Comments on Theory in Paragraph Form
The Basarab theory of ideological evolution elaborates on the foundational precepts of a given society, the thought process of individuals and the relationship between the two. It explains how individuals can change and how the official institutions and government that control society can successfully stay in power despite much shaking “under the ground” and still hold onto slogans that were invented long ago. This theory systematically explains this phenomenon without any references to “human nature” and genetics, focusing instead on systemic factors (sociological and means of production), typical human thinking and potential human thinking! According to Basarab, people are capable of challenging the status quo but history has shown that ideologies that are no longer relevant tend to stay in existence due to the fact that people do not live up to their potential to change (due to societal factors, laziness, believing to have figured out the answer) and also due to the tangled sociological and economic relationships inherit to society. While technology may improve, people may relocate and demographics may change, many people create a way of thinking and then hold on to it, certain opinions are popular and certain opinions are understood to be the law.
Basarab also denies that revolutions are caused solely by horizontal movements in society’s thinking, but instead postulates that the type of thinking that leads to the revolution may have existed long before the conditions rose to the surface and gained a material advantage which, as opposed to popularity or “justice,” determines who rules. Fighting a revolution is like fighting a war with another country, the winner takes all. To Basarab, society has its dissidents, but the ruling group in society restricts the appearance of any substantial dissent and often systematically tries to keep it in the closet. A revolution then is mainly a dissident group achieving material advantage and the horizontal agreement of ideology is only important to the extent that it aids this material advantage. In short, while having the support of populist opinion makes ruling a society easier, unpopular regimes can still exist and hold onto power. As conditions change and philosophers think and communicate, the views of large segments of society can eventually change while the ideologies of the ruling class stay constant and this makes for tension (comment: the intersection between Basarab and Marx). In contemporary society, this is not rare.
The “popular opinions” of society may move a modest amount faster when the means of production change or a message is communicated and the slow changes eventually do add up and while the consensus of society can perhaps superficially appear to circle around, knowledge is only erased from people who have amnesia. This is important, society may be slow moving, but it is not “stopped.” Young people are influenced by the developments of the previous generation and continue the process and if they rebel, that is still not “backwards movement” but reactionary movement, still classified as “forwards.” A current slow pace of change, according to Basarab, explains the present but not ancient status of society and its agonizing apparent state of being stuck in liberal capitalism more than “the media” which is one environmental factor out of many, regulated by market forces and not a vacuum separate from society. Evolution can be devolution, depending on a person’s perspective. Individuals, perhaps in alienation to popular opinion, may change their opinions more but the perception of what is “normal” does not change as fast as the opinions of the most innovative people in society.
His theory leaves open the possibility that this could change if the will power existed to change it. If enough people are willing to self-criticize, then the cumulative pressures against the “normal opinions” would accumulate faster than otherwise which helps to gain a material advantage (but is insufficient on its own). Another important component of the theory is the breakdown of the idea that the media completely dictates society and alternative suggestions which instead relegates the media to “just being a business.” Basarab is a skeptic of the idea that the media is like a computer programmer who can just engineer any ideology into society easily and even believes such attempts to vertically engineer society out of touch with the material conditions typically leads to a backlash. This does not necessarily stop the media from trying, as Basarab realizes that the ruling class promotes ideologies through media, but he does not see this as an excuse for YOU to improperly develop YOUR OWN thinking! If you accept Basarab’s theory, then you have no excuse for not questioning authority and really engaging your thought process and can only blame yourself!
The key themes that appear in the theory are business forces, will power, the brainwashing of children, the bigotry of adults, the limitations of the media to change the opinions of adults without consent, the invention of ideologies around conditions and the transmission of ideology through communication based on the open-mindedness of the audience. This theory is not a “racial nationalist” theory. The implications of the theory imply that the environment is extremely important, perhaps genetics even play “second fiddle” to the environment (to quote “John Jones”) but they suggest as well that ideology is an invention. Basarab’s analysis would imply that the pace of ideological change is tied to the characteristics of the thinking of people and affected by the opportunistic desire to rise in society while also suggesting that the media cannot force someone to open their mind. His analysis allows that it is not necessary for adults to close their minds and thus suggests that people do have more potential to change society than they actually realize. However, his analysis also maintains that a change in popular opinion is not equal to a shift in power politics.
