North Korea

Comradeland wrote:

It is both impossible and wrong (tactically and morally) to separate class struggle from "oppressed" struggles (I use that as a general term for situations where a minority is being oppressed).

Starting with the idea that capitalism uses social divisions tactically to further divide and depower workers (paying people less because of their race or gender or whatever, or saying "those guys over there are coming to take your jobs!", or hell simply overthrowing non-compliant non-white nations to implement their neoliberal colonialist plans), we cant treat each struggle as though it does not have its own unique characteristics that define it. It is different being a Mexican worker, than a Black worker, than a White worker, than a LGBT worker, than a Indigenous worker, than a Whatever worker. And capitalism WILL utilize those divisions to drive wedges into the worker movement.

To actually be a fully expressive movement based on empowerment and ending oppression, we then cant treat it as all one giant "generic" struggle to end "oppression". We have to end individual oppressive tendencies, and the people who define the tactics used to end them should be (generally speaking) members of that oppressed community. This is the reason we integrate and ally with groups that are focused on ending one specific tendency.

Its all part of the wider struggle, and if we try to lump everything under the umbrella of "workers vs capitalists" like all workers face the same struggles, we will be unable to sell that plan to the oppressed communities we are asking to struggle with us. Sure, Id love to be able to say "Fight for communism and it will end all oppression against you!", but the reality is people in most oppressed communities have been dealing with rainmakers promising it will pour for decades. To be effective we have to engage the distinct and direct problems they are facing and how we are going to help them fight it.

But arent you alienating many people by emphasizing social issues? You said 'black worker', 'white worker' and 'LGBT worker', why? Aren't all workers the same, facing same hardships, wages, dont they all use all their labour? Why do you have to separate LGBT worker from 'white' worker (sexual orientation versus skin color) despite they both doing the same job?

Also why would capitalism separate workers, when all they have to do is make them the same (in their eyes), use their labor and pay as less as possible. Capitalism doesn't care for color, religion, sexual orientation, but for paying less wages, thus separating 99% from 1%, creating clear distinction, clear limit what both camps can do and can't do, and thus having clear target/enemy, while you separate them all on various categories so much, that bonds that have to unite them all feel so weak and far away. Target and enemy becomes blurred, vague, unclear then.

'Workers of the world, unite!' not 'All races, religions, ethnicities, colors - unite!'

Communist China wrote:

But arent you alienating many people by emphasizing social issues? You said 'black worker', 'white worker' and 'LGBT worker', why? Aren't all workers the same, facing same hardships, wages, dont they all use all their labour? Why do you have to separate LGBT worker from 'white' worker (sexual orientation versus skin color) despite they both doing the same job?

Alienating whom? Definitely not the oppressed communities we are trying to get to interact with us, Id say they actually prefer us to address and join them in fighting for the causes they decide are most pressing to their communities. And in return we are able to call on them for larger party lead operations. You dont get the oppressed to come and support and fight with you by talking to them, you get that support by fighting for the causes they care about. I am not really trying to turn everyone into a communist, I am trying to get people to support the communists because we have a proven track record of helping and fighting for causes oppressed people know are important.

Communist China wrote:

Also why would capitalism separate workers, when all they have to do is make them the same (in their eyes), use their labor and pay as less as possible. Capitalism doesn't care for color, religion, sexual orientation, but for paying less wages, thus separating 99% from 1%, creating clear distinction, clear limit what both camps can do and can't do, and thus having clear target/enemy, while you separate them all on various categories so much, that bonds that have to unite them all feel so weak and far away. Target and enemy becomes blurred, vague, unclear then.

I think its time you stopped viewing capitalism as a nebulous, pervasive, uncaring force. Capitalism is a sharp cutting blade driven by a class of people who seek profit above all else. To that end they will undertake all sorts of tactical decisions meant to undermine worker power and the worker movement as a whole. Capitalism absolutely cares about color, religion, and sexual orientation. It cares about how it can use those things to devalue people (on the basis of "social standing", providing more profit) and divide them into more manageable chunks. It cares how it can pit workers of different races or nationalities against each other via the threat of immiseration. "The 99%" is how liberals want things viewed, reality places people into far more stratified layers than that, there are huge swathes of middle management / upper management that consciously fight worker power (despite holding no sway over the means of production OR the capital being generated).

The revolution is not going to look like a million communists taking up arms at once before getting blown into bits by drones, its going to look like bands of communists fighting inside communities that support and protect them. Its going to look like communists forming networks within communities to provide governance and community lead leadership.

Comradeland wrote:

Alienating whom? Definitely not the oppressed communities we are trying to get to interact with us, Id say they actually prefer us to address and join them in fighting for the causes they decide are most pressing to their communities. And in return we are able to call on them for larger party lead operations. You dont get the oppressed to come and support and fight with you by talking to them, you get that support by fighting for the causes they care about. I am not really trying to turn everyone into a communist, I am trying to get people to support the communists because we have a proven track record of helping and fighting for causes oppressed people know are important.

