The Internationale

The Fash Bashers of Aarnonia wrote:

I hate how the AKP has actually manage to show itself off as Anti-imperialist, at least in Turkey, when they were literally CIA spies for the about 13 years. They've even got some of the "nationalist" leftists, such as the Maoist-turncoat Doğu Perinçek following them, thinking that they can save the country from imperialism by allowing Tayyip to purge the "Gulenists" from all aspects of the state and society. And it is true, I despise the Gulenist reactionaries, and maybe their removal will make Turkey independent, but is an independent reactionary government really any better than an American-backed reactionary government? This whole situation is really bad, and unfortunately there is no effective opposition force in the country, the Turkish Left really needs to make a comeback if we are to even have hope that the country will be a better place in the following decades.

Everything you said I agree with! There are some left wing political parties in Turkey, notably the HDP and the pseudo-left CHP (more like social democratic). The problem is that most people in Turkey actually buy the propaganda they are told and support the imperialist agenda of Erdogan in Syria by supporting the reactionary and islamist FSA. Another issue is that the left wing votes are typically located on the Aegean coast and in the majority Kurdish areas in the east of the country, not in the massive cities like Ankara and Istanbul (with the exception of Izmir, of course). The best for the left is for them to speak directly to the people and rekindle the revolutionary spirit of the average Turk by galvanising the anti-Erdogan fervour which is growing every day. We saw that in the recent referendum with the AKP's inglorious showing by barely squeaking by, and in the last elections which saw material gains for the left. We can do it, comrades! Within the next decade I think we will see Turkey lurch to the left and vote Erdogan out.

Aarnonia, Paliskor, and Orleanzieta

Zenganopoli - Lol, I am not a pacifist!

The United Socialist States of South Cingalia wrote:

a)You're right. I'm sorry.
b)Sorry, I didn't think I was doing "imperialist propaganda"
c)Since the head of the state goes from father to son, it has some aspects similar to a monarchy
d)Yes, but this doesn't justify a dictatorship of one party over others

c) That doesn't mean anything. There is no succession in DPRK. I am pretty sure we won't see another Kim. Also, in many countries the sons of the politicians become politicians, too. And usually Presidents, Prime Ministers, or whatever.
d) There is a state, so there is no point for a justification. A state is a dictatorship, end of the story. If that is positive or negative, that doesn't have to do anything about the nature of the state, what it truly is.

The Free Land of Complete and utter anarchy- wrote:

Why did Proletaire suppress my post?

No idea, you should wait for him to explain.

Marxist-Feminists

The Revolutionary Communes of World Anarchic Union wrote:

Well. I don't entirely agree with this. First of, people were saying that we won't see another Kim after Kim Jong Il's death. Kim Jong Un has many years in front of him, so I don't want to make predictions of any kind, but I don't think that we have seen the last of the Kims, personally. What makes you believe that about the Kims?
Secondly, when such family politics take place, at least in my experience, leftists of most, if not all tendencies, talk about political dynasties in a very negative manner as it is precisely that, family politics. Only in regards to some countries do certain leftist tendencies not speak of political dynasties and family poltiics when they take place. North Korea is one such example. I see all family politics as very negative, regardless of which country we are talking about, in my opinion.

Why I don't believe that we will see another Kim: it is obvious to me that DPRK is in a state of transition at the moment. Towards where? I can't tell that, only time can. But it makes me believe that the era of the Kims end with Jong-un. However, I would definitely want this future to uphold their legacy, especially Il Sung's who in my view, was an exceptional leader toward difficult times.

About "political families": leftists do criticize them, but on a different context. There is a lot more to the WPK than its central figure, the chairman. The whole family thing has more to do with the conception of the leader, common to many eastern countries. Moreover, it is way easier for a country to stand together in the symbolic figure of the leader, no matter if I or the "leader" himself hates it. And the greatest the legacy carried, the stronger the figure. So the figure that represents the political plays both a cultural and a unifying role for North Korea, thus its significance for the time being.

Marxist-Feminists

The Fash Bashers of Aarnonia wrote:

I'll have to agree with you on Kim Il Sung, he was an admirable man. However, the rest of the Kims seem very far from socialism, to say the least. Then again, NK is very unkown, and the information that we can get about them, from both their sources and critical sources, are very unreliable and hard to believe. And maybe keeping the Kims is a right decision thinking purely pragmatically, but in principle I think that political dynasties go against leftism and need to be disestablished. Another problem is that as these dynasties go on, the harder it becomes for us to get rid of them, so in some years we may just see the Kims even better established within the system than before.

Considering myself a bit of a Pyongyangologist, I hope the comrades here don't mind if I share my thoughts on the matter;

"However, the rest of the Kims seem very far from socialism, to say the least. - Aarnonia

---

Kim Il-sung was an admirable man, but an inept Marxist. A great leader, and architect of a nation too, but I'm not aware of any of his written works being beyond the most very basic Marxist concepts, and nothing in detail.

Kim Jong-il, wrote many great texts and if one considers the time of his life (1941-2011) then one must consider that this is a man brought up in the height of the cold war and from birth to death seems to have held a Marxist perspective. While some historians may question ow much of his works were actually written by him, his governing style and legacy expose him as a Marxist-Leninist with few reformist tendencies and some adventurist policies - ultimately, comparable to the times, he was a great socialist who held steadfast through the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. A principled man of ideology, its difficult not to respect that.