-Genetics do not directly determine ideology. They may influence attitude and temperament and therefore make certain ideologies likely, but ultimately they do not determine ideology. This theory does not deny that genetics exist, or that they are a material reality. What it does deny, however, is that ideology is “passed through” genetics, which Darwin never claimed such a thing himself.
-The Environment does not directly determine ideology either. Like genetics, it indirectly influences ideology. In the opinion of Basarab, for the purpose of determining ideology, the environment is more important than genetics. Marx himself never claimed that all people react to the environment in the exact same way.
-”Free will” does play a very substantial role but ideology is not created in vacuum. People invent their own ideologies based around their environments and this process may be modified by the temperaments and personality traits that genetics influence, but ideology is still “invented.” For example, one person may chose to react to losing a competition by training harder and another person may chose to give up. But if it was not for losing the competition, then neither would react. Whether or not they give up is probably not genetic. Exactly how they react cannot be predicted based on a mathematical model that calculates in the opinion of Basarab, not even in theory. This is the small amount of spiritualism that is in Basarab’s thinking – The power of the human will.
-It may sound elementary but just to state the obvious, ideology is transmitted and created both by language and introspective thinking.
Less Obvious Assumptions
-Most people close their minds progressively as they age. Obviously children learn in a different way than adults. People make important life choices and commit to them. This is not absolute like the laws of physics, but it is the tendency.
-People who are aware of this tendency may be able to mitigate it more successfully. Focus and will power are not irrelevant.
-If people do change their minds, especially but not exclusively in large numbers, changes in material conditions of daily life (the environment) are likely related to the change. I must cite this discussion and this article.
-Society moves at a slow pace, from point a to point b to point c, unless there are major changes in the material conditions. It does move, that is indisputable, but it is a tortoise rather than a hair. Individuals may move faster.
-When the material conditions of society cause society to change more rapidly, it does not move in a single direction. Different people respond to the same problems in different ways (in the same way that one basketball player may drive the lane, the other may shoot, the other may punch the ref). Most people, even under extreme conditions, do not change much but they will change more.
-Once people have reconciled their position in life with the new material conditions, the pace slows again. It never stops, but it goes back to being a tortoise.
-The thought process is provoked by the environment most of the time but not all the time. Some people do brainstorm. There are a minority of people who change their ideologies more than others.
-Slogans do not change society directly (they may indirectly have a domino effect). The environmental effect of slogans communicated by language are but one factor out of many other material conditions. Society is defined by actions and influenced by words. Saying “I’ll drive the truck there” does not actually carry the freight.
-A media source can only manipulate close minded people by using their own prejudices against them. The media’s ability to manipulate these people is limited to encouraging tendencies that already exist. Most people who have settled on a single piece of media have already closed their mind.
-The bottom line (literally) is that the media is not all-powerful. It has to observe the reactions of its usually slow-moving audience and cannot move too much faster than its target if it wants to maintain control. Also, the media cannot be viewed as a vacuum that is separate from the rest of the environment but must be viewed in business terms (like a construction company, programming company, retail store). It is one environmental factor out of many. The concise truth is that it matters as much as people make it matter. People who open their minds to a media source are doing it consensually and a magnet cannot be placed too far ahead of the metal it is attracting.
A Note on Revolutions
-Revolutions may make it appear that society changes quickly in a single cohesive direction, but really they are just the victory of forces that already existed beneath the surface in a struggle for power. Revolutions may be more comparable to the straw that broke the camel’s back.
-Examples of forces that already existed before revolutions: Class struggle existed before the Russian Revolution. Discontent with society existed before the French Revolution. Hatred of the British existed before America was created. The Torah existed before Zionism. Anti-semitism existed before Nazism (though Nazism was not a true revolution, Hitler took power legally).
-With money and resources, there are various routes that may be available for different groups to take power, but that does not mean the other groups disappear.
-Most people will not openly come forward with disagreements regarding the official ideology of society. Many disagreements, new and old, are masked by the desire to advance inside of society or avoid problems. This causes a “natural selection” (to make an analogy to Darwin) that makes it appear as if a single ideology dominates, as “recessive” ideologies get swept beneath the power structure. Money and power determine what is recessive and what is dominant.
-Revolutions do not succeed based on ideals alone. Several other environmental factors are relevant (which are beyond the scope of this post).
-When Pol pot was “officially deposed,” he still continued to rule unofficially everywhere but the capital for a decade. The fact that he was “officially deposed” did not matter, it was a slogan.
