Category Archives: Uncategorized

‘Odd one out’: the Politics and Philosophy of North Korea

Posted on by
4

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is one of the most mysterious countries in the world. This is partly because most of the world knows very little about it, and partly because what we do know, or at least think we know, most don’t seem to like. Yet it’s also because so much about this country and its political system just seems bizarre, such as the fact that Kim Jong-il’s birth allegedly caused winter to turn into spring. In an article featured in the Huffington Post capturing the last two, Tim Urban writes:

If you merged the Soviet Union under Stalin with an ancient Chinese Empire, mixed in The Truman Show and then made the whole thing Holocaust-esque, you have modern day North Korea.

The realities of day-to-day life in this country are even stranger; this is a nation in which the populate venerate their leaders as if they had mystical powers, where adults must wear lapel pins of Kim Il-sung, and where a cloth is given to each household for one purpose: to clean the portrait of their Great Leader. The regime impacts upon every aspect of both public and private life, and instigates all sorts of beliefs among ordinary people, many of them lies. The question is, why is this country so odd?

The DPRK (it’s actually illegal for North Koreans to call it North Korea) was founded much like the states of the Eastern Bloc; it was created by the Soviet Union after the Second World War, but it seems to have evolved in an entirely different way to other countries in its position, which is likely a result of several factors…

First of all, the philosophical foundation of the North Korean State differs from that of the Soviet Union and many Soviet-aligned nations; the Juche idea, a concept devised by Kim Il-sung, is centred around the emancipation of the individual. This tenant, which is essentially an ultra-humanistic interpretation of Marxism, seems to clash with the structuralist interpretations of the philosophy and the community-centric, macroscopic lens through which Marxists often make sense of the world. It has also led to cultural perversions in the DPRK, such as the hardline nationalist and isolationist current that is strong in the country. In short, when looking at why North Korea has taken a steep trajectory in its own, bizarre direction, Juche may be able to explain a lot.

However, it is important to take into account the attitudes of the leaders themselves, and especially those of Kim Il-sung, who ruled the country from its birth right up until the 1990s. Perhaps the reason his country is structured this way today is less a result of his theories, and more of his pragmatic actions and contributions whilst in power. Following in his wake, his son and grandson will likely perform/have performed in a similar fashion, keeping the structure of the country intact.

Though to what extent a nation can be shaped purely by who is in charge is debatable. The ideas and theories of individuals certainly play a large role in how political systems are crafted, especially in countries where such a large degree of responsibility rests on the shoulders of individuals, but this certainly does not mean that the significance material conditions inside that country should be overlooked in favour of individual ideas and actions. In the USSR, for example, Leninist theory provided the theoretical basis for the political system, yet I do not believe that the attitudes of individual Soviet citizens can be attributed to his personal views than the reality of Soviet life.

Kim Il-sung, the ‘Great Leader’

Additionally, an important factor that must also be considered is cultural heritage, and we must examine the people in the region, their culture and their tendencies. Much of what we see in the DPRK can also be seen across the region, and throughout different periods of history. The complete veneration of an individual and a strong, patriotic desire to serve one’s country, for example, can both be exemplified in the former Japanese Empire. Thus, it would also be sensible to argue that the reason why North Korea is so starkly different from many of the other communist states is due to the cultural tendencies of those living there.

This would perhaps be able to explain why many of these traditions and ideas held by many North Koreans are not only very strange, but also incredibly reactionary, un-progressive and counter-revolutionary as well. Considering North Korea proclaims itself to be a modern example of revolutionary socialism, and is heralded as such by many self-proclaimed revolutionaries, it clings strongly to ideas and tendencies you may expect such a country to reject, but perhaps cultural baggage plays a greater role than a commitment to the international socialist cause.

****

At the end of the day, it is obviously futile to try and pinpoint any individual factor as to why this is such a bizarre nation, and it’s likely a combination of all of the above, alongside others. Take this post as a suggestion, however; a brief insight into the ‘Land of the Morning Calm’ why it’s driven by such an unusual ideological dialogue, and why it differs so significantly from the other socialist states of the twentieth century.