I think its time you stopped viewing capitalism as a nebulous, pervasive, uncaring force. Capitalism is a sharp cutting blade driven by a class of people who seek profit above all else. To that end they will undertake all sorts of tactical decisions meant to undermine worker power and the worker movement as a whole. Capitalism absolutely cares about color, religion, and sexual orientation. It cares about how it can use those things to devalue people (on the basis of "social standing", providing more profit) and divide them into more manageable chunks. It cares how it can pit workers of different races or nationalities against each other via the threat of immiseration. "The 99%" is how liberals want things viewed, reality places people into far more stratified layers than that, there are huge swathes of middle management / upper management that consciously fight worker power (despite holding no sway over the means of production OR the capital being generated).

The revolution is not going to look like a million communists taking up arms at once before getting blown into bits by drones, its going to look like bands of communists fighting inside communities that support and protect them. Its going to look like communists forming networks within communities to provide governance and community lead leadership.

I don't know... it's all too confusing. Maybe i'm looking at it from wrong angle: east asian one, where Vietnamese Kinh are 90% of Vietnam, Chinese Han 90% of China, North Korea 99% Koreans. Not many minorities that are oppressed and need issue to be addressed like in the West(United States especially).

Che Triumphant wrote:

Japan actually has a really big problem with racism within their country, and it's an extremely xenophobic country, and the North Korean population is especially discriminated against, and it's the same situation for North Koreans in South Korea.

I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about the situation in Brazil, but the most extreme thing in you're country that I know of is how the indigenous population, the people who were in your country before Portuguese population and especially the part of that population that was never assimilated into European culture, particularly the indigenous tribes that are currently being destroyed in the quest for resources in the Amazon rainforest. Obviously, their situation is a lot different than that of the average Brazilian worker, so although even though in the end we share the same enemies our approach to reach out to them has to be different than our approach to everyone else.

It's okay, it took me years of research and experience to get the understanding that I have now, and there's still so much that I don't know and that I don't understand. I am in an extremely privileged position, I have so much time on my hands, time to read books and watch YouTube video, I'm not a farmer in late-stage capitalism, I don't have to spend the ridiculous amount of time that it probably takes just to stay afloat in that situation. It's a lot of work to try and understand these things, it's important to work but it's hard work, no one can blame you for not knowing something, but if you want to spend your time and energy to try and increase your understanding then we will do everything we can to help you, after all, what is communism if not all for one and one for all?

I'm impressed by how hard you've been trying to better yourself in this region

Wait, i'm not brazilian, i don't know why you think that? I am farmer from Europe, i just remember talking about Brazil's overpopulation problem in the cities while farmers leave countryside.

I'm just trying to understand communism/socialism better, find solution to the problem we are all facing on the planet. I am not against capitalism or market economy, but against 1% (or 0.1% as they are called now) who change laws to suits them and not the nation and ecology (debt, wars etc). This current system is unsustainable and need to be changed, maybe reformed, but i don't yet think it is time for radical actions and measures. Especially now when everyones on the edge, easily triggered, anti-social, pressured under various stresses and problems, people burst easier these days and local conflict can grow into full-scale war very easy.

Communist China wrote:

I don't know... it's all too confusing. Maybe i'm looking at it from wrong angle: east asian one, where Vietnamese Kinh are 90% of Vietnam, Chinese Han 90% of China, North Korea 99% Koreans. Not many minorities that are oppressed and need issue to be addressed like in the West(United States especially).

You're right that our situation in the West is far different than the countries you listed. But I would underscore that leftists there still cared about other ethnic groups and minorities. Mao especially took a hard stance against Han chauvinism in China:

"In some places the relations between nationalities are far from normal. For Communists this is an intolerable situation. We must go to the root and criticize the Han chauvinist ideas which exist to a serious degree among many Party members and cadres, namely, the reactionary ideas of the landlord class and the bourgeoisie, or the ideas characteristic of the Kuomintang, which are manifested in the relations between nationalities. Mistakes in this respect must be corrected at once. Delegations led by comrades who are familiar with our nationality policy and full of sympathy for our minority nationality compatriots still suffering from discrimination should be sent to visit the areas where there are minority nationalities, make a serious effort at investigation and study and help Party and government organizations in the localities discover and solve problems. The visits should not be those of "looking at flowers on horseback".

Judging from the mass of information on hand, the Central Committee holds that wherever there are minority nationalities the general rule is that there are problems calling for solution, and in some cases very serious ones. On the surface all is quiet, but actually there are some very serious problems. What has come to light in various places in the last two or three years shows that Han chauvinism exists almost everywhere. It will be very dangerous if we fail now to give timely education and resolutely overcome Han chauvinism in the Party and among the people. The problem in the relations between nationalities which reveals itself in the Party and among the people in many places is the existence of Han chauvinism to a serious degree and not just a matter of its vestiges. In other words, bourgeois ideas dominate the minds of those comrades and people who have had no Marxist education and have not grasped the nationality policy of the Central Committee. Therefore, education must be assiduously carried out so that this problem can be solved step by step. Moreover, the newspapers should publish more articles based on specific facts to criticize Han chauvinism openly and educate the Party members and the people."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_25.htm

Contemporary China is certainly not perfect in how it approaches other ethnic groups/nationalities and other minorities, there's still discrimination for sure, but the government tries to address issues that arise in these areas. Minority ethnic groups are exempt from the "One-child policy", get proportional representation in local governments, significant help in developing their regions while not being taxed themselves by the central government, and much more. In short, what could be called China's version of "affirmative action" goes far beyond most countries in the West.