People’s minds continually invent explanations for their conditions and they consider the environment (which also includes written texts) when building but this process is very nuanced and steady. It may change paces but society as a whole does not move very quickly by my standards (perhaps even during revolutions). This is partially due to the fact that many people do not think outside of the box (just like most Americans are overweight), but also because those who do face market forces and societal pressures that makes them “recessive” until revolution.
-People who “return” to old ideologies do not “go backwards” they go around in a circle. Someone who changes their mind and then changes it to something that has a similar slogan is actually a much different thinker. Certainly when someone supports an idea, then moves away, then moves to something similar, they do not view the ideology the same the second time, no matter what slogans they chant.
-The media should not be seen as the center of society, but as a part of the environment that is affected by all the same business factors. Therefore you cannot make excuses generally about the media single-handedly destroying society and more specifically about Jews single-handedly destroying society.
-No movement is truly inevitable. Nazism was not inevitable. Like Lenin realized (by realizing that a vanguard party was necessary), Marx’s theories were not inevitable either. Zionism is not inevitable. The characteristics of the Jewish community are less important than the fact that Zionists were given the money they needed while nationalist assimilationist Jews were not given that money.
Archive for the ‘Political Theory’ Category
Ask a paleocon why America has given into imperialism or ask a neo-nazi why Hitler’s ideas did not work and all you hear are excuses. The Jews control this. The Jews control that.
However what I like more about Marxists is that if you ask why USSR fell, Stalinists will argue that the leadership after Stalin was revisionist. Trotskyists are not legitimately Marxists, but they too will blame leadership.
Blaming the leaders of society is so much more logical than using “The Jews” as an excuse. Chalk this up as another reason that “the left” is superior to “the right.”
A good point came up during Yesterday’s radio program.
Marxists may criticize Zionism and Jewish institutions, but the reason they are not anti-semites is that they see the Jewish Question as an applied example of a greater question of class warfare. From the eyes of a Marxist, Jews are not puppets who have controlled the world, but only people who have adapted to the material conditions that were handed to them (albeit, by allying with the Anglo-American bourgeoisie since 1948).
You may question this saying perhaps that the support for Black Civil rights was a proletariat cause and that many Jews supported the civil rights movement (but it would have happened without them). By 1960, the bourgeoisie had taken an anti-racist line because it realized that to promote racialist policies could cause non-whites to support the revolutionary class. By the time the civil rights movement happened, the idea of “liberating” Blacks was no longer a cause that only the working class movements supported.
I repeat this frequently because it has to be understood. True Marxists do not defend the behavior of reactionary Jews, but true Marxists also disagree with the interpretation of history that argues that Jews are more important than the class struggle and material conditions they live in.
The fact that some of the big organized Jews may act like they run the country does not mean they actually do. Every once and a while, Abraham Foxman gets a stroke of luck and the ruling class supports the same cause he does. Then he acts like the ADL is making the difference and the clowns on the message forums use it as “evidence.” I guess the fan waving the pom pom in the stadium caused the opposing team to win the championship.
The bottom line is that an ideology is nothing if it is not based on real world economics. The reason some of the ideas that Jews promote catch on is not because they are Jewish ideas but becasue they are popular ideas in relation to the conditions of the society that they are being dispensed into. Economics and pragmatic applications are everything and if you do not understand that you understand nothing.
I reached a huge milestone in my understanding of the world when I realized that issues of identity politics are simply used to advance material goals. This applies as much to liberal Americans who trumpet “freedom and demoracy” and use it to invade countries as it does to National Socialists and Zionists who hide behind identity politics as well in a more explicit fashion. It applied to Christopher Columbus when he invaded countries for “Christianity” but really wanted Gold (nod to Howard Zinn) and it applied to Muhammad as well who clearly invented the the Koran based on millennial outdated myths (the Torah and Gospels) to gain influence over the people of Mecca and Medina.
Historically, why was Slavery supported? To advance Southern agrarian economics!
Why was Slavery opposed? To support Yankee imperialist industrial economics!
Why did Hitler obsess over Jews? To create a false racial theory (“aryan” and “semite” are linguistic terms) so that he could explain the economic depression, send the Germans to war (military industrial complex) and take over Polish land and then argue that the Jews were responsible for the war because they were “controlling” (lol) America and Britain (Poland’s allies) and crashed the economy to begin with.
