Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12073Re: DSP prettifies the feudal monarchy of North Korea

Expand Messages
  • chriskerris
    Dec 26, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob seemed to have missed a few points in my last post. He seems to
      have dropped the slander that the article Iggy wrote was a political
      task in order to win favour from NK or some pro-NK groups and is
      pushing a more expected the "DSP is stalinist" line.

      BG implies that the DSP wouldn't support any attempt by the NK
      working class to overthrow the leadership although doesn't present
      any evidence from anyones writings in the DSP to support this so I
      don't think this is a serious argument and won't bother replying to
      it until Colombo does produce some evidence that pins the suspects
      to the alleged crime.

      The comparison of NK to Cuba was to only demonstrate the logic of
      BG. BG gives no socio-economic evidence that NK is a fuedal
      monarchy, the fact that absolute power passed from father to son is
      enough for him. The point of the comparison was meant to push gould
      for more evidence not to differentiate between the two regimes which
      are obviously worlds apart.

      The Korean war was a civil war between two different economic
      systems. I am not sure exactly what issues Bob wants to argue here.
      Surely He doesn't argue it was an invasion of one nation by another -
      the Korean nation had a history of 5000 years and that certainly
      didn't change because Washington and Moscow declared an imaginary
      line at the 38th parallel. Or in the words of Warren Austin, the
      chief US delegate to the UN: "The artificial barrier which has
      divided North and South Korea has no basis for existence either in
      law or in reason. Neither the United Nations, its commision on Korea
      or the Republic of Korea (SK) recognise sucha a line. Now the North
      Koreans, by way of the armed attacks on South Korea, have denied the
      existence of such a line." It was only a matter of time before
      either part of the Korean nation declared war to reunify the country
      on thier own terms.

      The Korean war didn't begin on June 25 1950. In fact, reports by
      North Korea, South Korea and the US intelligence speaks of constant
      large battles happening continuously with each country crossing the
      38P on a very regular basis.

      Now instead of seriously debating the issue of whether or not it was
      an unprovoked major surprise invasion by the North on J25/1950 BG
      just throws around the label "stalinist" which means he no longer
      has to use facts because the other person is an apoligist for
      stalinism. Nevertheless, I shall try and throw a few ideas that
      challenge his view.

      For example, when NK finally began to sweep SK it did so with
      approximately 38 000 troops while SK had over 50 000 stationed
      between the border and Seoul. If NK had waited a few more months it
      would have had 5 full divisions of highly trained soldiers returning
      from the civil war in China, who were experienced and battle
      hardened. This woyuld have taken the NK army to 90 000 troops.

      Also was it only NK that argued SK attacked first. Indeed, even
      reports by the *South Korean military* came in saying that they had
      captured the NK city of Haeju on early morning June 26, very
      stragetically important for the SK government because this was the
      head quarters for the command of the Guerilla war in South Korea
      against the government as well as the South Korean Workers Party
      which was coordinating the workers movement against the US in SK.
      Haeju was also directly linked by highway and rail to Pyongyang
      which was only about 100 km away. Now this implies either one of two
      things. Either SK did launch a direct invasion of NK first OR it was
      dishonest in its reporting of the situation. However, independent
      confirmations of the capture of Haeju were made by both the London
      Daily Herald and the Guardian. SK went on to deny this ever happened
      later on.

      Either way, it was very obvious that both leaderships were itching
      to invade fully and were only waiting for the other side to make an
      error to give them an excuse to do so.

      What also is clear from historical evidence is the increased
      popularity of the idea of a Northern 'invasion' by SK
      revolutionaries. They never once viewed it a situation of two
      nations but where one part of the nation had achieved some degree of
      liberation ( BG i hope doesn't deny this ) while the southern half
      of the nation had the democratic committees and trade unions
      smashed, had to use guerilla warfare against the government and were
      slowly losing control of the situation.

      Was it a tactical error to try and reunify the nation in such a
      way - I would say history would answer in the affirmative on that
      one although its a rather pointless discussion to try and work out
      what would have been the 'correct' method. However, what i think is
      more significant is the internal conditions this created in the NK
      government. Before the counter-revolution gained steam in South
      Korea, the idea of keeping seperate commands for the revolution in
      each half of the country was much stronger. As the Northern regime
      consolidated and the Southern revolutionaries became more and more
      repressed, the popularity of uniting the two came together. As US
      pressure became more intense on North Korea, maximum unity became a
      necessity in the eyes of most of the revolutionaries and thus it was
      decided to not seperate the trade unions from the parties. As War
      became more and more the only possible solution to the outcome, the
      military leaders position was strengthened (Kim Il Sung). As the
      country was ripped apart by war, KIS was able to eliminate his
      opponents especially when you take into account the annihilation of
      the most advanced layers of the working class in botj NK/SK because
      of the war plus the need for a more centralised command structure in
      such a hostile situation(its pretty hard to hold mass assrmblies
      when the participants would probably be covered in napalm for
      example or soviets/community democratic committees if the
      factories/cities/villages are all destroyed and when people must
      take shelter in caves and tunnels in order not to be killed.

      Thus Bob, to understand *why* shit smells so bad doesn't negate the
      fact that it does - to recognise that the majority of pedophiles
      were raped themselves as children doesn't justify the crimes they
      have committed or make the investigator an apoligist for them and in
      the same spirit I would argue to put the evolution of the NK regime
      in its correct historical context does not have to be an apology for
      the regime.
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic