Category: quote

Regular

juchechat:

The tension and the danger of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula are the direct products of the United States’ Korean policy and Asian strategy.

The aim of the United States with regard to Korea is to maintain its domination over south Korea as its colony by keeping Korea divided for ever through the creation of “two Koreas” and, with south Korea as its stepping-stone, to invade the northern half of Korea, the socialist countries in Asia and, further, the whole of the Asian continent.

In order to achieve their aggressive aims the US imperialists are strengthening their aggressive armed forces, including nuclear weapons, on a large scale in south Korea and making frantic efforts to provoke another war. As you well know, the United States has introduced into the small land of south Korea a vast number of nuclear weapons, a number four times greater than it has in the NATO area in terms of density of nuclear deployment. Not satisfied with this, the United States is going to ship more new types of nuclear and chemical weapons into south Korea in the future and build scores of special nuclear armouries there. The US imperialists are growing more enthusiastic about their manoeuvres to provoke a nuclear war from south Korea.

Because of this, not a day passes without the rumble of gunfire and the air is thick with fumes of gunpowder in south Korea.

[…]

So long as the United States’ Korean policy and Asian strategy remain unchanged and so long as US troops are stationed in south Korea, resorting to manoeuvres for aggression, it is

impossible to guarantee lasting peace on the Korean peninsula and settle the question of the reunification of our country. If we are to ease the tension and guarantee peace on the Korean peninsula and settle Korea’s reunification question in a peaceful
way, we must get all the nuclear arms and the US troops withdrawn from south Korea

Kim Ilsung, Preventing War And Preserving Peace Are The Burning Tasks Of Mankind:

Speech at a Banquet Given in Honour of the Participants in the Pyongyang International Conference for Denuclearization and Peace on the Korean Peninsula, September 6, 1986.

Regular

In India too, post-modernism has proliferated among a section of dissident intellectuals, disillusioned ‘Marxists’ and more particularly amongst the thousands and thousands of NGOs. Though the bulk of them may not subscribe to post-modernist philosophy openly (and may not even know its contents), they generally reflect that type of thinking. This is manifested in a mode of thinking that has a common thread, and, as such, ends in being anti-people.

One strong factor in their approach is their attitude to power. First, as they have the approach that all power is bad they oppose any change in the existing order, on the grounds that the new power will be as bad. This, de facto, amounts to support to the present capitalist/imperialist system. Also, on the same grounds they are averse to organisation and organised dissent as that too will result in alternative power centres; so continuous ‘discourse’, like at the WSF, is more their focus rather than coming to conclusions and evolving organised plans of action.

Generally, all these NGOs also take a negative attitude towards revolutionary organisations, and when they do associate they have the approach to subvert them — philosophically all these are linked to their approach to power. Second, their primary focus is at a micro level, they have no macro focus, also a part of the post-modernist approach. Third, their anti-modernist, anti-reason approach makes them turn back to tradition and the glorification of backward feudal thinking — this can result in them even becoming apologists of reactionary views like Hindutva.

Fourthly, their emphasis on compartmentalised ethnicity and opposition to class unity results in them promoting exclusiveness of the dalit, women, tribal, etc. questions, resulting in the fragmentation of the unity of all the oppressed. Such then is the negative role that post-modernism is playing at the ground level within the Indian scenario.

The Post-modernist critique of the ills of this system has its basis in the horrendous impact of the present crisis ridden system that is, affecting every sphere of human activity. The acute impoverisation of the masses; the intense alienation faced by the people; the degrading status of the more marginalized sections; the vulgarisation of the utilisation of science, as seen in the medical, armament and other spheres; the rapacious destruction of the environment; the blatant mafia-style operations of the power brokers and big business; and the fascist terror and imperialist wars — all have resulted in a groundswell of opposition to this system. But, some ideological basis is necessary to anchor such sentiments. With the weakening of the communist movement, post-modernism has sought to fill the vacuum, and was used primarily as a weapon against Marxism. What is required is a re-assertion of science, reason and a creative application of Marxism to the ill of this system.

This can only be achieved by making Marxism a living social science to be creatively used as an ideological tool with which to understand present phenomena, and devise a way out of the morass. To do so, one has to rescue Marxism from the grip of the revisionists, dogmatists, empiricists and all those who vulgarise its scientific, class and revolutionary essence. Only then will Marxism be able to effectively counter post-modernism and illumine a path for the suffering masses to a new bright future.