Why did Britain and America oppose Germany? Aside from self-defense (Pearl Harbor bombing, the proximity of Britain to Germany), the Americans and British wanted to advance capitalist imperialism in a way which was more eloquent than German Nazism. Pragmatically, this is why Israel became propped after 1948! A zig-zag by an opposing capitalist power to support Imperialism by using Jews as the useful idiots instead of using them as the scapegoat!
Why has the ruling class in America rejected racialism? First of all, labor (non-whites gained economic strength), but secondly the Cold War because the ruling class realized that if it did not drop its racialism, then non-whites would revoke their alliance to the bourgeois class and Marxism would appeal instead. Besides, there are a host of ideologies available that include non-Whites which could attract them if America continued to support racialist policies. Just as antisemitism caused Jews to side (temporarily) with the Soviets against the Tzar, racialism could cause non-Whites to abandon American politics. It’s interesting that as soon as Jews had an opportunity to join the bourgeois class, many of them abandoned proletarian politics and switched to Zionist-American politics! As scumbag “Prak Stal” wrote, “use the latter then kick it away” (I don’t plagiarize he only invents that).
Why is there mass immigration, outsourcing of jobs? Again, economics!
People who believe that “moral principles” guide racial policy are idiots. Internet “white race spokespeople” who speak of the “rights” of races to survive and liberals who speak of the “rights” of minorities are mistaken. Under capitalism nobody has any rights, but simply privileges which are granted based on both present and outdated material conditions but hidden behind bullshit ideology. The cold truth is that I will be more honest. Socialism does not believe the “bourgeiouse” has any rights! When you realize the sham of human rights activism, you realize that society is latent with racial double standards because of capitalism primarily, rather than Catholicism or organized Judaism (any resemblance is coincidential). “Human rights” are simply tools used to rally segments of population behind propaganda. The Media does not care about the truth when it under-reports Black Crime (I like thugs) and Judicial system does not see Black or White, it sees Green (dollar bill). “All men are created equal” did not always mean Black men but still emotionally this stirred many American revolutionaries against the British Imperialists. “Human rights” are a propaganda tool, whether used by American colonial Whites (but not Blacks) or used by a biased Media that makes stupid narratives around crime cases to make it appear as if “white supremacists” are frequently attacking Blacks when data shows otherwise.
Another comment. Have you ever seen Abraham Foxman’s salary? Norman Finkelstein (the most skilled writer on the Zionist question) explains the money politics behind victim whoring very well!
The people who I fought with on forums are idiotic morons who are living in a false world in which identity politics are legitimate instead of covers for material politics. They believe “The Jews” and Nazis actually were/are sincere in their identity politics and not simply using them to exploit the stupid. Hell, even Jim Giles made fun of the “white money movement” (note that Hunter Wallace is no longer part of it).
I stumbled upon an older post.
It’s a good reflection. This is at the point where I rejected “mainstream politics” (for some reason I thought Chaim Ben Pesach was mainstream) and supported what I called “Third Positionism.”
But knowing what I know now, it’s not “Third Positionism,” it’s become full blown Marxism.
“In many political movements, there is a debate between extremists and gradualists. The same debate occurred with the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks within Marxist circles for example. The strategy being advocated here is an attempt to infiltrate the system. I personally disagree, the system should not be infiltrated, it should be crushed, and I personally do not believe in gradualism. It’s not enough to support conservatives over liberals. Conservatism is liberalism in the greater scheme of things, and the debate between the two sides is internal to American politics. Compared to the Taliban, the Nazis, the Communists, the Fascists, the Monarchists, The Feudalists, The Ba’athists, etc, the Republicans are basically liberals too. In my opinion, an entire third positionist constitution should be supported, and the entire system of government should be rejected. Race realism should be part of any intelligent government (but I do not label myself “white nationalist” because my understanding of race is more influenced by Coon and Dienekes than by Taylor and Duke). But to work within the system is to submit to the system. In my opinion, a solution has to come outside the system.
However I wish you luck with your approach, it’s just not my approach. Conservatives think the greatest virtue is to wave an American flag and everything would be fine if people from every race were doing that. I deny this, arguing that the very American flag that conservatives wave is responsible for the liberal imperialism that is destroying ethnic nationalism. I realize my views are controversial, but I do not believe in gradualism, so they are supposed to be!
