The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

I'm currently taking a class on political values, mostly centered on the discussion of liberal political values such as equality and tolerance. In our class it seems (at least to my inexpert apprehension of things) that there is some distinction to be made between liberalism and "communitarianism", in the sense that they are different viewpoints and not necessarily always in agreement with each other.

So for instance we are talking now about liberal "neutrality". Liberal neutrality is essentially, as I am reading it, the view that the state should not try to play favorites among different lifestyles that its citizens pursue. Rather the "marketplace" of ideas will determine which lifestyles are good and which are bad and the good ones will naturally flourish and the bad ones will wither. The role of the state is to more or less ensure that there is a kind of "level playing field" among different lifestyles or whatever. Again I may be misinterpreting things, so take this with a grain of salt as they say.

If I'm not mistaken I've heard some of our reds here criticize liberalism. Are liberalism and communism (for example) different in their views? If so, what exactly is the difference? Or what is the fundamental difference between political liberalism and communism or communitarianism or whatever it should be called?
 
It's a good question, and one I will give a shot at. I think you should repost it in the Ask a Red thread, since this is a discussion thread, and one frequented by the likes of JEELEN at that. Your post and replies are bound to get buried in an endless debate about various countries and stuff.
 
It's a good question, and one I will give a shot at. I think you should repost it in the Ask a Red thread, since this is a discussion thread, and one frequented by the likes of JEELEN at that. Your post and replies are bound to get buried in an endless debate about various countries and stuff.

Thanks, Aelf. I was going to post this in the Ask a Red thread but I wouldn't mind hearing answers from Non-reds as well as reds and the rebuttals and counter rebuttals. Obviously since this is a "real discussion" thread we should all be civil, so I'm hoping to see a civil debate between parties regarding the matter. Hopefully the truth will prevail so long as there is reasonable debate on the matter.

In some sense I've started to see liberalism as almost maybe something out of Star Trek (in a non pejorative sense). On the one hand you have the "federation" or the overall order and on the other you have these little factions underneath. The overall order wants to maintain things in a neutral sense while the little factions of course are fighting for their own interests. So long as one of the little factions doesn't get in complete control then everything is OK. So long as the overall order is objective or value neutral or whatever then the society is fine. But if one of the individual members of this Jurassic Park or whatever gets out of control and takes control and starts to impose partisan values then there are problems.

Anyway just my personal thoughts on the matter, may not be very accurate.
 
Liberalism promotes a "negative-liberty" based philosophy or "the absence of constraint" i.e. the lack of state power telling you no. But the other freedom is "freedom from necessity" i.e. the tools to live your freedom, like health/wealth/education/leisure aka "positive-liberty".

Progressivism is utilitarianism informed by maximizing both.
 
It's a good question, and one I will give a shot at. I think you should repost it in the Ask a Red thread, since this is a discussion thread, and one frequented by the likes of JEELEN at that. Your post and replies are bound to get buried in an endless debate about various countries and stuff.

That's more RT's tactic when evading a question, but soit.

On which note:

Aaand I'm done with this conversation, JEELEN. It seems you can't help but torpedo an argument with nonsense when things get too complicated for you.

So now you can't follow the argument and/or are out of retorts, so you resort to personal remarks. Very reasonable... I guess that means Cheez is out of his wits.

As for RT's view on 'reasonable discussion'... well, I guess everyone can see his last giant picture post...

I suggest trying to stay on topic. It might help.
 
Still smarting about that legalized murder thing, huh?

Gary, have you read Mao's Combat Liberalism?

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.
But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.
Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.
They are all manifestations of liberalism.
...

That is how I define and identify "liberalism."
 
No one is smarting over your mischaracterization of Holland's assisted suicide laws.
 
Clearly, someone is... and it is not a view I alone share. And I think I characterize it perfectly...

Please read Wesley Smith's Forced Exit.... especially the chapter "Dutch Treat."

Kirkus Review

KIRKUS REVIEW
An anti-euthanasia activist blasts the right-to-die forces, calling their goal ``a social experiment that will lead to cultural and ethical catastrophe.''

