redredred wrote:
>
> Comrades
> One thing, I believe that is not properly addressed in this Korean
> discussion is the immense power of the Chinese.
> I think that in many respects that the Chinese and the North Koreans have
> been under-estimated.
> I however, agree that the whole juche concept is , philosophically
> idealist.
That is true because it essentially contends that ideas are primary and
material conditions are secondary rather than vice versa.
> Man is part of nature and not separate from it.
> This misconception (mistake-error) on the part of the Koreans does not seem
> to affect their over-all anti-imperialist position.
It already has apparently. They marched together under one flag in the
Olympics didn't they. The symbolism of that is quite powerful.
They have never stated
> that unification would be on any other grounds than theirs, and we should
> not ignore this fact.
But have they said the reverse? Have they definitively stated that
unification would take place on their grounds and their grounds alone.
I don't think so.
> I think the overwhelming cultural links and desire for unification of the
> Korean people has not been entirely placed in perspective in this discussion
> either.
The Germans had the same feeling and we can see what that led to.
> Also, I believe that to give the South Korean president the nobel peace
> prize is a sign of desperation from the imperialists in order to raise his
> prestige amongst the South Korean people.
Nobel prizes are a propaganda tool of the innth degree. They are
meant, among other things, to extol that which the capitalists favor and
denigrate or demean that which they oppose. They are EXTREMELY
political. Just look at who has received them, especially the prizes
for literature and peace. The South Korean leader met with the North
Korean leader allegedly in the cause of peace. Why didn't the latter
receive an award as well? I will give you three guesses. But before
you guess you might want to note his politics.
> The facts are that unification has been a strategy and tactic of the North
> Koreans for many years, not the South.
What? This sounds like capitalist propaganda. So the North has had
designs on the South for years but not vice versa. So the North is the
potential aggressor and the poor south just wants to be left alone.
What have you been listening to lately? You have been surreptitiously
conned my friend. The wall between the two, in case you did not notice,
was erected by the North out of fear of the South and the American
occupation forces. It is the South that keeps conducting joint military
exercises with the American forces, exercises that the North repeatedly
strongly objects to. Mock invasions from the sea occur on a regular
basis. Now to whom do you think that is directed? It is the South and
Americans in particular that conducts the vast bulk of the espionage.
It is the US and its stooges that keep telling the North what it can and
cannot do in the realm of nuclear energy. The United States demands to
be allowed to enter North Korea to inspect its nuclear sites. If I were
the North I would reply: Sure, no problem as long as we can send our
experts through Oak Ridge, Hanford, and other American nuclear
facilities, view whatever strikes our fancy, and dismantle whatever we
consider a threat.
> They (the South)have been forced by popular opinion.
> How they will handle the vexing question(in relation to this matter) of the
> state is yet to be seen but I am not yet wedded to the position that a purge
> of the North Korean leadership is absolutely necessary.
I am, when they talk about reunification on a basis other than
socialism. As of now I see no possibility whatever of reunification on
any other basis than capitalism.
I am totally, completely, and implacably opposed to the reunification
of that peninsula. And that position will remain unaltered until I see
a vast shift in the balance of economic, political, and military forces
in that area.
The big snake could never swallow the small frog if Marxist-Leninist
principles held sway. Lenin and Stalin both cut deals with the
capitalists but they never sold the store in the process. They always
knew when a quantitative change would or could lead to a qualitative
leap. Lenin made agreements with the capitalist industrialist, Armand
Hammer, for example, but he never jettisoned basic concepts. And Stalin
employed many American specialists on construction projects. The main
designer of the Dniepestroy Dam, for instance, was an American.
> We will no doubt see whether or not this is the case
With that I agree.
For the cause,
Klo
>
> Comradely
> James
>
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