Siraj, Post-Modernism Today (People’s March).

Regular

Post-modernism is a trend of thought opposed to modernism (i.e. ideas
     emanating in the post-feudal era) and is therefore not only opposed to
     Marxism, but the entire leaps in thinking and values that came with the birth of capitalism — i.e. the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, Reason and even science.


Post-modernism, though it can trace its roots to over a century back, in its present garb, it draws extensively from the philosophies of Nietzche, the philosophical farther-figure of Hitler’s fascism.


Post-modernism got a major boost due to the intellectual vacuum resulting from the temporary set-back to communism, resulting from the reversals in the Soviet Union and China, and a retreat of the national liberation movements that witnessed an upsurge in the 1960s and the 1970s. In the resulting atmosphere of pessimism, post-modernism found thousands of takers even from the ranks of the Marxists, demoralised by the setbacks.


There is no doubt that the post-modernists address the ills of society thrown up by the capitalist/imperialist system, whether in the field of science, medicine, architecture, bureaucratisation and power polity, oppression and discrimination, etc etc., but their opposition does not come with any solutions. Though the Chinese experience, particularly that of the Cultural Revolution, did give many answers to these questions, it was short-lived and the reversal there, soon after, reduced the impact of that experience.


Post-modernism has, in fact, flourished in this period of ‘globalisation’.

The set-backs in the above-said movements facilitated, in a big way, the
       offensive, on a world-scale, of imperialist capital, which has come to be called ‘globalisation’. And with ‘globalisation’ and the retreat of the State from all welfare measures, together with the vacuum created by the retreat of communism, the imperialists pushed and funded lakhs of NGOs throughout the world, and particularly in the backward countries, where levels of poverty became even more extreme. What existed earlier in pockets was now made an overwhelming phenomenon. And today, it is these NGOs that are one of the major vehicles of post-modernist ideas and views.

Siraj, Post-Modernism Today (People’s March).

Regular

juchechat:

QUESTION: The armed revolution in our
Arab fatherland is aimed at putting an end to the concessions of
imperialism in this area and to the existence of Israel, a  military
base of U.S. imperialism.

What support and encouragement could you, who waged a similar  
struggle   and gained a wealth of experience in the armed
struggle of the people against imperialist aggression, give to the
revolution of the Arab people?

ANSWER:

The Arab people are vigorously fighting in arms against U.S. imperialism
and the Israeli aggressors. It is quite natural that the gallant Arab
people resist the armed aggressors with arms. As long as the
imperialists plunder and oppress the people by violence, the oppressed
peoples can win freedom and independence and regain their deprived
rights only when they fight with arms in their hands against the
aggressors. This is a plain truth of the anti-imperialist liberation struggle proved by history.

The armed struggle of the Arab people against U.S. imperialism and
the Israeli aggressors is a just struggle to defend national
independence and dignity, restore the occupied Arab territories and
accomplish the cause of liberation of the Palestinian people. This
revolutionary struggle of the Arab people enlists the active support and
encouragement of the progressive peoples the world over.

Our people’s solidarity with and support and encouragement to the Arab
people’s revolutionary struggle are constant. The Korean people will
continue to resolutely support the valiant struggle of the Palestinian
people for liberating their fatherland and the struggle of the entire
Arab people against Zionism and imperialist aggression and will always
remain a close comrade-in-arms of the Arab people in the struggle
against the common enemy. Our people will render active support and
encouragement to the righteous struggle of the Arab people at all times.

Availing myself of this opportunity, I sincerely wish the Arab people
greater successes in their just struggle against U.S. imperialism and
the Israeli aggressors.

Kim Ilsung, Answers to the Questions Raised by the Iraqi Journalists’ Delegation,
Pyongyang (1971).

Zionism is a form of racism and colonialism. T…

Zionism is a form of racism and colonialism. The aggressive, expansionist policy of the Israeli Zionists is the main factor obstructing the triumphant advance of the cause of national liberation in the Middle East. Without thwarting Israel’s aggressive schemes it would be impossible for the Middle-East countries to achieve their independence, territorial integrity and progress nor would it be possible to guarantee lasting world peace and security.