As the attorney for the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, Smith appears frequently on radio and television to argue against what he calls ``the death culture.'' Opponents of assisted suicide--Smith uses the terms ``assisted suicide'' and ``euthanasia'' interchangeably--will find this a valuable debating manual, for it presents the most common pro-euthanasia arguments and then provides considered responses to them.

Noting similarities between today's euthanasia movement and the one that flourished in Germany earlier in this century (despite the compassion that motivates contemporary supporters), and citing the results of what he refers to as ``death on demand'' in the Netherlands, he warns that granting the right to die to the terminally ill will soon be followed by legal killing of the disabled, the chronically ill, and even the depressed.

Smith looks at the defeat of referendums to legalize euthanasia in Washington State and California, and examines weaknesses in the safeguards against abuse included in a similar Oregon referendum that narrowly passed but is now tied up in the courts.

HMOs, with their emphasis on controlling costs by limiting services, and euthanasia are a deadly combination, he says, predicting that "the day doctors are legally allowed to kill patients, Wall Street investors in for-profit HMOs will be dancing in the streets.''

A phrase-maker of no mean talent, Smith titles his last chapter "Hospice or Hemlock: The Choice is Ours.'' In it he argues that we must create a culture of compassion that empowers the disabled, sees every patient as valuable, and provides end-of-life care to the dying. Powerful arguments from a passionate, articulate, sometimes strident spokesman.

I choose life...
 
BB&T closed at 39.83 on Friday... no gains...

How's this?

I always thought that communists disapproved of capitalist economics based on moral and ethical grounds ("accumulation of capital = bad"), not due to a complete rejection of time-proven economic principles.

Have I been wrong all this time or are communists divided on this themselves? I genuinely wish to know.

My answer is:
No HUMAN actions are "time-proven" principles... after all, Slavery was legal in the US until 1865...

Would not call that a time-proven principle, even though slavery was the first form of exploitative political/ economic relationship that last thousands of years...

My opposition to Capitalism is moral, yes, on the one hand, but not altruistic... you can't separate the priciples of Capitalism from its "morality." It clearly does not work for the majority of people over the longest period of time.
 
He says he doesn't seek to tell them when to die. Nothing in there about not making it happen.
 
Nothing in what I quoted contradicts what I said.

... Still not building shrines to convicted war criminals.

... Still organizing workers for no pay after 22 years, actually saving lives, versus snarking at everything real Reds have to say;

If you think that makes me better than you, that's your conscience. I do not think it does. I simply do good. Stay in your study circles and stay out of my way. The bourgeoisie pays enough apologists, they do not need volunteers.
 
Bourgeois intelligencia, yes... bourgeois apologists, yeah.

But as forked-tongued "reds" who are FOR every revolution until it wins and promulgate bourgeoisie propaganda while snarking at the ones actually doing the organizing work... I only wish them well, and a better perspective in the future than in the past.

I spend 25% of my time in study... as do my comrades... but it is attached to a practice... not study by itself.
 
I know, Cheezy...

But, to be fair, these two started it...

What do Reds and non-Reds think of this:

Link to video.

Fight all that is detrimental to the party... our fight is not with the Tsar, it's with ourselves...

Thoughts?
 
I know, Cheezy...

But, to be fair, these two started it...

What do Reds and non-Reds think of this:

Link to video.

Fight all that is detrimental to the party... our fight is not with the Tsar, it's with ourselves...

Thoughts?

I think the Offtopicgrad Soviet deserves a bump...

Interesting scene RT. I guess the sort of thought I get from the scene is a kind of unnerving feeling of intrigue, not knowing who the friend or enemy is. Lenin seems happy to see Trotsky here but didn't they ultimately diverge in their ideas about what was best for "the revolution"? I haven't seen the whole movie and it's difficult to tell just by that scene alone whether the director is more sympathetic to Lenin or Trotsky. The words of Lenin where he tells Trotsky not to be seduced by the trappings of bourgeois culture around them almost sound portentous for perhaps later in the movie. Does the movie depict Trotsky at some point giving in to these trappings?

