As does a lot of world. Doesn't mean that they don't do it. N. Korea isn't an exception (nor is the U.S. for the record).



So, anybody presenting any sort of experience of being imprisoned and/or tortured for any crime ranging from espionage to saying something ill about the government are doing it with the intent of idealogical warfare at hand, or to throw a punch at Communism? Sorry, I just can't grasp this.

It was a serious question that I posed, but to make it less personal, I'll rephrase it:

Why would someone who is utterly convinced of the goodness of a particular ideology not strive with his or her last breath to go live in such a place as practices that ideology? Particularly when one is already living in a place such as Vermont, where the prospect of the population adopting Kimilsungism is about as likely as Kim Jong Il taking up snowboarding.

I'm of the belief that everybody should be free to go live wherever they feel they will be happiest – a sentiment that the North Korean government clearly does not share.

-- Nephele

I'm not keen on Communist dogma, but I don't understand why people negatively skew human nature and then take it as law. There are several examples of people working together for the common good.

On a similar note, self interest and community interest are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, indeed who does define the needs? That is the whole crux. While supposedly Communism will evolve into a classless society, this has never happened. Especially in the Soviet Union and China. For example, Caviar was served at Stalin's wedding while the peasants starved. The big problem with Communism, as I see it, is that someone still has to be in charge of something. (As the Bolsheviks recognized). As long as there is any form of hierarchy, a truly classless society is very unlikely. In fact, the rise of Communism in Russia contradicted Marxist theory, which foresaw the Industrial proletariat as being the first progenitors. The idea of the Russian revolution becoming the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West was just a rationalization after the fact, which, in any case never happened. There was never a bourgeois class in Russia comparable to the Western burgeoise, and Lenin cleverly got around this by proclaiming the peasants to be "allies of the burgoise". Lenin did say that Russia could never be transformed into true Socialism as long as the European economy remained predominately capitalist. And yet he did insist that power had to be seized and held under a dictatorial form by the party.

No, people generally do not want to work harder if they are not compensated, and that is why the Soviet collectives failed abysmally. Nor will most people work solely out of the kindess of their hearts for others.

I do see a big practical difference between a dictatorship and business monopolies. Yes, we do have corporate monopolies here, but so far we haven't seen gulags, "reeducation" camps, seen thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) vanish, or be yanked into a torture chamber because we said something against the government. All these things are common in Dictatorships. We can also travel inside and outside the country with relative ease, which is generally not true of dictatorships, including North Korea.

"America, love it or leave it", right? You sure showed me.

No. Look, if every progressive-minded person simply moved to North Korea, explain to me how the broader world would change? Enough said on this.

(Well okay, I would add that yes I actually have had the opportunity to visit North Korea before.)

I must say Nephele you've qualitatively lowered my opinion of you with the entry quoted above.



Though I believe I adequately explained my position before, allow me to try and clarify more thoroughly: I'm not drawing any conclusions as to how much is or isn't true with respect to the few individual testimonies of torture that have come out. I'm just pointing out that these few cases are very disproportionately promoted in our media for the obvious reasons. Take for example a special I viewed a couple years ago on The History Channel: "Inside North Korea" I believe it was called. Most of the hour-long program revolved around the testimonies of two individuals who had fled the country. So that was pretty much the total impression the viewer was supposed to draw about the country as a whole. I find that a slanted perspective.

What I'm saying is take all this with a grain of salt and consider the source (the media source especially) and its interests. What class runs the media in this country? Is it in the interests of such a class to portray socialism in a positive or balanced light?



The answer is the people, together with their obvious objective needs and interests, such as the obvious need for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, interest in a decent retirement, etc. etc. etc.



That's deep. Actually, class society is a relatively new phenomena in the human story when one considers the structure of prehistoric humanity's groupings. There was no basis for accumulation in those times because there wasn't enough to go around in the first place. Instead, people shared their belongings out of necessity.

The fact that communism (a society without any class distinctions) has yet to be established in the modern era is by no means a testament to its impossibility. Again, in the objective sense, class interests must be considered in determining what is and isn't in the realm of possibility in today's world.



