had an axe to grind with everyone who didn't join in on his oh-so-awesome pillbox personality cult. That said he's right about Kim and you won't find many "Stalinists" who defend the structure of North Korean barracks communism. However unlike some we don't eagerly await the implosion of the nation, or it's eradication by imperialist hands. And yes parroting imperial propaganda, at this point of weakness for the international proletariat and massive strength of international capital, feeds only into the imperial machine. Neither communist nor Korean gains from joining in the chorus of DPRK slander, other than to appear more palatable to liberals.


It's not slander to laugh at the ridiculous propaganda they put out through their own mouthpieces.

That country's a shithole, and it doesn't have an economy let alone a planned one. It sucks balls, and the imperialists don't want it to collapse. Hence the Sunshine Policy, hence food aid, etc. If anything, they just want to have it in the imperialist orbit but under the current regime.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 31 Mar 2014, 23:46
somewhat wrote:
It's not slander to laugh at the ridiculous propaganda they put out through their own mouthpieces.

I find it pretty funny myself, usually just because they're so brazen in a ridiculous way. But you don't see me making a point to express how I think the DPRK is a bad place that must be addressed now.

somewhat wrote:
That country's a shithole, and it doesn't have an economy let alone a planned one. It sucks balls, and the imperialists don't want it to collapse. Hence the Sunshine Policy, hence food aid, etc. If anything, they just want to have it in the imperialist orbit but under the current regime.

Those who came up with the Sunshine Policy are mostly completely forced out of government by now. They just elected Park's granddaughter and that was a direct statement to the North that war is on the way. Food aid is just there so the big imperialists can't be accused of keeping North Korea under literal siege. A gift in one hand a dagger in another type shit.

And what fragging world do you live in where the Kim's have ever been considered as conducive to being imperial puppets? They were a problem for Moscow and Beijing because the Kims kept killing everyone who worked with foreigners too much. I seriously doubt the imperialists would even allow the military to "Ceausescu" the Kims and keep their power intact. The only options are: A) stay DPRK as it is B) accept Seoul's rule over the North and complete disenfranchisement/imprisonment/death for the North's political elite.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 672
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 01 Apr 2014, 00:40
somewhat wrote:
As opposed to Hoxha, the Marxist-Leninist so sincere his own hand-picked successor backstabbed the entire country.
I don't see how you can blame someone for the actions of someone else, but alright then. You're free to cite any example of Ramiz Alia displaying revisionist sentiments pre-1985.

Quote:
And I hardly think he had the greatest ground to criticize cults of personality, what with his own name being carved into the side of a mountain
"We have condemned the cult of the individual and condemn it to this day about anybody at all. On this question we follow the view of Marx, and for this reason amongst us, in our leadership, there is Marxist-Leninist unity, affection, sincerity, Marxist-Leninist respect towards comrades on the basis of the work which each does and his loyalty to the principles of the Party. Amongst us there is no idolâtrie. Above all we speak about the Party, while we speak about Enver only as much as the interests of the Party and country require, and when from the base and the masses there has been some excess in this direction, the Central Committee, the leadership of the Party and I personally, as much as I can and to the extent that they have listened to me about it, have always taken and always will take measures to proceed on the right course."
(Enver Hoxha. Reflections on China Vol. II. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1979. pp. 419-420.)

The personality cults that Tito, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Castro, etc. had were a reflection of their anti-Marxist courses, based on idealism and nationalism (e.g. the "Great Helmsman" at the head of "great proletarian cultural revolutions," the military at the head of society in the case of Cuba, and so on.)
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 01 Apr 2014, 03:30
Ismail wrote:
I don't see how you can blame someone for the actions of someone else, but alright then. You're free to cite any example of Ramiz Alia displaying revisionist sentiments pre-1985.

"We have condemned the cult of the individual and condemn it to this day about anybody at all. On this question we follow the view of Marx, and for this reason amongst us, in our leadership, there is Marxist-Leninist unity, affection, sincerity, Marxist-Leninist respect towards comrades on the basis of the work which each does and his loyalty to the principles of the Party. Amongst us there is no idolâtrie. Above all we speak about the Party, while we speak about Enver only as much as the interests of the Party and country require, and when from the base and the masses there has been some excess in this direction, the Central Committee, the leadership of the Party and I personally, as much as I can and to the extent that they have listened to me about it, have always taken and always will take measures to proceed on the right course."
(Enver Hoxha. Reflections on China Vol. II. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1979. pp. 419-420.)

The personality cults that Tito, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Castro, etc. had were a reflection of their anti-Marxist courses, based on idealism and nationalism (e.g. the "Great Helmsman" at the head of "great proletarian cultural revolutions," the military at the head of society in the case of Cuba, and so on.)


