Skip to main content

Are there any anti-imperialists out there? Are there people who recognize America is an empire, an imperial power at the service of a wealthy elite?

Is anyone tired of endless war? Is there anyone who doesn't buy the official line on Syria?
Is there someone who distrusts, nay rejects, all foreign interventions?
Is there anyone who thinks that the NATO destruction of Libya was wrong?
Do the war games we're playing with North Korea now disgust you? Do you laugh when they talk about the "threat of North Korea"?

Are you tired of reading even progressives supporting wars? Have you noticed how every new conflict is "different"? That this time we really really care about human rights?

Do you fundamentally distrust the mainstream media? Do you understand that they are essentially propaganda mouthpieces that more or less report exactly what the White House wants reported?

Are you enraged by the underdevelopment that has been foisted onto most of the South by our elites in conclusion with corrupt Southern elites?

Are there any people sympathetic to Communism, Socialism, Maoism etc and their goals of autonomous development and independence?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I am sympathetic to a Marxist view, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, AoT, ZhenRen, winnerforlife

    but not a Leninist view, which, by the way, drives Grover Norquist. Look it up, it's true! Seriously.

    Empire, frankly, disgusts me because I know how it ends. Badly.

    What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

    by commonmass on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:22:16 AM PDT

  •  Near the top of this page (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, poco, commonmass, winnerforlife, FG

    there is a box with 'Search' written in it and a 'GO' button right next to it.

    Use them - especially the Tags search.

    Then read a little and you'll get an idea of what the answer to your question is.

    Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

    by InAntalya on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:32:15 AM PDT

  •  winnerforlife - there are many here (5+ / 0-)

    who are sympathetic with various parts of your question. With more patience, and a lot more interaction on diaries written by others, you will see who those people and communities are here at DKOS.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:39:11 AM PDT

  •  socialism, ayup (4+ / 0-)

    anarchism, yeah
    syndicalism, you betcha!

    Maoism, hells NO!!!!

  •  Anyone here a North Korea sympathizer? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut, Catte Nappe, FG, Nattiq, killjoy

    Besides the diarist?

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:45:16 AM PDT

  •  Shorter: Totalitarianism is sexy. Get on with it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut, GoGoGoEverton, Sky Net

    nt

  •  lol (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut, GoGoGoEverton

    If you like the ideals of a society where people are forced to live like slaves and bend over to a dictator, then by all means, go move to one of the many horrible countries you love so much. I'll gladly stay in America and continue to support our imperial overlords who do a decent job giving their citizens civil rights and freedom, something that is lacking in all of the true communist countries.

    •  True communist countries? (5+ / 0-)

      In the view of some, the Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist influenced regimes are not anything close to true communism, since workers don't self-manage the workplace. Totalitarianism isn't communism. These authoritarian models have unfortunately taken root, and are the only forms of socialism people have any knowledge of, but they aren't really true forms of socialism.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:37:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It starts sounding a bit like 'no true Scotsman' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton

        although your point is valid.

        •  Not at all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG

          You have to understand the history of communism. Marx came up with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" authoritarian concept which Lenin and Stalin took to extremes, and many of the revolutionary Marxist Leninist regimes which sprouted up around the world were heavily influenced by this doctrine.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:57:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know it pretty well. My point is that true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GoGoGoEverton

            communism as you define it has never been achieved which makes me suspect that it's simply not achievable.

            •  Another false assertion (0+ / 0-)

              There are many historical examples of anarchist societies. The anarchist regions in Spain during the Spanish Civil War is an example.

              And capitalism doesn't exactly have a very good history so far, given the state of the world today. The reason there is no large truly communist society is because the global oligarchy has used violence to suppress any possibility from this occurring. And if the trend keeps up, we'll be lucky if we have a habitable environment once capitalists squeeze every last drop of profit from exploiting resources.

              This canard that there are no successful communist societies is being used to support a failing system. Time to try something new.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:07:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not on a global scale. (0+ / 0-)

                Not as a participant in the real world.

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:39:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of course not globally. (0+ / 0-)

                  Socialism has been opposed by the powerful, wealthy interests every time it tried to get a foothold. And the Soviet Union twisted socialism into totalitarianism, giving capitalists an excuse to oppose socialism at every turn, as if what is occurring in China or occurred in Russia is the only form socialism can take. Marx wasn't the only person who theorized a socialistic form of social organization.