What this anarchistic formulation neglects to consider is that the world as it is hasn't developed in an even way, but rather has developed and continues to develop in a very lopsided way, especially as a product of capitalism having reached its imperialist stage. The lopsided development of society also yields the lopsided development of ideas within any given society. Most of the world, for example, cannot read and write. Yet here we in imperialist countries sit discussing that world on personal computers. Given such a lopsided state of affairs, yes I'm saying that the proletariat cannot spontaneously grasp its class interests in a very thorough way given the oppressive conditions it finds itself in. It requires the leadership of its most educated members to make revolution. Just because you don't want a social hierarchy doesn't mean you should act as if social hierarchy doesn't objectively exist. The task before humanity isn't to ignore that reality, but to transform it. Transforming it means eliminating the historical basis for its existence: abolishing all exploitative production relations, abolishing all oppressive social relations, and revolutionizing the thinking of the people. These aren't things that can be accomplished overnight, but only through ardent and protracted struggle in a mass-based way that respects the people's perspectives and mobilizes them fully to transform their own reality rather than simply trying to impose a new reality on them.



Here it should be understood that communism is a science, not a dogma. It's continually developing in the theoretical sense as more and more is learned about the world and as the world continues to undergo changes. As it were, Lenin in his famous work What is to Be Done? amended Marx's formulation in this area based on new learnings and further developments in the world. He, unlike Marx, recognized that monopoly-capitalism took an imperialist form that perpetuated and even further exacerbated the lopsided state of the world. He developed the understanding that much of the proletariat in the imperialist countries is bought off with the plunder, which makes revolution qualitatively more difficult there especially. It also resulted in the perpetuation of feudal relations in backward countries like Russia because the infant capitalist class based there was weak; the country being dominated by established, foreign monopoly-capitalists. This meant that the national bourgeoisie had to rely on the support of the monarchist government for its existence. In other words, the country was more or less locked into feudal conditions in an internal sense because of the warping effect of imperialism in terms of the relations in that society. Now in an essentially feudal context, what is the base of society? The urban working class or the peasantry? Obviously the latter. Hence the objective need for the proletariat to unite with the peasantry in revolution, lest said revolution inevitably fail, not being based on the masses. More importantly, as Mao Tsetung and many subsequent communist theorists have pointed out, even this perspective of who you needed to unite with was somewhat limited. In reality, you need to unite all who can be united toward the cause of revolution under the leadership of the proletariat.

As to the October Revolution being formulated as a beacon to the world, it should be duly noted that a certain wave of revolutionary movements directly inspired by it did, in fact, spring up in the short aftermath thereof. We'll note the actual seizure of power by the proletariat in several localities for example in Italy, in Germany, in Bulgaria, and in the whole country of Mongolia, to name a few examples that occurred in the course of a few years following the October Revolution. But it is true to say yes that Lenin's view on this matter was too simplistic and divorced from human realities. Kimilsungists (such as yours truly) distance ourselves from the idea of central "communist internationals" because these inevitably become the basis of domineering national chauvinism. Lenin didn't really grasp the idea that there isn't some one monolithic "correct approach" to making revolution and building socialism, but rather that the people of the given country need to have the fullest self-determination in shaping their revolution and socialist construction according to the distinct conditions they face and that this self-determination needs to be retained even under communism. This is the human factor that Marxism inherently neglects that leads to an ultimately limited, dogmatic perspective. Learning this was precisely why they found they had to break with Marxism in North Korea and pursue communism from a new foundation that took human considerations much more fully into account.



It's worth noting that communist theorists (that is, those coming from a scientific foundation anyway) have broken with this notion since the time of Stalin when he developed the correct understanding of the need to first establish, as he put it, "socialism in one country". Kimilsungists (such as yours truly) take this perspective much further, highlighting the vital human importance of self-reliance in revolution and socialist construction very broadly. In today's world, it's mainly only a few diehard classical Trotskyists who still dogmatically cling to the notion cited above, and they've naturally never succeeded in building a mass movement, being so far divorced from human considerations. Even many of the Trotskyist groupings out there (such as the Socialist Workers Party here in the USA for example) have, in more recent decades, at least conceded the incorrectness of Trotsky's permanent revolution theory, which corresponds to the idea cited above.



I wonder then how you explain Guantanamo Bay, its planned domestic successor, the Bagram camp in Afghanistan, the practice of rendition, the late CIA camps established throughout Europe, the "reservations" First Nations in this country are largely grouped into, or the historical concentration camps that hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans were herded into during the Second World War. I wonder how you explain, if this society is indeed so liberal as you claim, that even ordinary civil disobedience acts are now officially considered and treated as acts of terrorism. The United States of America, the famed "leader of the world", of all countries, despite having only 5 percent of the world's population, features 25 percent of the world's prison population. By far America has the world's largest number of prisoners and the largest incarcerated population proportion.

