I live in the UK and nearly every older Communist you meet is a Trot and all the protests that I've been to that have had communists at them were mostly Trot orgs but online everyone just seems to shit on them for no clear reason. Am I missing something? Or is it just regular leftist infighting
The long storied history of Trotskyists making shit up is alive and well.
No ML opposes this statement. The type of shit MLs oppose is:
Also, I don't love Trotskyists taking US-aligned intelligence reports as fact:
I think that the working class of Korea should have full control of their economy and society and I do think the leadership in the DPRK as it stands has an interest in repressing this process. You can “defend” the state against imperialism by signaling your support online or whatever, but the health of the workers’ state, the involvement of the masses in the revolutionary tasks, is going to be the outcome determinative factor whether or not you want to acknowledge it.
I said nothing about "defending" the DPRK lol
Trotskyists routinely and uncritically push far-right and imperialist lines on US-enemy states because they are desperate for their own political line to be validated.
In the case of IMT's articles on the DPRK, they quote at-length unnamed sources from a far-right news publication with known connections to the US. The same news publication which has published hits such as "Kim Jong-Un Executes Wife for Doing Porn" and "North Korean Diplomat Executed on a Whim by Kim Jong-Un", both obviously false.
The history of Trotskyism is a history of taking L's because they refuse to study and learn from revolutionary struggle. They just want to rehash 1924 until we all burn to death.
Edit: Also, claiming the DPRK developed nukes to protect itself from their workers is deranged. The US military is stationed on their southern border. There is a better explanation lmao
And the DPRK is such a transparent, shining beacon of light for the workers of the world that there is no shortage of reliable information on the conditions and consciousness of the working class there.
You distilled Trotskyism perfectly right here: "we only trust the far-right and imperialists when it comes to the DPRK."
I actually said that “ the DPRK is such a transparent, shining beacon of light for the workers of the world that there is no shortage of reliable information on the conditions and consciousness of the working class there.”
By that I meant, sarcastically, that the DPRK has conditions for its workers that are less-than-exemplary and therefore it can’t hold itself out as an alternative to the status quo for the workers of the region. Same reason why China can’t hold itself out as an alternative to the workers of Hong Kong.
It doesn’t mean I support US imperialism in Hong Kong, or in Korea, but it’s not me who is failing the working class there, and the quality of that working class leadership, whose deficiencies you defend, will be what makes or breaks the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.
You are talking around the fact that every single Trotskyist publication relies heavily on myth-making from the far-right and imperialists. There are definitely valid criticisms of the DPRK. They are just never provided by Trotskyists because their understanding of the country comes from South Korean tabloids.
And I have not said one word defending the DPRK thus far. What would I be defending them from?
If you want to claim that Kim Jong-Un sent secret service members to crush a popular uprising in 2017, and use that Chosun Ilbo article as proof (as IMT did), I would defend the DPRK from that obvious imperialist lie.
Since you really want to see a defense of the DPRK, here's one: the Workers Party of Korea and the Chinese Communist Party have done more for their working people than any Trotskyist party in history. No Trotskyist is interested in learning from that history.
Post your group’s publication and we can all compare.
Here's a good sample of the content PSL puts out [1] [2] which is the American political party my politics best align with.
The first is an analysis covering the context for the Trump-DPRK negotiations.
The second is a member's first-hand accounts from their visit to the DPRK.
The concern about DPRK state media is valid. If we are skeptical of all the coverage surrounding the DPRK, we should not be speculating on their day-to-day internal politics. I haven't listened to the first-hand account yet, but the analysis only references the indisputable facts - the state of negotiations and major historical events. So, I don't think it will be particularly controversial.
I would much rather take this approach to relationships with decolonized nations. There is no clear opposition in the DPRK that better represents the Korean people, so I should not impose my will on them. Western chauvinism needs to die.
There is this myth that socialist countries are extraordinarily repressive & no opposition exists. That is simply not true. In the 1980's, when there was mass discontent with the Soviet government, the existence of an opposition was incredibly obvious and well known to the USA. We heard about it all the time. If there was a mass popular movement against the DPRK, we would likely see more indisputable proof of it.
deleted by creator
Let's be specific, 300,000 people have emigrated from the DPRK since 1953 [1]. For context, 300,000 Germans left Germany last year [2]
Emigration from the DPRK is not some mass political project.
Again, let's be specific. The largest incident of emigration from the DPRK happened in 1998, during the Arduous March. Northern Korea is mountainous, has little irrigable land, and is prone to drought. This produces the conditions for crop-failure. When this happened before the fall of the USSR, the DPRK bought their excess grain. After the fall of the USSR, the DPRK was sanctioned by the UN and no country would trade with them.
The Arduous March was the first crop-failure under these circumstances. It led to mass famine and death. The two options for the DPRK were:
Neither option was particularly good. Saying that Koreans felt "poorly represented" in response to this is insane. The Korean people were under military siege, and a few fled.
Also, neoclassical economics is completely divorced from reality. The fact that "people respond to bad things by criticizing or leaving" is taken as a serious innovation is an embarrassment for bourgeois social sciences.
deleted by creator
The fact you responded in one minute makes me think you did not put much effort into thinking here.
Do you have a better source for emigration numbers from the DPRK? I cited a very anti-DPRK source. If you don't know how many people are leaving the DPRK, then your "voice and exit" theory isn't useful.