-Metal Gear – 9/20/2008
I wanted to elaborate on what I consider to be gangster bolshevik principles:
8-1 ) support for your clique and allied cliques instead of the entire “movement,” society, nation, race etc.
8-2 ) Regionalism. Support for the local area, but not bourgeois nationalism. “Progressive nationalism” is an acceptable viewpoint.
8-3 ) Support for a class struggle.
8-4 ) Not an open advocacy of violence, but a quiet admiration of people who are in jail.
8-5 ) Gangster Bolsheviks take a termite view towards society.
8-6 ) Disrespect for authority when you aren’t on the same page as the authority.
8-7 ) Study of both Fascist and Marxist thinkers. Preference for a Socialist revolution, then after that, a mob like authoritarian rule.
8-8 ) The capitalist state never “withers away” it is replaced. Lenin was correct on this.
8-9 ) The socialist state will not “wither away” either. It will simply complete the class struggle and either be reformed or replaced.
8-10 ) The state is only opposed as a tool of a class oppression. Gangster bolsehvism is not anarchism.
8-11 ) Gangster Bolsheviks tend to admire Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-Sung. They tend to dislike Trotsky.
8-12 ) “Work the system” mentality. Get the cash. (Most Gangster Bolsheviks consider Bernie Madoff a hero).
8-13 ) Opposition to placing all the blame on “The Jews.” Instead capitalism and class conflict are used to explain phenomenons such as changes in modes of production, job loss / gain, massive immigration, imperialistic wars, globalization. Jews themselves are seen as being divided by class interests.
8-14 ) “Opiate of the people” view towards religion.
8-15 ) Support for ethical codes that make sense. Don’t believe in religious morality.
8-16 ) Gangster Bolsheviks may take a pragmatic view and work with religious groups to drive out imperial forces.
8-17 ) “The clique” may forge alliances with other race and nations against the bourgeois class.
8-18 ) None of this “we are all the same” stuff. A clique may contain different types of people in the same clique, but we are not “all the same.” In fact gangster bolsheviks reject political correctness completely.
8-19 ) Gangster Bolsehviks see extreme music (heavy metal, gangster rap) as being “socialist realism.” It is approved media.
Thoughts: What makes gangster bolshevism particularly dangerous is that it sounds like it is just a joke. Especially when people who advocate it appear to be fairly intelligent and successful. But it is more than a political view, it is an attitude.
Above is a good debate on city data forum about the recession-influenced economic environment, lowball job offers and the interests of employers and employees. You can see comments that indicate class struggle.
The problem with this is that it will hurt the employers in the long run and either they don’t realize this, or they do but only care about short term savings.
You can lowball a candidate, and they might accept it for financial reasons, but it can almost be guaranteed, that once they find a new position or the market gets better, they will leave for a better opportunity. Why spend the time and money to bring someone on and train them, just for them to leave in less than a year? Most people don’t come up to speed until 3-6 months later. And once they leave, more time and money is spent on recruiting and hiring again. This might be fine if you were hiring entry level anyway and don’t expect people to stay long, but if your hiring experienced people, especially for senior or experienced roles, and try to lowball them with entry level pay, then personally, it will hurt the employer more than anyone else.
My friend’s company did that a few times and it has already backfired. For one position, they were hiring an experienced financial analyst. After about 3 months of interviews, they finally found someone who everyone liked and thought would be a perfect fit. When they made her an offer, they lowballed her with the salary – $5K less than her old job, and well below what they originated budgeted for. The hiring manager said she was not working so tried to take advantage of it. She wound up turning down the offer and accepted another position that paid her the same as her previous salary. So they lost out on a candidate everyone liked to save on a few thousand dollars that they had a budget for anyway – and had to start new interviews all over again.
Yes, its happening all over the US, and like the others have stated, the employers that are taking advantage of the employees at this time, will hurt. Employees will leave, or demand higher pay. Within a year the $15 hour jobs will be $20, and those that took them will either get that raise, or leave, and when they leave, their replacement will want that amount, plus the employer will lose the time that has been invested in the previous employee, as well as the time it took to interview. I know it sucks right now, I wouldn’t look at a job offer below $20 per hour a year ago, now, there’s hardly any out there. I go to an interview and talk with other candidates in the lobby that are applying for jobs at $40k per year, when last year they were making $70 and $80k. When the jobs open up, and they will, those higher dollar people will disappear, leaving a big gap in the workforce. Employers are going to want people to come and work for them and expect loyalty and trust when we as the workers of America, remember the way we are being treated right now. This recession has brought out the true colors of a lot of business people which won’t be soon forgotten.