It must be incredibly unnerving to have to live everyday in fear of being arrested by those in power for no greater crime than simply being opposed to their power, of not knowing who your friends and enemies are. One minute you are comrades, the next your comrade is perhaps seduced by the trappings of power to betray you. I would think living a life dedicated to the workers revolution is not exactly one of comfort and nice perks (to say the least). It seems like a rough and difficult road to travel. However, perhaps it is it's own reward?
 
@Gary: I have been meaning to address your commentary on the Lenin and Trotsky scene from Fall of Eagles, but I am mostly on this forum via Tapatalk, and ergo I can only see ten threads at a time, and the Offtopicgrad Soviet slid off the window.

You should watch the whole Fall of Eagles series, which is 13 episodes spanning from the aftermath of the Revolutions of 1848 to the Kaiser's abdication in 1918. Lenin and the Bolsheviks are heavily featured in three episodes: "The Last Tsar," "Absolute Beginners," and "The Secret War," and referred to in "The Appointment. But the whole series mainly deals with the fall of the houses of Hohenzollern, Hapsburgs and Romanov.

In regards to the clip, it illustrates the primary focus of Lenin at the time, a position he never waivered from: that the question of ideology and politics (the former being your view of the world; the latter being what you plan to do about it) had been settled by the "Social Democrats." Socialism was inevitable and a revolution was needed to bring it about.

The unsettled question was this: what kind of vehicle was best suited to bring about the revolution. The right wing of the movement thought bourgeois parliaments could bring socialism.about (in 1903, Russia HAD no parliament); the center thought that the trade unions could bring socialism in (Russia had no legal trade unions except those run by the Tsar's police agents -- Father Gapon was a famous police agent); the left wing said you could not trust ANY bourgeois institution and you had to build your own revolutionary apparatus that could do any of those things, or none.

That was one of the debates of 1903. Lenin favored a strong federated center for a Party out of power, and said that NO tactics should be rejected on principle, but judged on its value to the revolution. The Party would be the core of the movement (hence, Lenin's admonition to Trostky not to "confuse a party with a movement," the latter consisting of anyone who chose to fight for the emancipation of labor; the Party being a disciplined group of professional revolutionaries who act as guides and teachers of the revolution.

Trostky had voted with Martov and the "Mensheviks" against Lenin's membership rules in favor of a looser party.

*************
And now, More DPRK Truth Squad Action:

My trip to North Korea: 13 misconceptions corrected

Marcel Cartier said:
The Koreans have a very high level of class consciousness, and do not equate the American people with our government. They make no secret of their contempt for U.S. imperialism, but if you say you’re an American, the conversation will usually revolve around culture or sports more than politics. At the Grand People’s Study House in Pyongyang (think your local library on steorids, with over 30 million books), the most popular CD is The Beatles’ “Greatest Hits”, although Linkin Park is also requested a lot among local youth. The young men seem fascinated with the NBA, and know a lot more about the league than just Dennis Rodman.

2. Customs and Border Patrol Were A Smooth, Easy Experience
Many of the westerners who traveled to Pyongyang from Beijing with me were concerned that the immigration procedure would be a long and intense one. Everyone seemed quite surprised that passports were stamped with no questions asked, and that only a handful of passengers had a few items in their bags looked at. Prior to traveling, it is strongly advised by tour companies that people not bring any kind of books on the Korean War or items that have American flags on them. This may be solid advice, but immigration didn’t really seem too concerned about what was brought into the country.

3. Pyongyang Is Beautiful, Clean and Colourful

Probably the most gorgeous city in the world, Pyongyang is incredibly well kept. Considering that the entire city was carpet bombed by U.S. forces in the Korean War (what they call the Fatherland Liberation War) and that only two buildings remained in 1953, it is an impressive accomplishment. The statues and grand buildings are awe-inspiring, as are the large green spaces where you can see people relaxing. There are many new apartment buildings sprouting up across the city, but even the ones that are evidently older are maintained well. It is often said that Pyongyang at night is dark, and although it may be compared to a western city, it does have beautiful lights that illuminate much of the downtown area.

