u/Comrade-Kisser1917

The article "The Workers Party of Korea and Revisionism" by Bill Bland claims that north korea is revionist for

•Not oposing Krushevite Revisionism

•alliance with the bourgeoisie even after the anti imperialist revolution in colonial countries

•class colobartion for peaceful remoulding of the national capitalists

•North Korea had a cult of personality around Kim il Sung and Kim jong il

• allowing foreign investment in north korea in special economic zones

•claiming that man plays the decisive role in history and not material conditions

•Not having objective definitions of class but instead dividing society into masses of the people and non masses of the people based on weather they approve of the country

•prioritizing the ideological remoulding of man over creating the material conditions for socialism

•claiming that workers should be incentived morally and politically more that materialy

•oposing an international marxist leninist organization

I disagree with the article claiming that north korea didn't opose Krushevite Revisionism based on a few quotes when in reality, north korea did infact opose Krushevite Revisionism and did not inact Krushevite policies of deStalinisation or peaceful coexistence with the west. it simply chose to not openly criticize the soviet union as to not trigger a split which I believe was the right move because through staying neutral it was able to continue having aid from both the soviet union and China and did not follow China into alliance with the west. This however didn't stop the soviet union from cutting aid from north korea for not inacting Krushevite policies. I also disagree that north korea was class colobartionist for not exproiprating private property through force but instead negotiating with the capitalists and forming types of cooperatives, Bill Bland says that north korea allowed capitalists to continue exsisting but this is not true, in the same article its never stated that capitalists can simply chose to not convert thier private property into cooperatives but instead that it simply shouldn't be done through coercion or force but instead voluntarily, its even stated that Kim il sung declared north korea socialist after 100% of capitalists joined cooperatives which implies that no capitalist was able to continue exsisting. Bill Bland also claims that there were cults of personality, however he substantiated this point by saying that the birthday holidays of the leaders of north korea were very extravagant and expensive and uses an American source. Personally I dont think having a holiday around a nation's leader proves a cult of personality, and I dont think the American source used to determine the extravagance of the holiday celebration is very reliable, however there is some credit in that its stated by Kim Jong il that essentially the leader determines everything and you must be loyal to the leader which I think is very suspicious.

I agree with all other claims by Bill Bland based on the evidence in the article but I also want to get other people's opinions

[supprimé]

I understand the USSR was, and still may be, one of the most progressive nations out there, but does the good really outweigh the bad that noticeably?
(Not trying to sound like a centrist here.)

What Lenin did for the state was amazing: overthrowing the Tsar and providing lots of leftist literature. However, a huge chunk of what happened when he was in power was just civil war and War Communism. He defeated the reactionary Whites and destroyed Makhno’s Black Army after they weren’t of use anymore. War Communism, along with the effects of the Civil War, starved tons of people, and he wasn’t in power long enough after the war to make any larger changes beyond overthrowing the Tsar and introducing the NEP. One thing he’s also associated with when support of him is mentioned is how he set up the structure for Stalin in the future, but Stalin’s rule is pretty questionable.

Under Stalin, there was industrialization (which helped beat Germany in WWII), as well as more female rights and expanded education. While he did all this, there were also Gulags, assigned/forced labor, and more political repression. Usually, when I think “political repression,” I just ignore it, but Gulags affected more than just capitalists, and the Great Terror targeted other communists who threatened Stalin’s ideas. This destroyed the diversity of ideas in the USSR, giving Stalin centralized power for the sake of maintaining it.

By that I mean Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space.

Yuri was born into a family that worked in a collective farm in the village of Klushino. After fighting against the nazis in World War 2 he would pursue an apprenticeship as a metalworker and study at a technical college in Saratov where he would join a local flying club. His talents from the flying club gave him the opportunity to enter the Orenburg Pilots School and ultimately be selected for the Soviet space program where he would be the first man launched into space.

Yuri Gagarins story shows us how in the Soviet Union, a simple metal worker, born into a farming family, could get an advanced education and become a cosmonot through his own dedication and talent. In contrast, most people involved in the US space program were white men from rich family's.