You nerds trying to rehab this social imperialist need to read what he actually says. He's a chauvinist of the highest degree. Keep in mind NJR lives in a country that is at war currently with DPRK, has killed millions of Koreans & is an imperialist superpower.

Myers says that the DPRK’s governing ideology has been misunderstood by the United States. We think of it as “authoritarian communist,” thanks to its all-powerful state and various Stalinist trappings. But Myers says this is misleading: The regime is closer in character to fascism, because of its racism and nationalism (Stalinists have many unappealing qualities, but they do not build their ideology around race and nation). The communist elements, Myers says, are window dressing. Even Kim Il-Sung himself knew little about Marxism, and he dismayed the Russians when they quizzed him on it. And strictly speaking, the regime operates as a monarchy. Myers says that “socialism” is not the right term, because it doesn’t describe the self-image we see in the state’s propaganda, which heavily emphasizes the purity of North Koreans and their need for a protective parent-leader. Demick acknowledges that Kim Il-Sung “rejected traditional Communist teachings about universalism” and “was a Korean nationalist in the extreme” who treated Koreans almost as a “chosen people.”

For example, personally, I find Myers’ explanation appealing. If I’m being honest, though, that’s probably partly because it lumps Kim Jong Un in with right-wing fascists, and distances him from the left. I’ve always felt that “socialists” have no more responsibility for dictatorships that call themselves socialist than democratic republicans have for, well, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Since I oppose dictatorships universally, pointing out that there have been “leftist” dictatorships poses no actual challenge to my politics. Instinctively, though, I confess that I’d feel relieved if Kim Jong Un was lumped in with the right rather than the left.

He is quoting Brian Reynolds Meyers and agreeing with him on the DPRK, even after admitting to knowing basically nothing about the country earlier in the article. Thousands of social imperialist nerds are reading this and nodding along, cementing their ridiculous chauvinist worldviews and failing their revolutionary duties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reynolds_Myers

Brian Reynolds Myers (born 1963), usually cited as B. R. Myers, is an American professor of international studies at Dongseo University in Busan, South Korea, best known for his writings on North Korean propaganda. He is a contributing editor for The Atlantic and an opinion columnist for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Myers is the author of Han Sǒrya and North Korean Literature (Cornell, 1994), A Reader's Manifesto (Melville House, 2002), The Cleanest Race (Melville House, 2010), and North Korea's Juche Myth (Sthele Press, 2015).

Myers was born in New Jersey, near Fort Dix. His mother is British, and his father was a U.S. Army officer from Pennsylvania who served in South Korea as a military chaplain, often helping out local orphans.

Myers spent his childhood in Bermuda and his high school youth in apartheid-era South Africa, and received graduate education in West Berlin during the early 1980s, occasionally visiting East Germany. He earned an MA degree in Soviet studies at Ruhr University (1989) and a PhD degree in Korean studies with a focus on North Korean literature at the University of Tübingen (1992). Myers subsequently taught German in Japan and worked for a Mercedes-Benz liaison office in Beijing during the mid-1990s.

This guy is a Liberal. Stop trying to make NJR cool, he's never going to be cool

  • Kaplya
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Read this lol: How to be a socialist without being an apologist for the atrocities of communist regimes: Opposing economic exploitation doesn’t mean supporting authoritarianism…

    When anyone points me to the Soviet Union or Castro’s Cuba and says “Well, there’s your socialism,” my answer isn’t “well, they didn’t try hard enough.” It’s that these regimes bear absolutely no relationship to the principle for which I am fighting. They weren’t egalitarian in any sense; they were dictatorships. Thus to say “Well, look what a disaster an egalitarian society is” is to mistake the nature of the Soviet Union. The history of these states shows what is wrong with authoritarian societies, in which people are not equal, and shows the fallacy of thinking you can achieve egalitarian ends through authoritarian means. This is precisely what George Orwell was trying to demonstrate, though almost everybody seems to have missed his point. Orwell was a committed socialist, but he knew that socialism was about giving workers ownership over the means of production, which they don’t have if they’re being told what to produce at gunpoint. Animal Farm is not about the dangers of socialism, it’s about the dangers of using revolutions to justify totalitarianism.