                  But capitalism is failing. Just look around... the signs are everywhere.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:02:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  You have never lived and worked in a (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZhenRen, Rich in PA, poco

      Communist country. Obviously, because I HAVE.

      What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

      by commonmass on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:49:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You obviously didn't get my point (0+ / 0-)

      which is to condemn imperialism, but whatever. USA!  USA! USA!

  •  Anarchism (5+ / 0-)

    (about which most people have little real understanding) is a non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical form of socialism which Lenin and Stalin suppressed in Russia (Kronstadt Rebellion, Makhnovist rebellion).

    Working people would be far better off with this form of socialism, which is organized around a free society, rather than heavy handed state socialism, or even the authoritarian dictatorships which some forms take.

    If there isn't free association, it isn't really socialism.

    So, regarding Maoism, Stalinism, and other authoritarian approaches, I can't support them, and I don't really consider these to be true socialism or communism.

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:31:22 AM PDT

    •  I support your version of socialism (0+ / 0-)

      which is my ideal, too. But Maoism is hardly an authoritarian approach, in and of itself.

      •  No... its very distributed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        ...violent, anti-industrial, sloganeering, and based on perpetual revolution, but no, not authoritarian by definition.  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:16:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Violent, sloganeering, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          based on perpetual revolution. Could you be describing the establishment of capitalism?

          •  Capitalism, by definition, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            is particularly anti-revolution.  Wide-spread violence and mass killings tends to be a bit of a market disruptor.

            Capitalism certainly has blood on its hands, but more often by omission than commission.  The cruelty of capitalism is that it is a system of winners and losers and it does not care nor have any native safeguards to prevent the "losers" from a despondent sub-human death, unseen, unnoticed and uncared about.  It is a Dickensian dystopia with a thin veneer of hyper-success.  

            But ....it is your idealized supposedly peaceful ideologies with a long and established track record of state-sponsored killings of its own people, terrorism, and a wider-spread oppression and serfdom.

            US Capitalism undoubtedly has a very long list crimes for which it is accountable but it is not equivalent to the Khmer Rouge.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:19:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not so (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco
              Wide-spread violence and mass killings tends to be a bit of a market disruptor.
              I suppose if you're talking about the first world. Even, there not so. I remember clearly some mass killings and wide spread violence against Native Americans and Aborigines, but maybe I was dreaming. In in other regions, this assertion cannot hold up.
              state-sponsored killings of its own people, terrorism, and a wider-spread oppression and serfdom.
              This is a feature of all economic systems, it is not unique to any ideology.
              US Capitalism undoubtedly has a very long list crimes for which it is accountable but it is not equivalent to the Khmer Rouge.
              You would have to make a side by side analysis to justify this assertion. Or at least flesh it out.
            •  Also, this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco
              Capitalism certainly has blood on its hands, but more often by omission than commission.
              is contradicted by this:
              it does not care nor have any native safeguards to prevent the "losers" from a despondent sub-human death, unseen, unnoticed and uncared about.
              Seems the "blood" on Capitalism's hands is by design, which I thought is the meaning of "by commission".
              •  No...check it again (0+ / 0-)

                It is a sin of omission.  By NOT DOING SOMETHING (ie, provide safeguards) it allows people to suffer and doesn't care.

                It does not actively seek out and murder people.  That would be the unnecessary loss of customers and labor.
                 

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:51:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well okay, I'll give you that. (0+ / 0-)

                  But I still don't agree with that point. The establishment of capitalism in this country involved actively seeking out and murdering Native Americans. Actually for much of the Americas. That's one example I can think of. How do you square that with your assertion?

                  •  Capitalism is agressive to others (0+ / 0-)

                    not its own people.  

                    Market expansion is achieved militarily and politically.  Native Americans were labeled as "others" and an obstacle to the "manifest destiny" of the American Republic.  

                    They were simply in the way and branded a primitive culture with land and resources that could be better utilized by America.  This was in a time when slavery was already tolerated so its not a major leap.  Wrap it up in some kind of nationalistic and missionary-esque religious doctrine then bolster it with atrocity stories recounting the unbridled savagery of the Native Warrior and Westward expansion becomes a virtue.