I did not say that. I said the largest incident of emigrations was in 1998. You don't need to lie to me about what I'm saying.
deleted by creator
I’m also not going to watch that video, given the group is not yours and you’ve also not watched the video, but the article you posted lays out a position based on the “right” to “normalized relations” with the imperialist powers, which 1) is laughable and 2) is not a Marxist perspective.
I particularly enjoyed this very serious take: “Cuba’s strength and its steadfastness, coupled with a supple but firm diplomatic perspective (lol), changed the relationship of forces and succeeded in forcing the United States to begin the process of diplomatic and economic normalization.” Again an example of just wholesale abandoning anything resembling a Marxist analysis through some handwaving about “changing the relationship of forces” that is never actually explained because it cannot be explained.
And finally, you embody my OP: radicalized on the internet without real life political activity. You’re like the 8th M-L on this website who has given me some variation of “the PSL sounds good” while having zero actual connection to the organization.
I'd like to frame this response in the context of our conversation. My problem with Trots is that they uncritically push far-right and imperialist lies. Anyone serious about dialectical & historical materialism would not do that. MLs do not have this problem.
The right to self-determination of nations is not Marxist? Ending the economic blockade on the DPRK requires normalized relations with the US. If the DPRK chooses to go down that path, I support them. It's not my position to say their people should suffer from the blockade.
None of this is wrong. If the Cuban state was weak, the US would not bother negotiating with it. One of their countless coup attempts would have worked. Speaking kindly of a government is not anti-Marxist lmao
What are the forces which impact the US-Cuban relationship? There have been attempted military coups, economic blockades, etc. And there has been a change in these forces:
The US has given up on brazen regime change.
Cuba has become more economically independent that the blockade is less impactful.
Cuba is widely recognized by the international community, and has strong relationships with US allies.
The relationship of forces changed. That is why the US began talking about normalized relationships.
Maybe that could have been wording better. I thought it was pretty clear, but I understand the confusion. Your criticism is with wording. My criticism is with Trots publishing far-right propaganda.
I've talked pretty openly about my political work here. I never said I wasn't a member, I said I agree with their political lines. You have not said you are a member of IMT. All I know is that you are defensive of their far-right myths about socialist countries.
You can't respond to the merits of what I'm saying, so you need to make up shit about me.
The National Question is a question taken up by Marxists. It also is not a question that applies to "normalizing relations" with imperial powers, which is just a conception of politics lifted directly from bourgeois political science. Obviously there is no peaceful coexistence between imperialist powers and workers states or between imperialist powers and the periphery they exploit.
The "opening up" to Cuba under the Obama administration had literally nothing to do with Cuba changing the balance of forces. If anything Cuba has already begun the slide back into capitalism, the US identified sympathetic forces and processes within Cuba, and "normalization" in this context just means opening up for US capital investment.
A "Marxist" - "Leninist" talking about the "international community" of bourgeois nations, jesus christ.
And I'm making the baseless claims here? I laid out above our basic position on the workers' states, which all exist in transitional forms today, meaning they will either move backwards into capitalism or forwards to socialism via a deepening of the revolutionary involvement of the masses. This is not a "far-right" position. It would be one thing to disagree and present a counterargument, but all you're doing is willfully mischaracterizing.
Believe it or not, I don't know who you are or pay attention to what you say about your political work, but from what I can gather from this conversation you definitely fit the model of internet Stalinist.
Lenin's essay analyzes the creation of an independent bourgeois state in Poland. That did include the state's right to pursue "normalized relations", e.g. trade and diplomatic relations, with any country they see fit. That is not "bourgeois political science." It is an objective summary of the powers that an independent state has.
Here is a good summary of my approach to self-determination:
My country has established a colony of their southern border, and turned the peninsula into the most militarized place in the world. The situation rhymes with the Russian Empire's control of Poland.
Communists in the DPRK can chart whatever path they see fit. American communists must recognize the right of the DPRK to manage this contradiction as they see fit, and agitate for the complete withdrawal of the US occupation from the peninsula.
I agree. Normalized relationships are not peaceful. But it is one of the two options available. Their other option is to endure the economic blockade, which is also not peaceful. There is no peaceful option for the Korean peninsula until the US occupation is ended.
There is an international community of states. There are bourgeois states and worker states. They interact with each other on the global stage. I don't understand what you are even criticizing here.
I am specifically talking about the reliance on far-right propaganda to craft the Trotskyist understanding of socialist states. I have cited examples of this.
I have said nothing about your abstract understanding of a workers state. I generally agree with that. My problem with Trotskyists is not their ability to recite Marxist definitions.
You keep changing the subject to avoid valid criticism.
You have seemed particularly obsessed with that so far.
So maybe Trots and other left anticommunists should shut the fuck up when they dont have reliable information instead of following the imperialist line and therefore earning the title of left anticommunist?
So maybe M-L’s and other vulgar Marxists should shut the fuck up when they dont have reliable information instead of constantly staking out positions on the right of the working class movement and abandoning proletarian internationalism in favor of one-dimensional “anti-imperialist” positions.
love to be internationalist and fighting for the proletariat by not taking anti-imperialist positions.
Proletarian internationalism is when you conceive of yourself as a member of an international working class (“the workingmen have no nation”), and “in the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries” “point[ing] out and bring[ing] to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.” Internationalism on a proletarian basis is how imperialism is actually opposed in substance and not just aesthetic.