> Adam would prefer SA to adopt HIS position on the DPRK. He wouldn't want SA to adopt a different position. Since the former isn't going to happen, surely no position would be better from Adam's view? He still gets to say what he thinks, and his opponents don't have the benefits of a privileged position.
I admit a situation inside SA where the RET can put forward it's position on the DPRK is amenable to us. On the other hand, it's yet another issue where SA has no position. SA specialises in having no position on many issues, partly as a result of trying to maintain the coalition. Yet some SA members even seem to be gleeful about not having a position on things. Agnosticism is strong within SA currently, but I can't imagine what agnosticism has to do with scientific socialism.
> Adam's position itself, by the way, has a distinct whiff of Stalinist apologetics about it. It's emphatically NOT the position of the old DSP, which never forgot its Trotskyist roots in assessing such states.
The old DSP may not have had the RET's position on the DPRK. But the old DSP certainly recognised "Stalinophobia" - a hatred and fear of Stalinism which is so intense that it totally distorts political judgements. The old DSP was not Stalinophobic, but now SA has developed Stalinophobia as a by product of the influence of liberalism within SA. Liberal elements within SA can only see the "lack of democracy" within the DPRK, and so are repelled by it. This liberalism means they cannot see other elements of the DPRK's achievements, such as holding out against the US for 60 years, despite a blockade arguably harsher than that against Cuba, building a collective, largely state owned economy in half a country with barely any assistance from outside.