As to the subject of labor camps as exist in socialist societies, I'll at least principally defend those, while acknowledging that I don't think they've always been wielded in the best ways in the past. Fundamentally, labor camps, as conceived of for revolutionary purposes, are logically analogous to the idea of community service as a form of rehabilitation, only applied to persons whose offenses are sufficiently serious that their continued stay in regular society is a danger to those around them. (e.g. Those who have committed acts of terrorism, plotted acts of terrorism, or committed acts of murder, rape, etc.) Such persons have to be removed from regular society while in the process of undergoing hopefully successful rehabilitation. Labor camps are an alternative to this type of society's great alternative of rotting in prison only to realistically return to any criminal activity one might have been guilty of shortly after leaving. The focus in socialist society, with respect to criminal justice, is on rehabilitation, not punishment per se.

Insofar as torture has ever been applied in socialist societies historically, it has always been wrong and an excess motivated by either a revengist mentality or paranoia (that is, distrust of the people). I don't support that or identify myself with it.

First, I do not "claim that our society is so liberal". You are putting words into my mouth.
Secondly, lets be real. No matter how you bake it, fry it, , slice it, or dice it, there is simply no comparison between Guantanamo and the Japanese Internment camps, and
- hundreds of thousands killed during the Red Terror
- 20 Million dead in the Soviet Gulags
- 11 Million dead from forced collectivization
- 20 Million dead in Sta;in's Great Terror
- 1 million or so executed during WWII
- Mass expulsions of Ethic minorities
- 20-40 Million dead in China's Greap Leap Forward (yeah, leap to the graveyard)
- 15-20 Million dead in Chinese labor camps
- 1 million killed by the Chinese in Tibet

and this does not include the little dictatorships such as Vietnam (thousands killed in the Land Reform program), etc. All of the above are the low estimates.
You can call the Gulags and labor camps whatever you want. The fact is that millions perished in them from starvation or abuse. "Reforging class enemies through corrective labor" translating into millions of deaths under brutal conditions.
While there are indeed valid criticisms of policies followed by the US and other democratic countries, there is nothing as terrible as the tens of millions of citizens killed in Communist countries. Trying to ignore, justify, or minimize them is mere sleight of hand that reveals an ideological agenda that has little to do with human rights. Someone who is incensed by Guantanamo should be absolutely horrified by the Gulags.

Genocide is inseperable from Marxism, and Marx himslef was forced to concede that for his 'system' to have a chance, at least 10% of the population would have to be liquidated.

Honest marxists admit this. Back in the '60s, members of the Weather Underground smacked their lips at the prospect of eliminating 25 million Americans should they ever achieve power.


You can't build paradise on a foundation of mass murder, brutal repression, and savagely enforced conformity. Not now, not EVER. But what you will get is 'equality', of sorts: the equality of general poverty, terror, and ultimately, the grave.

THAT is the unvarying legacy of all experiments in Marxism.

Even in the comparatively 'mild' [sic!] form in which it existed in East Germany in the waning years of Communism, it was an intolerable hell. If you want a good picture of this, you need to watch 'The Lives of Others', a German film from 2006 that strips away any possibility of nostalgia for such a crushing regime.

There is something SERIOUSLY awry with ANYbody that can find the least amount of value in such an ideology, and that anyone self-identifying as a goth should do so is simply ASTOUNDING to me.

First off, your opinion of me matters far less to me than you imagine.

Secondly, when I questioned why you chose to live in Vermont rather than North Korea, it was to draw attention to the fact that here in the U.S. you have that choice, and are free to leave if you so desire. Citizens of Communist North Korea do not have such a choice.

Thirdly, cheers on your visit to North Korea. Although I suspect that, were you to find yourself living there as a national instead of a guest, you would be in for a rude awakening.