                    But what Capitalistic society has the reputation of mass-killing subsets of its population, work camps, death camps, assassinations, etc?  

                    The trick for Capitalism is to marginalize and disempower its critics and foes.  Keep the playing field unequal and it doesn't matter if people try to stand against you when you have more power/money than they do by orders of magnitude.

                    It is a collective based government that needs to forcibly weed out resistance.  Whether its Pinochet "Disappearing" every critic, China filtering media to prevent dissent, Khmer Rouge's torture of enemies of the state, sects bombing state facilities, Stalin's genocide of Armenia, etc.  

                    It is almost invariably (unless you want to go way back to antiquity for religious persecutions, crusades and the like) the Maoist, Communist regimes that take active state-sponsored and organized efforts to forcibly suppress its own people using tactics of terror.

                    Capitalism requires its people to think that the country is great and that opportunity is real, even if it isn't.  It does not trade on the fear and terror of its citizens.  It promotes a false positive and looks the other way on the negatives.  Shameful?  Sure... I won't argue otherwise, though I would say, in America at least, it has its ebbs and flows in extremism (compare the 1910's with the 1960's for example).  

                    What communist/maoist regime has ever ruled without an oppressive controlling regime?  Im not asking for idealized theories about a utopian distribution of resources and labor, I'm talking about a real government that adopted these principles and didn't quickly turn into an authoritarian regime?

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:14:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I disagree with this (0+ / 0-)
                      It is a collective based government that needs to forcibly weed out resistance.
                      Again, this is not unique to any ideology. You named Pinochet, who was the original free market fundamentalist.
                      Capitalism requires its people to think that the country is great and that opportunity is real, even if it isn't.  It does not trade on the fear and terror of its citizens.
                      Again, negated by the experience of South Americans for the last few decades or so.

                      I think you should expand your definition of capitalist regimes beyond the Western World. Most of these dichotomies you're trying to set up don't hold when you have  a world-wide view

      •  Depends on how one defines (0+ / 0-)

        authoritarian. Anarchist theory views the centralized state, and the hierarchical society, as authoritarian forms of communism. From what I've read, Maoists (as Marxists) are still in support these elements, reflecting the "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:29:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This makes me sorry I removed my HR... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winnerforlife, FG, Nattiq

    ...for your other diary!  I'm sympathetic to alternative paths of development, and I'm even sympathetic to the notion that, as a certain someone put it, you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.  But it sure seems like you don't really care how many eggs are broken so long as the omelette is capable of thumbing its nose at the United States.  That puts the interests of a very privileged group, anti-imperialists in the belly of the empire, over those of people who actually have to put up with being broken like eggs, with no benefit to their own societies.

    North Korea offers its people, and the world, nothing of any worth to justify its elite-inflicted miseries.  (And come on, do you think NK's elite is less of an oppressive elite than anything in the US-dominated world?)

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:06:26 AM PDT

    •  The US breaks its own share of eggs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, Sunspots

      with its heavy handed imperialism and militarism.

      We've tortured people, imprisoned people without trial, invaded sovereign governments, bombed and assassinated innocent civilians, engaged in genocide, slavery, supported fascist regimes (while attempting to suppress democratic socialist governments), propped up dictators, lied ourselves into war with the wrong countries...

      We don't have a lot of moral high ground over the so-called "communist" countries.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:37:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  when it comes to individual rights (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wisper, VClib

        we are beyond anything a communist regime could ever offer.

        •  The key here is "we" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          America is exactly 4.5% of the world population

        •  Tell that to our African American and Latino (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          incarcerated brothers, also,  I might add.

          •  at least they weren't incarcerated due to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            invalid political ideology. How would any flavor of Communism treat individuals who would not want to participate in a Communist society due to different ideologies?

            •  Not true, there are many (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              protectspice, poco

              political prisoners in the US. Of course we are nowhere near the level of North Korea . But this is an invalid difference, anyway. Black life has been criminalized in this country, which is in many ways even worse than simply being a political prisoner. The proportion of black men in prison has no historical precedent.

        •  That freedom is illusory (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, winnerforlife, Nattiq

          The vast majority of American workers are under complete control almost everyday of most of their lives in the dictatorial American workplace, where the fruits of their labor is stolen by the owner class.

