Michael Parenti, roughly, in defense of the Soviet Union (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 05:48:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Michael Parenti, roughly, in defense of the Soviet Union (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Michael Parenti, roughly, in defense of the Soviet Union  (Read 4621 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« on: April 20, 2012, 01:11:36 PM »
« edited: April 20, 2012, 01:13:41 PM by Minion of Midas »

And he would be wrong. And not thinking particularly Marxian - or particularly realistically at all. Depending how the hell we define the word "Communism", North Korea either still is "Communist", or it never was; it's just yet another example of Asian post-WWI anticolonial liberation movements forced into alliance with the Soviet Union by a noncomprehending West. (And then a brutal dictatorship erected by an - only literally - FF with Texas-sized chips on his shoulders who defeated an essentially genocidal American bombing campaign. With Soviet help, of course. And finally, a tinpot monarchy.)
Note that I'm *fine* with us using the former definition (ie one that accepts that such people are "Communist" if they call themselves that and/or have an uber-statist economy), it's just not all that meaningful. But I would like to insist you need to be aware of the nomenclatural issues involved.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2012, 01:28:53 PM »

Now? Of course not, duh.

Today such movements tend to describe themselves as Islamist, anyways. Tongue
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2012, 02:23:59 PM »

Now? Of course not, duh.

Today such movements tend to describe themselves as Islamist, anyways. Tongue

No, never.  Kim il-Sung was a random Korean living in Siberia the Soviets installed as a (presumably) loyal puppet.  Some time later, the NK regime started propagandizing that he was a "resistance" fighter against the Japanese.
No... they started exaggerating his minorish 30s role... leading to the insane southern propagandist claim that he wasn't, in fact, the same man as the 30s guerillero.
 
The more relevant part is that the Soviets installed that seeming puppet because of what they knew of the Korean "Communists" (and because, unlike further away in Malaya or Vietnam, their security interests were at stake and also, unlike there, they could...) and Kim didn't exactly behave as a Soviet puppet, right from the start. (But he did execute his nationalist competitition. He was... not a nice fellow.) Not when compared with, say, Ulbricht.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 11 queries.