4. Kim Jong Un Haircuts Are Practically Non-Existent

There was one man who sported the Kim cut who I saw while en route from the airport to the city center, and it wasn’t a good look on him at all! The haircut was rumoured by BBC and TIME who picked up on a South Korean tabloid story to now be mandatory for all North Korean men of university age. Not only is this story not true, so is the allegation that the men in the DPRK only have a select few styles to choose from at the barber shop that are “state sanctioned.” It really works just as it would in the west – there are flyers at barbershops where styles are pictured, making it easier for customers to say, “I want a number seven cut.” But, just as in a New York barber shop, that doesn’t mean that you are restricted to that particular look.

5. North Koreans Laugh, Smile and Joke – A Lot

The question you’re asking is probably, “but isn’t that for show?” It would be a mighty accomplishment indeed if with all of the genuine laughs I shared with Koreans, they were putting on an act. Not only that, but for vehicles speeding by on the streets, those Koreans do an impressive job of making sure they’re aware when there are foreigners passing so they can pretend to laugh! Koreans have jokes for just about everything, from Canadians and ice hockey (“why did the Canadians have sex from the back? So they can watch the hockey game”) to Americans at the DMZ ("an American passes a DPRK soldier a cigarette across the demarcation line. The solider smokes it, but the American asks why if he hates Americans he is smoking something from the U.S. The solider replies, I am not smoking it but rather burning it.”)

6. Monolithic Ideology Does Not Mean Monolithic Personality

This is a good reminder that individualism and individuality are not one in the same. In fact, observing people interact with one another in North Korea provided the impression that a diversity of personality types was just as strong there as it is in the “open” west. People have a divergence of interests, from sports to culture, and are free to pick what they enjoy and dislike.

7. People are incredibly well dressed across the country

Even in the countryside, Koreans dress in a very dignified manner. There was not one place I traveled to where people appeared in the least bit sloppy, or wearing clothes that appeared to be old. Men and women also don’t all wear the same style of clothing, as we are often conditioned to think. It is common to see women wearing very bright clothes, including pink business suits as well as more traditional Korean dresses. Men may often wear ties, collared shirts and suit coats, but it is also not uncommon to see them in more casual wear such as tracksuits depending on the occasion.

8. Children Begin To Learn English At the Age of 7

The people’s command of English, particularly among the younger generation, is very impressive. While in previous decades, high school was the time when English began to be learnt, this has been changed to the third grade. Although many children are shy (they don’t see that many foreigners, after all), I was able to get many of them to shake my hand and even exchange a few words in English. Popular languages that are studied in high school include Chinese and German.

9. Tourism Will Be Boosted In The Near Future

One of the aspects of the economy that will be prioritized in the future appears to be tourism. The entire Pyongyang Airport is under construction at the moment and in the midst of major expansion. The Koreans are keen to open up to the outside world, but they are also certain to do it in a very different way than the Chinese (after being in Beijing, the omnipotence of some of the worst aspects of western culture their gives them every reason to be cautious in this regard). Air Koryo, which was given the only 1-star rating by the company SkyTrax, was in reality much better in terms of service and comfort than at least a dozen other airlines I had previously flown on. They have a new fleet of Russian planes that fly between Pyongyang and Beijing, provide in flight entertainment throughout the journey (the children’s cartoon Clever Raccoon Dog is hilarious), and serve a “hamburger” (not so good, but edible) and an assortment of drinks (coffee, tea, beer, juice). The whole experience was at least worthly of three-stars if we had to go the rating route!

10. Koreans Are Keen To Talk About The Country Candidly

People are very open about the problems facing the country, and don’t shy away from discussing some of the more difficult aspects of life. For instance, they would speak about the “Arduous March” (think the “Special Period” in Cuba) where drought, famine and floods coupled with the loss of the majority of the country’s trading partners brought big setbacks to a country that until the 1980s had a higher standard of living than the South. They will also discuss the narratives regarding the Korean War and are keen for a betterment of relations with South Korea in the eventual hope of reunification. However, they are also very firm on the fact that they will never renounce their socialist principles in order to facilitate this reunification.

11. Beer Is Considered A Soft Drink, Micro Breweries Are Popular

Almost every district in the country now has a local brewery that provides beer to the local area. There are a variety of different kinds that are enjoyed around the country, and most meals are served with a small quantity of beer. At Kim Il Sung Stadium where the Pyongyang Marathon started and ended, it was not uncommon to see locals having a drink as they watched the exhibition matches between DPRK football teams. Think Yankee Stadium, just without the aggressiveness of the crowd.