Do you think though that this economy of crap will bring down overall wages across the board? If people are willing to work for peanuts just to put food on the table, it will make a lot of jobs that once paid well just above minimum wage.
Its seem the salaries of the early eighties has come to the years of 2000+…who would of guess it ….just above minimum wage ….low ball wages.
I know that I have actually seen some wages advertised that would be lower than my unemployment check after taxes. I want to work, but do not want to work for less than my unemployment check. (Comment by metal gear : Now the conservatards can blame unemployment benefits)
employers taking advantage i understand, american innate hatred of unions that i dont get. do people that post on this on CDF think the government the law and HR are going to protect and defend them?
The problem with this is that it will hurt the employers in the long run and either they don’t realize this, or they do but only care about short term savings.
I think that is true of many large US companies. The only thing that seems to matter is the next quarter…
An upper manager in a major US corporation that I once worked for advised me that employees are not assets; they are expeditures. (He was not being cruel here, just trying to warn me of future events.)
Changed my whole outlook.
Yes. The jobs that are gone aren’t coming back and salaries will drop as a result.
Companies have done everything they can to make sure everyone (cept the CEO) is expendable.
The article included is very well written. I agree with every single point and it would be pointless to comment much because I essentially would repeat the article. The author brought up many points that are important but often overlooked and tied them together.
Originally posted in the North American Juche-Songun Ideas Study Group
- There is much ignorance among Americans of where Juche is situated on the political spectrum, even amongst Communists very few understand the Juche positions on various important matters such as the role of Stalin, the Sino-Soviet split, post-1976 China, anti-imperialism in the Third World etc….and so this article will try to address the subject of Juche’s position within the international communist movement in brief.
- The Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung began his political career first and foremost as a Marxist-Leninist, he studied, admired and followed the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Stalin as the sole way for oppressed peoples to achieve liberation. Juche was created originally as a Korean application of ML to their own conditions much as Maoism began as an application of ML to China. Looking at the period pre-death of Stalin in 1953, Juche and Maoism were nearly identical, not a shock as China and Korea were both backward, feudal, colonial societies, in that both shared the concept of a transition state before socialism (new/national democracy) the innovation of a revolutionary peasantry, the necessity of people’s war to achieve revolution, the need for patriotism and defence of national integrity, self-reliance in the struggle and not depending on foreign parties or nations, and upholding the USSR as the first and leading socialist nation under Comrade Stalin.
- After the passing of Comrade Stalin and the rise to power of the revisionist clique, Kim Il Sung and the DPRK stood with China and all other anti-revisionist forces in opposing Khruschov’s betrayal of socialism, his abandonment of proletarian dictatorship, his peaceful-coexistence nonsense rejection of class war, and his attempts to dominate and lord over other socialist nations.To this day the DPRK preserves the great memory of Joseph Stalin and considers the fall of the USSR to be a result of revisionism.
- However, beginning circa 1966, China and Korea began to diverge widely. Although both nations opposed the USSR as a revisionist nation, the Juche belief that each nation’s party has final say over their own nation’s matters led the Koreans to consider that the ultimate responsibly of defeating Russian revisionism rested solely upon the shoes of the Russian people alone. For geopolitical reasons Korea needed to remain allied to Russia to oppose the still menacing US imperialists who occupied the southern half of their nation; Korea’s line can be summed up then as opposition to Soviet revisionism domestically but support for the USSR internationally against imperialism. Mao and China took a different view, viewing the USSR as an enemy nation equal to the US and hence began to have strike with the Koreans who had remained Russian allies. Looking back on all this, one can clearly see that the Korean line was correct. While the revisionists did sell out their country ultimately to imperialism, from the point of view of class struggle the primary contradiction always was between the proletariat and capitalism with the US as the main capitalist power; any contradiction with the USSR was then secondary to the global anti-US struggle. Mao’s line of equal opposition to the US and Russia isolated him at first and led to his eventual reconciliation with US imperialism in the 1970s and his support for imperialist puppets who murdered communists in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.