Thank you for reading,

AR

 

The poster of Kim Il-sung was provided by yeowatzup from Wikimedia Commons and is a derivative work of http://www.flickr.com/photos/yeowatzup/2921982778/

Here is a link to its license:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode

The Anonymous Revolutionary, 2015

Posted on by
11

This blog, which began last January, is now almost a year old. To mark the end of 2015, WordPress prepared a review of The Anonymous Revolutionary’s activities over the past year, and I thought I’d make it public for anyone who’s interested.

You may be glad to know a surprising number of people seem to at least sympathise with this website’s ideas – a feat I couldn’t have foreseen living in the western world!

THE REPORT 

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 19,000 times in 2015. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 7 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Should we Support Independent Businesses in the Fight Against Monopoly Capitalism?

Posted on by
5

The evils of capitalism are often portrayed through huge, transnational corporations, exploiting resources and enslaving workers. Apple, Gap, Samsung and various other brands that have become commonplace in western society are all examples; when people think of the problems capitalism causes, these seem to be the ones that get the blame.
There’s good reason for this, as it is these companies that perpetuate injustices so profound that they disgust many across the political spectrum. Largely based in developing countries, they employ labourers to work in appalling conditions for very low salaries, driving the economies of developed nations. Yet, if we’re trying to undermine these companies and the economic monopolies they create, is it sensible to turn to small, local businesses instead?

Businessmen of this kind actually occupy a class of their own; the petite bourgeois. It comprises people like shopkeepers and local entrepreneurs, and lie sandwiched between the bourgeois and proletariat. At first, it might seem sensible to turn to them for the essentials, even if it only means going to an independent cinema, or buying your eggs from local sources now and then. But what if I told you that, by avoiding the corporate giants, by trying to starve them of their consumers, you’re only resisting the inevitable.

It is a theory rooted in Marxism that the petite bourgeois will eventually vanish, swept up by the bourgeois and the proletariat respectively as monopoly capitalism dawns, meaning small businesses will eventually give way to larger ones. We’re already seeing this trend occur today, as increasing globalisation allows companies to expand across the globe, and we can sensibly conclude that it shall continue to occur until the death of small-scale capitalism. I’m not saying that it’s pointless to buy from local sources – it’s definitely the morally better option – yet if you’re doing it to undermine larger corporations, you’re trying to dam a torrent with stones.

Christmas Under Communism

Posted on by
5

Today being December 25th, it feels very inappropriate to write about anything non-Christmas related, and the ideas I’ve had leading up to this post all seem somewhat out-of-place at this time of the year. Yet nonetheless, I believe I’ve found a way to link the occasion back to the subject of this blog; today I’m asking if Christmas was celebrated in the communist world.

In the Soviet Union, celebration of the holiday was greatly restricted, and it was suppressed as a manifestation of religion. The League of Militant Atheists, an ideological organisation in the country, fuelled the suppression by promoting an anti-religious and anti-Christmas sentiment , and it is perhaps partly due to their efforts that Christmas is still not widely celebrated in Russia today.

The situation is similar in the People’s Republic of China, as the holiday is still not celebrated by many, yet this is less a result of political action as it is of religion; the Chinese Christian population equates to about one percent of the country’s 1.4 billion inhabitants, meaning that few recognise the festival’s religious significance. This is ever more true in the more remote, western regions, where it is likely seen by many as an alien tradition.

Yet despite this, Christmas has increased in popularity throughout China, and whilst suppressed in the Soviet Union, a separate, secular festival on December 31st was celebrated under the socialist regime. This suggests that, irrespective of whatever religious beliefs they may have, humans want to celebrate something this season. In fact, even the modern holiday we call Christmas wasn’t always very Christian; first a week-long Pagan festival concluding on Dec 25, it was adopted by Christians to ‘draw in’ Pagan believers, proving that you don’t need God as an excuse to celebrate..