12. Most of the Tabloid Stories About the DPRK Are Utterly False

There were probably at least one hundred Americans in Pyongyang at the same time as me, due in large part to foreign amateur runners being allowed to compete for the first time in the marathon. One couple testified how this was their second visit after having traveled to DPRK the year before. They mentioned how they were a bit scared to come the previous time, because it was right after a story had hit the news about Kim Jong Un having had his ex-girlfriend and others killed for making a porn tape. The couple talked about how they walked into an Opera in Pyongyang, and as they sat down noticed that the very women who were supposed to be dead were sitting directly across from them. Walking dead, indeed! Other recent stories to hit the western press via South Korean tabloids regarding mass executions in stadiums or Kim Jong Un's uncle being fed to a pack of hungry dogs are also said to be non-sense by westerners who travel there frequently and know the country’s situation well. This isn’t to say anything about the existence of political re-education camps or prisons, but an all-out demonization campaign against the country that completely distorts it is of no service to the Korean people.

13. Koreans Will Not Hesitate To Make You Join In Their Fun

There were a number of events organized in Pyongyang on the occasion of Kim Il Sung’s birthday, which is a national holiday where people have two days off of work. Some of these were publically organized, like the “mass dances” where hundreds of people dance in large squares to popular Korean songs. Others involved people in the park having family lunches while the kids bought ice cream from vendors and drunk grannies danced hilariously because they had far too much home-made soju. But, just like in any authoritarian state, you must participate! Being shy is not an option, as they will pull you by the arm and teach you every dance move even if they themselves are not quite doing it correctly.

In short, I found the Korean people in the north to be some of the warmest, most authentic human beings I’ve ever had the chance to interact with. It would be silly to refer to the country as a “workers’ paradise” due to the depth of problems it faces. As in all societies, there are positive aspects and negative ones. However, considering that they have overcome centuries of imperial domination, the loss of about a quarter of their population in the Korean War, and continue to maintain their social system in the face of a continued state of war, they have done tremendously well. The accomplishments in free education through university, the non-existence of homelessness, and a proud and dignified people should be presented in order to gain a fuller, more nuanced picture of the country.

I must say that the way that the DPRK is portrayed in the western bourgeois media actually says a great deal more about the effectiveness of our propaganda apparatuses and brainwashing techniques than it does about theirs. The fact that I even have to write about the surprising things I witnessed in DPRK is evidence of the serious lack of understanding we have about the country. The problems facing Korea are never contexualized as they should be – as an oppressed nation aiming to free itself from servitude to big powers intent on gobbling up every remaining state free from a dying unipolarity.

Oh, and I almost forgot about nuclear weapons! Well, let’s consider if the North Korean military was holding military drills annually off the coast of New York that simulated the carpet bombing of Manhattan and the occupation of the entirety of the country, of which they already controlled the western half. Would it not be sensible given that context for Americans to develop a nuclear deterrent? The Koreans are not war hungry or even “obsessed” with the army or military. However, given the way that the situation in Libya played out, they are all the more convinced – rightfully so – that the only reason their independent state continues to stand is due to the Songun (“military first” policy) and the existence of nuclear capabilities. To be sure, they have no intention of using it unless put in that position to have to do so.

It is my sincere desire that there will be continued cultural and people-to-people exchanges in the near future between people from the DPRK and the western countries. Pretty much all of the people who traveled with me back to Beijing were in awe of just how different their experience was compared to what they had expected. They – like myself – gained a great deal from the humanizing experience of interacting with Koreans. Although westerners are relatively free to travel much more so than DPRK citizens, it’s ironic how the Koreans seemingly know a great deal more about us than we know about them. That will need to change in the years to come.

Content may be reprinted with credit to LiberationNews.org.
I encourage all to read it!
 
Usually I object to even the most apologistic Stalinists being compared to National Socialists, but in this instance the analogy is painfully difficult to avoid.
 
Back
Top Bottom