Finally (because I'm done with you), I leave you this simple quote in response to your enthusiastically youthful and truly naïve attempts to sell us the "advantages" of life under a Communist regime:

Now this is knucklehead talk. I'm not gonna buy that. You know, you can't give me gravy and tell me it's jelly, 'cause gravy ain't sweet. -- Jo Bennett The Office

-- Nephele

To all:

Whereas after three pages we don't appear to be getting anywhere, I don't believe further "discussion" of this subject matter will be productive. I'm in particular very tired of BS claims that I or any communist-led government has ever supported genocide (and I'm especially tired of unsubstantiated and exponentially overstated and non-contextualized "statistics"), and of constant accusations that I'm a proponent of tyranny, torture, mass murder, an opponent of democracy, and every other McCarthyite Cold War cliche in the book, and likewise of personal attacks against me. I'm even growing weary of having to constantly explain that I'm not a Marxist, despite the fact that I enjoy polemics. It's my opinion that the membership of this community is absolutely belligerent on this subject. I therefore leave you all to your views.

However, I will say that I do appreciate that at least people responded and provided their views, despite the fact that obviously we (in a "me versus everyone else" sort of way) very much disagree. Despite the fact that I'm abandoning this thread at this point, it did accomplish its main purpose (which was to gauge the general sentiments of the membership on the topic of communism) and for that I'm glad. I'll just bear in mind that I'm completely alone here in the future.

It's quite possible that you're so confused and muddled that you yourself don't know what the heck you are, and can't tell your butthole from a broomhandle.

The stats and accounts I and others have posted are standard citations from standard scholarly works on the subject. Almost all historians agree on them. If you have a problem with the obvious history almost all historians agree on, then it's incumbent on YOU to disprove them.

Good luck with that.

While I have no ill-thoughts on your person, ACP (and would hope that my fellow members would refrain from name-calling), and I do not believe you are hell-bent on converting those who oppose C/communsim to your world view on the matter, or that you support torture forced labor, mass murder, etc., I do feel that there is some sense of historical revisionism when talking about Communist rule in North Korea specifically.

It's not that most of us are belligerent on Communism: it's just that you landed on a forum where, so far, most of the people who replied don't agree with Communism and expressed that disagreement. If you wanted to find a forum full of people who have the same overwhelming support and passion for Communsim as you do, then perhaps this wasn't the best option.

And with that, I bid this adieu.

I am giving you a warning, right now, to knock it the fuck off with personal attacks. I have already made a statement on this in this thread, and you continued to do it anyway. If you cannot continue to participate in this forum without doing so, we can help you out with that problem in more forceful ways.

The OP of this thread has been nothing but polite, and frankly I'm embarrassed by the behaviour of some of its participants. If any have difficulty with this subject (or any other subject that is discussed here), might I suggest not reading it.

There are a multitude of ideologies and political leanings on this board, and no one person is representative of all of us, thank you very much.

I do apologize, lunamoth, and I have to say, that I have a few friends and even family members that call themselves marxists, but that even they don't deny the horrors committed under the umbrella of their ideology.

And they would be the last to defend a regime like North Korea's or similar hell-holes.

They may be marxist, but they haven't yet given up all trace of basic human decency.

And that's why pikachu brought out the worst in me and in a few others here.

That sums it up very well. Personally, I am no mindless anti-communist. I voted Socialist in the last election. I even do living history presentations as a Frontovik, and have immense respect for the Russian people. But history is history. For me, to distort history is the highest form of disrespect for people who suffered through it. I have studied the Soviet Union and its allies for over 15 years, and the statistics I cited are fully supported by current historical research. In fact, when the Soviet archives were opened in the 90's, scholars found that the West had underestimated the number of victims of the Soviet regime.
This is not just "opinion". It is the consensus of both Western and Russian scholarship. Solzhenitsyn didn't just make it up. Start with someone like Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow. Then read Robert W. Thurston's Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. Move on to Russian sources like: Labor Camp Socialism: The Gulag in the Soviet Totalitarian System by Galina Mikhailovna Ivanova; Polyansky ITL (Corrective Labor Camp) Zheleznogorska by S.P. Kuchin Zheleznogorsk.
When someone tells blithely me "pooh, that's all just propaganda", they have to show me more than a few pages of pro-Marxist polemic. When someone shows me definitive evidence that the aforementioned accounts are wrong, I'll be glad to take a look. But this hasn't happened, not when the KGB files were opened, and not since.
If someone wants to debate Marxist political theory, fine. But when talking about historical events, this is an area where concrete information is readily available, and its use should be anticipated. My own policy is not to get involved in a public debate unless I can back up my statements when challenged.

ZA RODINA!

P.S. Моя другая машина – народный трактор