With this in mind, I wish everyone a merry, secular Christmas Day.

My decoration-of-choice for the tree

 

What do we Mean by ‘Imperialism’

Posted on by
7

The world ‘imperialism’ holds a special place in Marxist rhetoric.

Alongside ‘revisionist’, ‘Trotskyist’ and various terms denoting bourgeois status, it is a favourite insult of many (particularly Maoists), and has been such ever since it was first theorised by Lenin as the ‘Highest Stage of Capitalism’. Yet, whilst popular, it seems that its meaning is not always clear. For example, many socialists would criticise the practices of both Julius Caesar and George W. Bush as ‘imperialist’, yet their actions were very different, and it’s as though this difference is often glossed over.

This can be seen in Mao’s Theory of Three Worlds, which groups the USA and the USSR as imperialist countries, Europe, Japan and Canada as ‘smaller’ imperialist nations, and Asia, Africa and Latin America as the victims of imperialism. Yet the way in which the USA exerts dominance over these parts of the world isn’t explained, for, the days of empire now gone, it’s clear that such exploitation is predominantly economic only, and perhaps neo-colonialism would be a more accurate description. This is something that I feel is often ignored; when Lenin wrote about imperialism’s role in the development of capitalism, he spoke of the British, German and Portuguese empires, yet here, Mao refers largely to the corporate exploitation of the developing world.

Something else left unexplained here is the distinction between western imperialism and that of the Soviet Union, which, unlike the west, did not profit through neo-colonialism. Here, the term refers to the Soviet domination over Eastern Europe or Afghanistan through military and diplomatic, as opposed to economic control. Thus, though these two forms of domination differ starkly, they are grouped under the same banner.

To clarify the distinction, I believe these two different varieties of imperialism need stating; economic, and military/political imperialism. Often there is overlap, such as the forceful domination Britain exerted over India for its own economic interests, or perhaps the Second Iraq War, arguably driven by similar interests, yet the differences are clear, despite how often they’re ignored.

Who do we Side With? – Assessing Relations in a Revolutionary Struggle 

Posted on by
2

The issues regarding the practicalities of revolution have, for a long time, divided opinions within communist circles. Karl Marx provided a theoretical basis for almost all things Marxist, from the alienation of the worker in capitalist society to the scientific progression of history, but this was one area which seems to have been glossed over, allowing the theorists and activists in his wake to devise individual interpretations. From this fresh wave of contributions to Marxist philosophy there arose Lenin’s model of a Vanguard Party, Luxembourg’s critique of Bolshevism in favour of revolutionary democracy, and Pannekoek’s concept of council communism, an idea which surfaced some years later in Tito’s Yugoslavia.

One issue in particular, which spurred significant international debate in the years following the Russian Revolution, was that of association. Many communists were prepared to work with other parties and organisations to advance their goal of revolution, whilst others insisted on a somewhat Puritan approach, refusing to affiliate themselves with any counter-revolutionary or bourgeois movements. This rift in opinion helped to alienate the Bolsheviks from a number of former allies, which, taking the ‘Puritan’ stance, became known loosely as the communist left or the ‘ultra-leftists’, a faction which still plays a role in the contemporary socialist movement.

So, if, in the context of revolution, the debate is still open as to who Marxist organisations should be prepared to side with, how should one go about answering this question? Who should be regarded as allies, and who should be renounced in the struggle for communism?

One occasion on which this question was brought to light was in 1921, during a period of unrest that occurred in the Communist Party of Italy (PCd’I) following the Comintern’s policy of adopting a ‘united front’, bringing together many worker’s movements and associations to strengthen the fight against capitalism. Prominent ultra-leftists in the party, such as Amadeo Bordiga, were greatly opposed to the idea and refused to work with the reactionary Italian Socialist Party, from which the communists had recently broken away.