The non-aligned countries must strongly denounce the criminal acts perpetrated by the Israeli Zionists in their opposition to the Arab people and in their efforts to destroy the liberation cause of the Palestinian people. They must continue to extend active support and solidarity to the Palestinian and Arab peoples in their just cause. They should regard the struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab people as their common cause and take strong joint action to reject Israel in the fields of diplomacy, economy, military affairs, culture and marine and air transport in accordance with the decision of the 7th Summit Conference of Non-aligned Nations.

The just cause of the Palestinian and other Arab people for the restoration of land lost to them and of all the legitimate rights of Palestine, including the establishment of an independent country, must be accomplished. The Israeli Zionists must abandon their policy of expansion and annexation and withdraw from all the occupied Arab land immediately.

The United States must stop giving the Israeli Zionists political and diplomatic support and military and economic aid, take their hands off the Middle East and discard their ambition for dominating this region.

Kim Il Sung did not attend the CPSU Twentieth …

Kim Il Sung did not attend the CPSU Twentieth Congress, and the Korean Workers’ Party was represented by a delegation led by Choe Yong-gon, Kim’s old guerrilla comrade. This put Kim in good company, as Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh also missed the Congress.

In March, Choe reported his visit to the KWP Central Committee. Very little of Choe’s speech, or of the other speeches at the Central Committee session (including that by Kim Il Sung) was reported in the North Korean media. Shortly thereafter some articles critical of the “cult of personality” appeared in Rodong Sinmun and elsewhere, but only in the form of translations from the Soviet and Chinese press.

Stalin was never criticized by name. Indeed, Stalin probably maintained a more favourable image in North Korea than in any other country in the world, not least in the writings of Kim Il Sung. As late as 1998, in the eighth volume of Kim’s posthumous “autobiography,” Kim attributes the successful development of the Soviet Union into a great power to the wise leadership of Stalin, “faithful comrade and disciple of Lenin.”

Unfortunately, Kim recounted, “Things began to go astray after Khrushchev came to power. Modern revisionism appeared in the Soviet Party, and the Soviet people began to suffer from ideological maladies. …[Khrushchev] forgot the care with which his leaders had brought him up, he vilified Stalin on the excuse of the personality cult.”

Kim Il Sung would tolerate neither “revisionism” nor any other “ideological malady” in his own rule and would remain a faithful follower of his mentor Stalin throughout the turmoil of de-Stalinisation.

Regular

american-maoist:

“The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the individual.” The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the masses.””

— Joseph Stalin (via communistjihad)

chinesekleptocracy:

chinesekleptocracy:

Stalin with some prophetic words about Elon Musk, Silicon Valley, and tech bros

Regular

If the leadership of certain departments is usurped by capitalist roaders, they will strengthen and extend bourgeois rights in the relations between people, subject workers to “control, check, and repression,” turn the socialist relations between people into capitalist mercenary relations, and enforce the bourgeois dictatorship.

This situation is particularly obvious in the Soviet Union of today.

In Soviet state-owned enterprises, the working class has become human material
to exact surplus value. Managers can use any “reason” to lay off workers, who have only the “obligation” to “abide by labor discipline and internal rules,” to work submissively. On Soviet collective farms, the directors lord it over the peasants and “do whatever they wish.” As they themselves have admitted, they are “playing the role of a whip” toward the peasants.

Look, the relations between a handful of capitalist roaders within the Soviet Party and the broad masses of workers and peasants have become relations between the employer and the employed, the ruler and the ruled. 

When exposing the relations between workers and capitalists in capitalist society, Marx and Engels pointed out: the workers “are not only the slaves of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state, but are also enslaved every day and every hour by machines and the foremen, in the first place by the factory owners themselves.” (Communist Manifesto)

[…]

Another feature of the bourgeoisie within the Party is its vigorous effort to strengthen and extend bourgeois rights in the field of distribution and possess the labor of others without compensation.

Chairman Mao says: “Our country at present practices a commodity system, the wage system is unequal too, as in the 8-grade wage scale, and so forth. These can only be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the period of socialism, there is no alternative to practicing the principle “from each according to his best, to each according to his work.” This means distribution according to the different amounts of labor each laborer provides to society.

But as Marx pointed out, “Here the right of equality is in principle still a bourgeois right.” (Critique of the Gotha Program).