1) What happened to a Party being responsible for its cadres? Clearly the Party was a piece of crap if its #2 was right-wing and the entire Party itself took less than a year to go from avowed orthodoxy to social democracy
2) Again, that's a pretty cool story bro. They said one thnig, then carved his name into the side of a fragging mountain while loudly chanting his name at massive portraits of him
Soviet cogitations: 672
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 01 Apr 2014, 07:15
somewhat wrote:
1) What happened to a Party being responsible for its cadres? Clearly the Party was a piece of crap if its #2 was right-wing and the entire Party itself took less than a year to go from avowed orthodoxy to social democracy
If you ignore all the internal and external conditions that led to the degeneration of the PLA then yes I guess "the Party was a piece of crap."

Quote:
2) Again, that's a pretty cool story bro. They said one thnig, then carved his name into the side of a fragging mountain while loudly chanting his name at massive portraits of him
I still don't see why you bring this up. The personality cult in the DPRK has a clearly religious stature, and like those of Mao, Tito and Castro was and is used to justify right-wing policies and "national socialism." Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha had personality cults, I don't think that anyone would compare them to the Kims' cults.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 01 Apr 2014, 07:44
Ismail wrote:
If you ignore all the internal and external conditions that led to the degeneration of the PLA then yes I guess "the Party was a piece of crap."

I still don't see why you bring this up. The personality cult in the DPRK has a clearly religious stature, and like those of Mao, Tito and Castro was and is used to justify right-wing policies and "national socialism." Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha had personality cults, I don't think that anyone would compare them to the Kims' cults.


Replace "conditions" with "magic" and your argument remains unaltered. That's a bad thing. The other thing you have to realize is: if the entire Party resigns and disavows almost everything they did, it proves their belief was poor to begin with. Thus the PLA for all its avowed orthodoxy had lest honesty than the Czechs or the Soviets or even the bloody Easy Germans

As for the cults, you're right in North Korea it's insane. I'm just pointing out it started with Stalin and got nutty under him, Kim Il-Sung learned from him, and Hoxha is in no position to criticize. Again: Lenin didn't carve his first name into the side of a mountain.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 01 Apr 2014, 14:51
Quote:
2) Again, that's a pretty cool story bro. They said one thnig, then carved his name into the side of a fragging mountain while loudly chanting his name at massive portraits of him.

Funny thing, that was changed from ENVER to NEVER some time ago.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 672
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 02 Apr 2014, 08:53
somewhat wrote:
Replace "conditions" with "magic" and your argument remains unaltered.
I fail to see how. For instance, Albania suffered from an imperialist-revisionist blockade from the 60s onward. This had a negative impact on its economy, especially in the late 80s when droughts occurred in agriculture and the collapse of Soviet social-imperialism in Eastern Europe gave the West free reign to exert total pressure and remould Albania in its own image. Throughout 1990 the Albanian revisionists, unlike their counterparts in Eastern Europe, employed socialist phraseology, claiming that the economic and social measures they were undertaking were merely furthering the revolutionizing and democratizing measures begun in the 60s-70s.

Nexhmije Hoxha (who does consider herself a communist) in a recent interview said that there were persons representing would-be militias who came to her asking for her endorsement against Alia in 1990-91, but that she felt that doing so would be counterproductive.

Quote:
The other thing you have to realize is: if the entire Party resigns and disavows almost everything they did, it proves their belief was poor to begin with. Thus the PLA for all its avowed orthodoxy had lest honesty than the Czechs or the Soviets or even the bloody Easy Germans
Ceaușescu died singing the Internationale and Erich Honecker continued to regard himself as a communist till the day he died. That doesn't change the fact that the former was an opportunist and the latter a lackey of Soviet revisionism, while both presided over state-capitalist economies. Reducing everything to leaders is, of course, anti-Marxist.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 02 Apr 2014, 12:21
Ismail wrote:
I fail to see how. For instance, Albania suffered from an imperialist-revisionist blockade from the 60s onward. This had a negative impact on its economy, especially in the late 80s when droughts occurred in agriculture and the collapse of Soviet social-imperialism in Eastern Europe gave the West free reign to exert total pressure and remould Albania in its own image. Throughout 1990 the Albanian revisionists, unlike their counterparts in Eastern Europe, employed socialist phraseology, claiming that the economic and social measures they were undertaking were merely furthering the revolutionizing and democratizing measures begun in the 60s-70s.

Nexhmije Hoxha (who does consider herself a communist) in a recent interview said that there were persons representing would-be militias who came to her asking for her endorsement against Alia in 1990-91, but that she felt that doing so would be counterproductive.

Ceaușescu died singing the Internationale and Erich Honecker continued to regard himself as a communist till the day he died. That doesn't change the fact that the former was an opportunist and the latter a lackey of Soviet revisionism, while both presided over state-capitalist economies. Reducing everything to leaders is, of course, anti-Marxist.


I never bought for a second the state capitalist argument. Hell, how could the collapse of the USSR be a defeat if it's just capitalist?

