The enemy of the Communist movement, of the movements for liberation of the working classes is the reactionary forces of the world, and those forces are currently headed by the United States.
How is that not what I just said? North Korea is your friend because they are anti-imperialist and anti-American [government], which is not the same thing as socialist.
The victories of each Party of the Proletariat, each proletarian movement belong to the workers of the world, the proletariat of the world and the Parties of the proletariat of the world. Relations between socialist nations must be from positions of respect for a nation's national sovereignty, as well as its path to socialism.
That doesn't mean everyone is right, it means that we subject each other to criticism, and ourselves to self-criticism, to ensure that we all still follow socialist practices and principles while following our separate paths. This is why the Hungarians in 1956 were wrong, but the Czechs in 1968 were right. By your reasoning, even Gorbachev's "separate road of socialism" is beyond criticism because it was carried out by a communist party in a socialist country.
No... I do not think I am wrong. But, yes, I am ignoring the critique. Apols for that, but I have little tolerance for attacks on socialist nations -- especially from the left. Particularly from those who do not organize. For you, I can and will answer. See below.
This makes no sense. The best criticism comes from
inside the Left, from fellow comrades holding us accountable, not from our enemies who would discredit and divide us at any cost (although sometimes there are useful observations from non-socialist sources). Nothing and no one should ever be exempt from criticism, and by reacting defensively to this, with a zero-tolerance policy for it, you behave undialectically.
First of all, I was presenting the excerpts from the Introduction to an organizing manual because I was demonstrating that for those who will see, what they see when they walk in our doors is part of a Marxist-Leninist formation. However, for those who do not see, they still get what they came for: a labor organization (or whatever other type of organization we build, be it alternative press, medical professional organizing, lawyer organizations, etc) of a new type, not bound by the strictures of the law, completely independent of the government, all-volunteer. Because, our organizations do what they do... but when you put them together under a strong centralized apparatus, they become the tools to take down this system and build an alternative. I know so damned much about socialism versus communism because our organizations demonstrate those principles in practice by growing STRONGER as more people who need them join. By establishing ties with governments of socialist nations and demonstrating international proletarian solidarity. By establishing mutually beneficial relationships. (e.g. our legal fraction provides legal support for foreign consuls; our medical organizations get them medical care in this country, we arrange speaking engagement and functions for them and they for us. They arrange for us to travel there.)
So you're saying that the DPRK went "underground" with its constitution, shifting from being specifically communist internationalists to being secretly so? For what purpose? Do communists not disdain to conceal their beliefs and aims, most of all once in power? No other communist government in history has pretended to be something it wasn't, why would DPRK engage in this tactic?
But what's more, the words are merely descriptors, but their actions say infinitely more. Their country is homophobic, racist, xenophobic (though I can hardly blame them for this one, but it nonetheless exists), and misogynistic. There's nothing progressive about their society, it remains patriarchal and hierarchical, and most importantly, shows neither sign nor intent to combat any of it.
Contrast this with Cuba, where LGBTQ rights are taking off, women enjoy sexual and social liberation, and absolute equality with men, and their society and people are cosmopolitan and open to the world. This in spite of the 50 year blockade you bemoan (and I celebrate). What's DPRK's excuse? Or is this just another part of their secret underground concealment of communism?
I have never argued that DPRK was Marxist-Leninist. I never argued that there was one path to socialism. What we have seen in the latter half of the twentieth century and in the beginning of this is that there IS not one binding method to achieve a socialist state, which is the path towards communism. I am a Marxist-Leninist because I believe that is how the world works. For millennia, people believed the earth was flat, believed the sun ran around the earth and that there were only four elements. That did not mean that the 106 or so elements did not exist, it did not mean that the earth was not round. The physical realities exist regardless of our perception of them, and regardless of our understanding of them.
Circumstances of history, not circumstances of bourgeoisie appeal, determine the course of action of the movement.
As I said above, the existence of multiple roads to socialism doesn't make every path taken the right one. The North Koreans have screwed up big time, whether it was purposeful or not, their attempt has failed, and neither we nor they can learn from that if no one is honest about the nature of that failure.
In 1971, Salvador Allende Gossens, a Marxist-Leninist, was elected to power in Chile, and he was removed by a coup. In 1979, the Sandinistas -- who were NOT purely M-L, took power in Nicaragua by armed force, but they lost it in an election (incidentally, we assisted the Sandinistas in the early 80s with agronomists and farm worker trainers, I believe). In 1994, the ANC (not M-L, either) was elected into office in S. Africa, only to have no resources to put in the provisions of the Freedom Charter, which is on its face a socialist program. In 1998, Chavez was elected in Venezuela. He was not a Marxist-Leninist, either. In fact, on the surface he looked like a social fascist -- but he had friends in high places (The Castro Bros.)-- but he built and the Bolivarian Revolution continues to build 21st Century Socialism.
History has proven that NO revolution that came to power by election stayed there by election.
I struggle to understand why this is here.
But let's look at what is still in the DPRK Constitution:
Fair Enough, verdad?
Sounds good to me...
NOW we are getting somewhere. Democratic Centralism is the hallmark of Marxism-Leninism. Discuss,debate and fight it out, then if 100% agree, everyone fights for it to happen. Even the doubters. Especially the doubters.
I still see no problems with this constitution.
Uh-huh... not seeing a great divergence with being a socialist republic.
That's the political section. I dare not go on, as it is late. But I wanted you to know, most of all, why I do not criticize the DPRK. I owe it to you as a comrade and a friend, and the rest of the lurkers and posters get this late little easter egg free of charge!
This is all incredibly vague wording. Most of it can be found in bourgeois constitutions as well: appeals to power invested in the people, working for the benefit of all, etc etc. It means nothing without being put into practice.
You think because they mention democratic centralism, that this makes them communist? My old company operated on Democratic Centralist principles, does that make Potbelly a secret Leninist front organization?
You want to know what this looks like to me? Social fascism. Strasserism. Vague appeals to socialist economic ideas, with a thoroughly nationalist tinge, devoid of any significant liberating social policies.
As you said, words mean nothing, action everything. Look at North Korea's actions, look at the reality. They provide welfare for their population, but the rest, the real meat and potatoes of socialism, is absent. That's not socialism, that's social democracy. DPRK is not on a course to abolish their state, to destroy the old hierarchical relationship between boss and worker, between controller and controlled, to destroy the old sexist relationships and way of life, and to extend the revolution elsewhere against capitalism.