- Furthermore, Kim Il Sung opposed China’s Cultural Revolution. While the Koreans do in fact accept Mao’s premise that a bourgeoisie can arise within a revolutionary Party holding state power, and hence the necessity of a strong ideological mass-movement to counter it as well as enforcing that the Party cadre are never isolated from the people and are made to work with them, Korea was not in a position (due to the ever present threat of the resumption of the Korean War by the US) to throw itself into mass internal upheaval the way China did and it viewed the Chinese effort as premature due to the need to build a united society for defence against imperialist invasions. In this, Kim Il Sung’s line was akin to those of Liu Shaoqi or Peng Dehui in China. The Koreans viewed some of the actions of the Chinese Red Guards as veering towards ultra-leftism and anarchism because of the lack of Party-led discipline in China at this time; in turn some Chinese began attacking the DPRK and calling for its’ overthrow. Relations were quite bad between China and Korea for a couple of years in the late 60s but ultimately cooler heads in China, led by Mao to his credit, suppressed the extremists and relations were friendly once again and remained so throughout the final period of Mao’s life.
- With the mutual opposition to both rightist Soviet revisionism and leftist Maoism, Juche can thus be seen as a centrist ideology much as Stalin was also a centrist between Trotsky and Bukharin. During the 60s and 70s Kim Il Sung began promoting Juche as the correct ideology for revolution, as it was based on national self-reliance a Juche nation would not become entrapped by social imperialism nor would it abandon the global anti-imperialist fight. As only the people of a nation can determine what the revolutionary idea will be for that nation, Juche Korea never attempted to dictate to others in the manner that Russia and China did, and Korea thus built great relations with nationalist-socialist leaders such as Nasser in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Ba’ath party in Syria and Iraq, and the Islamic revolution led by Imam Khomeini in Iran, seeing all these forces as the genuine expression of the people’s revolutionary will.
- Now to discuss post-Mao China and the emergence of Dengist “market socialism”, the Koreans oppose Dengism in their country and refuse to “open up”, but as with everything else see Dengism as a matter for the Chinese communist party to resolve and continue to have good friendly relations with China. In several official publications, the DPRK has referred to China as revisionist and would obviously prefer that China returns to the socialist path, however they are understanding of the fact that Dengism arose due to the low level of productive forces within China and the need for development. China need not have adopted markets, had it gone on the self-reliant way or improved relations with the USSR, but again that is a matter for the Chinese people to deal with by themselves.
- As Juche-idea followers, it is our duty to support all nations that are truly independent of imperialism, are contra-USA, and are ruled by a government that reflects the national culture and tradition as well as the people’s wishes.
A magazine called The Economist is talking about “setting Syria free.” Spreading “freedom” means spreading capitalism. HAIL THE HEROIC BA’ATHISTS! Hail Saddam Hussein and hail Bashar al-Assad. Long live Secular Authoritarian role. Death to liberalism and a slower death to Islamic Fundamentalism!
Hail the Ba’athists (they have much in common with Stalinists)!
Failing to acknowledge the holocaust as a source of class conflict, even if the antagonisms became misdirected towards the land of Palestine, is categorically unmarxist. If one denies the holocaust, nine times out of ten the goal is to claim that Jews are “making it up.” Not only is a source of class struggle suppressed (Jews were powerless during the event, even if they had wealth five years earlier), but a scapegoat is created. Jews then become blamed for something (and probably included into a bigger package, blamed for everything) instead of history unmasked.
Likewise, like Fidel Castro, it is necessary for the greater working class to realize this if the working class wants to maximize its ability to debate the ruling class. If you deny the holocaust, or apologize for the nazis, you aid the Israelis because any reasonable listener will (reasonably) assume that you have a Jewish fetish and that your opposition to Israel has no merit. But if you acknowledge the holocaust and then oppose Israel in theoretical terms, realizing the justified emotions involved by the survivors and sons/daughters of survivors, you clear yourself of that baggage and get the chance to debate against Israel instead of against Jews.
For the record, I do not believe Ahmadinejad intended to really deny the holocaust. I believe he was calling attention to the issue of Israel and Palestine and simply asking questions. But reactionaries, particularly “neo-nazis,” frequently do deny the holocaust outright in a manner much different from Ahmadinejad. They are of no use to us and should be condemned. While I do not believe Ahmadinejad falls into this category, I do believe Castro was correct to bring this issue to Ahmadinejad’s attention (Castro “called him out.”)