          Wage slavery is real, and let's not forget debt slavery, in which some of us will be working well into our 70s and 80s or up to our deaths before we're free of the horrors of student loans, credit card debt, and mortgages.

          And the disparity of income is getting worse and worse. When you're poor, or nearly poor, you don't have a lot of opportunity to enjoy the "individual rights" you speak of. What good is "free speech" when no one hears you?

          Government in America is run by elites, while the rest of us vote and give money only to be ignored by the ruling class composed of wealthy elected officials and their cadres of rich donors.

          They don't need to curtail speech. They simply pretend we don't exist.

          But such freedoms as are advertised aren't exactly true. It was only last year I was driven away with the threat of violence and arrest by virtue of being in a demonstration sponsored by the Occupy movement. And we're being infiltrated and spied upon, thrown into jail, threatened by grand juries, put on terrorist lists.

          Americans can now be assassinated by the President without trial, or whisked away indefinitely and never heard from again.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry, but I do not subscribe (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FG, GoGoGoEverton, VClib

            to this particular vision of America. We have a choice of where we work, where we choose to be educated, and which debts we take on. Many people manage to find the jobs they are capable of, keep the fruits of their labor, and live within their means.

            Just because not everything is well in our society, and the poverty has been on the increase (due to the recent deep recession that is not going away), does not mean we are in some weird capitalist dictatorship.

            •  We have no choice of where we work (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              depending on where our present skills fit into the vicissitudes of the market place. When jobs are scarce (which by design usually are in capitalism in order to keep wages low) one would be a fool to think there is freedom to choose where one works. Even in the best of labor markets, many people don't have real choices, but when the economy is in one of those free market downswings which come very few years, people are lucky if they have any sort of work, and quitting isn't an option. Thus we're forced to work to live and eat, and thus forced to endure almost anything our bosses inflict upon us. This choice of where we work is nonexistent the lower one goes down the economic scale. And furthermore, the ruling class has a lot of control over this: They can give a bad recommendation based on their own petty motivations. They can put vicious smears into the worker's file, which the worker has no control over. And a corollary to this is the banking industry can give a bad credit report, which is more and more being used by the employers to screen prospective workers. this creates a vicious circle, in which workers who are out of work and/or underpaid (which nowadays most workers are) can't pay debts, and consequently end up with bad credit, and then can't get work since they have bad credit. And bad credit can keep a person from getting adequate housing. All of this exists so the the wealthy class can extract more money from the working class, and keep wages low.

              I could go on at length, but this gets the point across well enough.

              And most people have no real choice where we choose to be educated. You've revealed much about yourself with these comments. It seems you're unaware that poor people often have no means to get an education, depending on circumstances growing up in the poor household, but if they do get funding, choice of schools is often the local junior college or trade school. And once they graduate, these days there is likely no job waiting to enable them to pay off the rather enormous student loans, thus sending them into bankruptcy when they are forced to pay off the debt, since they're forced to  divert funds from other debts that then can't be paid. Student loans cannot generally be discharged in bankruptcy, thus enslaving the debtor for years under severe economic hardship if there is no job.

              I'm experiencing this myself.

              As to fruits of labor and wage slavery, since workers contribute by virtue of their labor to the products of their labor, and are paid not according to the profit, but only the lowest wage the labor market will bear, with the profit going to the owners, this is theft of the fruits of labor. Laborers are people, not machines. They deserve to be rewarded for essential labor. It should be a human right. Workers have a right to earn the profits. When such rewards are withheld it is called wage slavery.  

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:00:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  but (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GoGoGoEverton, VClib

                it is true of almost any society and certainly through our entire history, that people choose which area they train to work in, and then their options become more limited depending on the job market and the need in their particular area.

                We all have free education until college, and many community/state college are very cheap afterwards and there is a LOT of assistance for education - I myself am a beneficiary of that being from a lower middle class family.

                I generally agree about the vicious cycle of bad credit, but unfortunately a lot of it, especially in the middle class, is self-inflicted.

                Additionally, while the unemployment is high, it is not true that there are no jobs out there for both high school and college graduates. Everything you have said was an extreme exaggeration.

                The wages could and should be higher, but you can't force what you are suggesting without a measure of authoritarianism.