Now: this still fails to answer the name in the side of the the mountain. And now if we want to use the "Anti-Marxist" phraseology Hoxhaites are so fond of- privatizing the economy and saying it's for socialism is anti-Marxist! And I'd point out the Chinese did the same thing before they just dropped it.

And that's the thing: it's not 100% about leaders. However they still are a huge part of it and you can't absolve them of responsibility; however the Stalinist liquidation of 90% of the Party has always meant the "big man" has been totally free from scrutiny and free to build massive statues to themselves while the important job of building the socialist economies they sing the praises of has been to priority #2. At least for Hoxha - pillboxes, name in side of mountain, giant portraits, etc.

Really the paranoia in regard to defence from invasion has been characteristic of the Hoxha and Kim regimes even though their defence measures would do little to actually save them while wasting massive amounts of industrial capacity and pissing of imperialist powers who know it's a matter of waiting and using the market to screw them. Then you get terrible cult leaderships and it leads to one of three results - counter-revolution,catastrophic collapse, or utter stagnation. Usually all three.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 04 Apr 2014, 18:01
Hoxha was an opportunist too, so much opportunist that he managed to make an alliance with China against the USSR, then break with China. You can't be a true communist when you break with the Soviet Union anyway. No matter how "revisionist" it was, it was still the Soviet Union. Comrade Stalin would have laughed.

Quote:
Best Korea: the country so sovereign it relies on South Korean food imports to not starve.

Sovereign doesn't mean rich.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 04 Apr 2014, 18:55
OP-Bagration wrote:
Sovereign doesn't mean rich.


I didn't realize one could be sovereign while owing your existence to loan sharks
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 04 Apr 2014, 21:09
North Korea has proven that it's perfectly able to starve in perfect independance and without help from foreign powers. I think it's the only country able to do that.

Actually North Korea isn't receiving imperialist aid graciously (they even receive US aid), but in exchange for concessions such as stopping their nuclear program. That's a fair trade.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 672
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 08 Apr 2014, 13:04
OP-Bagration wrote:
Hoxha was an opportunist too, so much opportunist that he managed to make an alliance with China against the USSR, then break with China.
Albania worked with China because the latter at the time (1960) appeared to be taking correct lines on the issue of Soviet revisionism. The Albanians still had reservations about the Chinese leadership and made its disagreements with the Chinese known to them.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_split (an article I've written)

The claim that Hoxha was an "opportunist" for denouncing the Soviet social-imperialists is ridiculous. Ceaușescu never broke with the Soviet revisionists, nor did Kim Il Sung, while Tito praised the post-Stalin leadership as socialist. I don't think their foreign policies were in any way principled, especially in comparison to Albania's.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Apr 2014, 10:40
The very expression "social imperialim" applied to a socialist country, the USSR, is revisionist in itself.
It's also revisionist to break with a socialist country like the USSR, since this socialit country was the core of world revolution and had to be defended by all means.
It's revisionist and anti-marxist to believe that, just because a "revisionist" took power and replaced Stalin, the nature of the USSR changed immediately.
It's opportunist to transform the marxist-leninist theory in some kind of big dogma to justify one's own deviation.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 672
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 01:23
OP-Bagration wrote:
It's opportunist to transform the marxist-leninist theory in some kind of big dogma to justify one's own deviation.
In other words, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and their ilk were creatively developing Marxism-Leninism by presenting states like Burma, Somalia, Sudan and Ba'athist Iraq as laying the foundations of socialism? The Soviet revisionists were advancing Marxism by declaring that the CPSU had become a "party of the whole people" and the USSR a "state of the whole people"?

The Albanians did not exhibit any sort of dogmatic behavior. They themselves carried out the revolution and socialist construction in accordance with Albanian realities.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Apr 2014, 01:31
No, Nikita was a right-wing opportunist. Hoxha, with all due respect, was a left-wing opportunist. But the result was the same: both systems disappeared in 1991.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 672
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Apr 2014, 23:31
OP-Bagration wrote:
No, Nikita was a right-wing opportunist. Hoxha, with all due respect, was a left-wing opportunist.
So which is it, was Hoxha "dogmatic" or was he an "opportunist"? You haven't given any evidence as to both.

Meanwhile the Soviet revisionists got along quite well with actual opportunists, notably Tito.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 11 Apr 2014, 23:43
Hoxha is, above all else, to be blamed for his categorization of the USSR as social-imperialist. This error is equally egregious to Trotskyist claims of Soviet state-capitalism.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Apr 2014, 01:46
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 15 May 2014, 10:37
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ki ... it-3416262

Over in the DPKR the barber would have been shot.
Over here he rightly sent them away with a flea in their ear.
Who do they think they are? Bargning into his shop and bossing him about.
I understand that they probably have to do it, or the deal leader would be upset at being mocked this way.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news ... ng-3289266
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.