In fact, many phenomena of inequality still exist in the field of distribution. Whether such inequalities should be gradually restricted and ultimately eliminated under the dictatorship of the proletariat or strengthened and extended at will is an important mark of distinction between Marxism and revisionism.

Touching on the birth of

classes, Engels pointed out: “With the appearance of disparities in distribution, class differences also appear. Society is divided into the privileged and the under-privileged, the exploiter and the exploited, the ruler and the ruled.” (Anti-Duhring).

To extend bourgeois rights in distribution actually smacks of allowing a section of people to possess the labor of another section of people without compensation, which means extending class differences.

Today in the Soviet Union, hasn’t a handful of the bourgeois privileged stratum and spiritual aristocracy headed by Brezhnev formed and developed into an exploiting class in the course of restoring capitalism? By exploiting the position and authority they have usurped, through such means as raising wages, bonuses and payments for manuscripts, and by way of all sorts of privileges, corruption, theft and profiteering, they expropriate the fruits of labor of the workers and peasants in a big way.

On the other hand, the masses of workers and peasants are entirely placed in the position of the enslaved and the exploited and are increasingly stricken with poverty. The historical lesson of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union fully shows how important it is for a socialist state, while consolidating the proletarian dictatorship and public ownership of the means of production, to strive to restrict bourgeois rights in the field of distribution in order to prevent the Party and state from changing color.

That was why Marx, in summing up the experience of the Paris Commune, especially praised the measures taken by the heroes of the Commune: “All public functionaries from the top down, beginning with members of the Commune Committee, should draw a salary equivalent to the wages of the worker. All privileges enjoyed by senior state officials and their office expenses should disappear with the disappearance of these officials.” (The Civil War in France)

The reason why renegades from Marxism like Deng Xiaoping resent and fear the criticism and restriction of bourgeois rights is that bourgeois rights are the very lifeblood of the bourgeoisie inside the Party and that to restrict bourgeois rights is to make revolution against them.

Chuang Lan, “Capitalist-Roaders Are Representatives Of The Capitalist Relations of Production” (1970′s).

Regular

As Lenin pointed out, socialist society cannot but possess the features or characteristics of two kinds of socio-economic structure, and this is “the period of struggle between decaying capitalism and nascent communism.

(“Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”)

Capitalist roaders within the Party vainly attempt to restore capitalism by making the utmost effort to uphold the superstructure and relations of production which hinder the socialist economic base and the development of productive forces. In socialist society they are the representatives of the capitalist relations of production which have been vanquished but have not yet been eliminated.

[…]

Our country at present practices basically the socialist system of state ownership and the socialist system of collective ownership. Under these two systems of ownership, the labouring people possess and allocate the means of production they collectively own through the state of proletarian dictatorship or collective economic units, and the power to allocate and manage the means of production and the power to distribute products are expressed in a concentrated way as the power of political leadership.

Due to the existence of these two systems of ownership and the practice of the commodity system and exchange by means of money, the law of value and other economic

categories which hold the dominating position in capitalist production are still operative, though they have been restricted.

[…]

Chairman Mao points out : “It seems that it won’t do not to carry out the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, for our foundation is not solid. Judging from my observations, I am afraid that in a fairly large majority of factories – I don’t mean all or the overwhelming majority of them – leadership was not in the hands of genuine Marxists and the masses of workers. Not that there were no good people among those in charge of the factories. There were. There were good people among the secretaries, deputy secretaries and members of Party committees and among Party branch secretaries. But they were following that line of Liu Shaoqi simply resorting to material incentives, putting profit in command and, instead of promoting proletarian politics, handing out bonuses, and so forth.

Here material incentives and putting profit in command are a manifestation of the vicious inflation of the principle of exchange of commodities. If leadership over a department or unit is controlled by capitalist roaders who energetically push the revisionist line, socialist production will turn into a movement to multiply the value of capital with the pursuit of maximum profits as the only goal, a capitalist wage labour system. While the socialist system of ownership is reduced to an “outer shell,” it will actually become a capitalist system of ownership under the control of capitalist roaders, and the proletariat and the labouring people will in fact lose this part of the means of production.

Chuang Lan, “Capitalist-Roaders Are Representatives Of The Capitalist Relations of Production” (1970′s).