                •  No, it isn't true of any society (0+ / 0-)

                  Imagine a society without a job market, wherein each person has a right to employment, and is provided with free education including college. Imagine a society in which people can elect to change careers by going back to school for free. Imagine a society without mortgages, credit card debt, and student loan debt. Imagine a society that pays full retirement benefits after age 65, and that provides true universal health care. And the plumber makes as much as the academic.

                  By cutting out all the profiteering, and the cadres of middlemen, the private insurance companies, the real estate brokers and insurance brokers, the distribution middlemen and wholesalers, where in each level more and more is added to the price of commodities until by the time it reaches the retail market a product is as much as ten times the cost, the savings are enormous.

                  The people freed from these capitalistic positions are able to work in other more useful and utilitarian functions, to the point that work is reduced to 4 or 5 hours per day, leaving each person to pursue academic, artistic, or other specialties and interests with all the time left over.

                  There would be no unemployment, no homelessness, no poverty, no debt, no bankruptcy, no hierarchy of class. The vast majority would have a better standard of living and significant reduction of stress.

                  Much of this was accomplished in the anarchist controlled areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 06:52:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  And while we pretend to enjoy these rights at home (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          our country has violated those rights of others outside our borders by supporting various dictatorships around the globe.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:50:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for not writing me off! (0+ / 0-)

      My quibble with the US is how it has taken upon itself to demonize, oppose or crush any attempt at autonomous development.

      But it sure seems like you don't really care how many eggs are broken so long as the omelette is capable of thumbing its nose at the United States.
      That's a very unfair characterization of my position. And this statement presupposes that countries thumb their nose at the US because you know, just because. Countries thumb their nose at the US precisely because they feel that is the only way they can hope to develop. For every South Korea superstar we have dozens of poor US client states.
      with no benefit to their own societies.
      You are forgetting that many Communist/Marxist revolutions were liberation struggles from colonialism. Being free, even nominally free, from a foreign power can hardly be described as non-beneficial.
      North Korea offers its people, and the world, nothing of any worth to justify its elite-inflicted miseries.
      This, is of course offered from the perspective of the First World and privileged elites everywhere. Try telling that to some poor person in the Third World.
      NK's elite is less of an oppressive elite than anything in the US-dominated world?
      I think they are less oppressive than many capitalist regimes I can think of. The key here is not to look around at the USA and other relatively well off countries. Only 13% of the world lives in rich countries.
  •  MAOISM?! You include that in your list? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Nattiq

    Really?

    Forget the common worker and the force of collective labor, Maoism relies on a scattered agrarian peasant class.

    Maoism openly agitates for violent revolution against industrialization.  "Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Guerrilla warfare to achieve political gains.

    These are not historical rewrites... these are ACTUAL TENETS.

    And if you try to slyly prevaricate with "I mean a non-violent form of Maoism" I would submit that is like calling for a "less money-focused version of Capitalism".

    What's your next dairy going to be, a recruitment effort for Shining Path?

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:54:04 AM PDT

    •  I think you have not been or lived (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco

      with poor peasant peoples in the poorest societies to truly understand what Maoism represents.

      I am an advocate of non-violence. But I am also aware of the need for warfare in a liberation struggle. I suppose the American war of independence was wrong, in your view.

      •  What possible branch of Maoism (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nattiq, FG, Sky Net

        are you going to compare with the American Revolutionary War?

        Where, seriously, where do you see the virtuous example of a Maoist Regime?  The Khmer Rouge?  The Shining Path?  The People's War Movement of India?

        I mean, maybe at best (and by "at best", I mean a group that doesn't involve mass-killings and drug smuggling) you can point at the Communist Party in Spain, but as nonviolent as their platform seems regarding wealth redistribution and the like, I would note that they currently hold ZERO seats at any level of government anywhere in the country.  Its easy to remain ideologically pure when you are nothing but philosophical entity; the blood letting typically doesn't start until you get into power.  (See: Cambodia)

        Violence aside (though its hard to look past that in any Maoist regime)... why promote an agrarian ideal?  That is the central crux Maoism.  A rejection of the Industrial Worker and a re-embracing of the Romanticized Farmer.

        In 2013, with a world population nearing 7 Billion, why would we want to revert back to a scattered rural farm-based society?  

        Is this just an "anything but big bad capitalism" sentimentality?  A Walden-Pond-esque soliloquy to be an ode to times gone by?

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:54:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site