Re: US, ROK once again escalate hostility towards DPRK
- Just reading s book by James Bradley, The Imperial Cruise: A Secret Hidtory of Empire and War. Its a detail history of hoe Theodore Roosevelt give the green light to Japaneses seizure of Korea and his support to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War. It came back to bite them about 35 odd years later.
And in 1950 Communist-led unions here in Australia suxh as the Miner's Federation, Seamen's Union and the WWF attempted to block supplies getting to Korea. Sadly their membership rejected this.
But it is one thing to defend North Korea against imperialist attack its another thing to embrace its system. If that is what the majority of what people want (and its not) I have wasted 41 years of my life.
- Alan writes:
> 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.
>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.
> 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.