    The history of the Soviet Union doesn’t really tell us much about “communism,” if communism is a stateless society where people share everything equally: it was a society dominated by the state, in which power was distributed according to a strict hierarchy. When Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman visited the Soviet Union, they were horrified by the scale of the repression. “Liberty is a luxury not to be permitted at the present stage of development,” Lenin told them. Goldman concluded that “it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic.” (Her pamphlet “There Is No Communism In Russia” argues that if the Soviet Union was to be called communist, the word must have no meaning.) Bertrand Russell visited Lenin and was alarmed by his indifference to human freedom. Russell left disillusioned, “not as to Communism in itself, but as to the wisdom of holding a creed so firmly that for its sake men are willing to inflict widespread misery.” Lenin himself acknowledged that he was implementing a form of “state capitalism.”

    The primary lesson here is not about “egalitarianism” or “socialism” or even “communism” since Castro, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin did not actually attempt to implement any of those ideas. Instead, the lesson is about what happens when you have a political ideology that contains a built-in justification for any amount of horrific violence. The bad part of Marxism is not the part that says workers should cease to be exploited, but the part about the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The dominant “communist” tendencies of the 20th century aimed to liberate people, but they offered no actual ethical limits on what you could do in the name of “liberation.” That doesn’t mean liberation is bad, it means ethics are indispensable and that the Marxist disdain for “moralizing” is scary and ominous.

    • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
      ·
      10 months ago

      Wait, hold up. The USSR is one thing, but this little shit can't even bring himself to support Cuba? That's like the bare minimum, holy fuck.

    • zed_proclaimer [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Damn

      It’s amazing how somehow the Chapos are the best people in the Chapo extended universe. They pass a very low bar of not saying shit like this (at least themselves, sometimes they let libshit guests say some dumbass stuff. Especially Taibbi)

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      What we do know of Stalin's purges is that many victims were Communist party officials, managers, military officers, and other strategically situated individuals whom the dictator saw fit to incarcerate or liquidate. In addition, whole catagories of people whom Stalin considered of unreliable loyalty—Cossacks, Crimean Tarters, and ethnic Germans—were selected for internal deportation...

      To be sure, crimes of state were committed in communist countries and many political prisoners were unjustly interned and even murdered.

      Yeah, look at this clown repeating State Department criticisms of the USSR!

      Robinson doesn't have the best take here (it's basically an anarchist take, which makes sense given how often he quotes from anarchists), but even the strongest supporters of Stalin and the USSR agree there should be "ethical limits on what you could do in the name of liberation."

      • Kaplya
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        There are legitimate criticisms of Stalin and the USSR, but the way Mr. Robinson wrote the essay I can assure you that he was referring to the typical Western propaganda against totalitarianism under the Soviet rule.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
          ·
          10 months ago

          Robinson doesn't have the best take here (it's basically an anarchist take, which makes sense given how often he quotes from anarchists)

          I don't think he has good positions on AES states, either. But his big issue (excess, unjustified state violence) is shared by many we consider unimpeachable supporters of AES states, and also many anarchists, and also many people who are interested in socialism but haven't read everything we have. If we write off all these people we will be left with a miniscule circle of True Leftists who will accomplish nothing.

          The approach with people who call themselves leftists and on most topics are to the left of the vast majority of the U.S. population is to engage with them on points of disagreement, not attack them and say they're basically fascists.

          • voight [he/him, any]
            ·
            10 months ago

            But his big issue (excess, unjustified state violence) is shared by many we consider unimpeachable supporters of AES states, and also many anarchists

            You really can't get over guillotine and wall jokes, can you?

    • reverendz [comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The quotes listed here sound 100% like the kinds of statements from Western Marxism that are evisercated in this article. Very good read which nails the "no country has done REAL socialism/communism" critique common among the western left.

      https://socialistchina.org/2023/10/13/china-and-the-purity-fetish-of-western-marxism/

      I gotta get the book the article is based on.

      The unquestioned, purity fetish grounded, and Sinophobic assumption of Chinese ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘lack of democracy’ also prevents the Western Marxist from learning how the Chinese socialist civilization has been able to creatively embed its socialist democracy in “seven integrated structures or institutional forms (体制tizhi): electoral democracy; consultative democracy; grassroots democracy; minority nationalities policy; rule of law; human rights; and leadership of the Communist Party.”[4] It has withheld them from seeing how a comprehensive study of this whole-process people’s democracy would lead any unbiased researcher to the conclusion Roland Boer has arrived at: namely, that “China’s socialist democratic system is already quite mature and superior to any other democratic system.” This is a position echoed by John Ross (and many other scholars of China), who argues that the “real situation shows that China’s framework and delivery on human rights and democracy is far superior to the West’s.”