"Socialism is a science"
http://www.korea-dpr.info/lib/106.pdf

"Let us advance under Marxism-Leninism and the Juche idea"
http://www.korea-dpr.info/lib/206.pdf

As far as Kim Jong-un is concerned, I think its hard to tell, we're seeing someone who's holding onto the achievements of socialism in some regards and reforming the economy in some ways also. I think we're seeing a more pragmatic than ideological leader here but also one who is determined not to fail the history of his half nation. Socialism is often spoken about today in the state press, each New Year's speech is littered with references to building the "Great socialist nation". Disregarding Chinese or American appeasement, improving the life of the average Korean (DPRK's economy ((GDP)) has more or less consistently grown under his leadership) - it's hard to say if this is line with socialist principals but its certainly in line with good leadership for Korean interests.

Hereditary leadership? Who here could possibly agree with that? I don't - and I fully support the DPRK.
The latter two of these men were elected in by the governing officials of the WPK

"In 1998, he was reelected as chairman of the National Defence Commission, and a constitutional amendment declared that post to be "the highest post of the state" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il

"On 27 March 2012, Kim was elected to the Fourth Conference of the Workers' Party of Korea. On 11 April, that conference elected him as leader of the party under the newly created title of First Secretary." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-un

As comrade Freien mentioned, some of this 'leader' stuff is Confucian customs and the ancient culture around it, while the DPRK is one of the few socialist nations to completely (re)build itself in its ideal socialist image (for the most part) the Korean revolution is far from banishing reactionary and backward Asiatic customs - it's certainly come a long way from occupied Japanese prison camp 70 years ago though - and in the context of the history of the 20th century socialist nations, I think the DPRK, and its leaders have many admirable qualities/historical instances to stand on their own.

Proletaire and Freien

The Guiding Red Light of Marxist-Feminists wrote:

Considering myself a bit of a Pyongyangologist, I hope the comrades here don't mind if I share my thoughts on the matter;
"However, the rest of the Kims seem very far from socialism, to say the least. - Aarnonia
---
Kim Il-sung was an admirable man, but an inept Marxist. A great leader, and architect of a nation too, but I'm not aware of any of his written works being beyond the most very basic Marxist concepts, and nothing in detail.
Kim Jong-il, wrote many great texts and if one considers the time of his life (1941-2011) then one must consider that this is a man brought up in the height of the cold war and from birth to death seems to have held a Marxist perspective. While some historians may question ow much of his works were actually written by him, his governing style and legacy expose him as a Marxist-Leninist with few reformist tendencies and some adventurist policies - ultimately, comparable to the times, he was a great socialist who held steadfast through the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. A principled man of ideology, its difficult not to respect that.
"Socialism is a science"
http://www.korea-dpr.info/lib/106.pdf
"Let us advance under Marxism-Leninism and the Juche idea"
http://www.korea-dpr.info/lib/206.pdf
As far as Kim Jong-un is concerned, I think its hard to tell, we're seeing someone who's holding onto the achievements of socialism in some regards and reforming the economy in some ways also. I think we're seeing a more pragmatic than ideological leader here but also one who is determined not to fail the history of his half nation. Socialism is often spoken about today in the state press, each New Year's speech is littered with references to building the "Great socialist nation". Disregarding Chinese or American appeasement, improving the life of the average Korean (DPRK's economy ((GDP)) has more or less consistently grown under his leadership) - it's hard to say if this is line with socialist principals but its certainly in line with good leadership for Korean interests.
Hereditary leadership? Who here could possibly agree with that? I don't - and I fully support the DPRK.
The latter two of these men were elected in by the governing officials of the WPK
"In 1998, he was reelected as chairman of the National Defence Commission, and a constitutional amendment declared that post to be "the highest post of the state" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il
"On 27 March 2012, Kim was elected to the Fourth Conference of the Workers' Party of Korea. On 11 April, that conference elected him as leader of the party under the newly created title of First Secretary." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-un
As comrade Freien mentioned, some of this 'leader' stuff is Confucian customs and the ancient culture around it, while the DPRK is one of the few socialist nations to completely (re)build itself in its ideal socialist image (for the most part) the Korean revolution is far from banishing reactionary and backward Asiatic customs - it's certainly come a long way from occupied Japanese prison camp 70 years ago though - and in the context of the history of the 20th century socialist nations, I think the DPRK, and its leaders have many admirable qualities/historical instances to stand on their own.

Wouldn't you say, though, that the cult of personality somewhat undermines these conclusions? You say yourself that we don't know for sure that Kim Jong-il wrote everything that he did. Attributing new writing to him would be a good way to improve his image within the government and make him appear like more of an ideological model than he actually was. There are already so many things that are ridiculously attributed to Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il that I think there's doubt over everything he's claimed to have written.
Let's say Kim Il-sung or someone close to him suggests building the cult of personality to increase unity and defend the revolution. As it's implemented, the population begins to idealize the leader more and more. From this population, the party selects the most loyal people to serve in the Supreme Assembly (this is what happens, rather than the representatives being determined from scratch in mass meetings, as I said in a previous post). Whoever it is exactly that reelect the leader, whether that's the Assembly, the Presidium, or some other committee drawn from them, is already hand-picked to support him. Even if the views of any representative change, they have to fear arrest or persecution by the police at worst or being voted out by their constituents at best. How is that a fair reelection system?

Luckynia and Aarnonia