Whilst this stance may seem an admirable and dogmatic one, it is important to remember that it is not as though the Bolsheviks (the leading forces in the Comintern) were an opportunist party; they had previously opposed any kind of alliance with reactionary organisations, yet the decision to foster unity between all socialist movements came following a lull in the revolutionary optimism which had swept through Europe following 1917, and a reinstatement of capitalist authority, forcing them to find alternative strategies to weaken capitalism and promote working-class organisation.

The logic of Bordiga and the likes, who eventually lost control of the party to a pro-Moscow group in the PCd’I, prevents this kind of thinking. It asserts that we must form no alliances with counter-revolutionaries no matter what, even if such an alliance would advance the revolution’s goals, and thus, through its rejection of such tactical and pragmatic actions, comes into conflict with the essentially Marxist logic of prioritising revolution over any other political goals. This is the reason why it needs stating that ‘left communism’ or ‘ultra-leftism’ does not deserve its leftist connotations; all that divides Lenin and Bordiga is a practical realisation of the revolution’s immediate tasks on the part of one, and a pompous, counter-productive ignorance of such on the part of the other. It is no coincidence that Russian Bolshevism, not Italian ultra-leftism, proved victorious in the defeat of the bourgeois and the creation of a proletarian dictatorship.

Today, there is an important lesson to be learned from this: one should respect general principals, such as the necessity of distancing oneself from counter-revolutionary people and organisations, but should be ready to break with that principal if it coincides with communist interests. Obviously, it’s unlikely that anyone would cling onto such ideas knowing that they clash with the revolutionary goals; for example, Bordiga undoubtedly rejected Comintern policy with the interests of the proletariat at heart, yet this is due to a failure to see or acknowledge that the Leninist approach (a pragmatic, logical, and ultimately productive manner of thinking) is far superior, and that tactical unity with organisations that may have opposing interests, alongside other sacrifices, may be necessary.

It’s worth pointing out that, at the time the Comintern introduced this policy, there were only two countries in Europe (Russia and Hungary) to have undertaken a successful and independent communist revolution, and in both cases, examples can be found where such sacrifices were necessarily made. To focus on Hungary in particular, it’s fact that the Communist Party took power by merging with the Social Democrats, after which point they established the Hungarian Soviet Republic, set about a program of radical social reforms, and reorganised the economy in a revolutionary manner. If they didn’t partake in this merger, sacrificing leftist principles for a socialist reality, such change would never have occurred.

 

 

Remembering October

Posted on by
6

Tonight, ninety-nine years to this day, occurred the October Revolution.

As (in my opinion) the most significant revolution, the most important event in the struggle against capitalism, and the greatest achievement of the international left, I decided to dedicate this entry to its anniversary…

Happy November 6th/7th comrades!

‘The Bolshevik’ – Boris Kustodiev

…Here’s some light musical accompaniment:

https://youtu.be/_sxTbfeYdO0

 

 

Communism, not Corbynism

Posted on by
5

Last week, something significant happened in the world of politics: Britain’s once moderate and reformist Labour Party elected an anti-monarchist, Trade Union backed socialist as their leader, who aims bring key industries back into state control, leave NATO, and create a socialist United Kingdom (/Republic). Given that this was the party which, only eighteen years previously was advocating a kind of social capitalism, it’s possible that they’ve never had a leader this radical.

Can you imagine the kind of fuss this will cause if he wins the General Election? The western left has become so moderate in recent years, with even capitalistic centrists like Barrack Obama having been accused of ‘socialism’, that it’s as though there’s no longer a place for the Corbynites of this world. The USA (a country not only less-to-the-left, but more-to-the-right as well), is an even better example. If J.C. rose to President in America, there’d probably be a second Civil War!

However, in the midst of all this, it’s important that Marxist left remember something: Corbyn is not as radical as you may be inclined to believe. OK, maybe in a country like the United Kingdom, where former party leader Ed Milliband qualifies as a ‘f***ing communist’ (courtesy Noel Gallagher), his views could be seen as extreme, but this is only in comparison to what we’re used to; not socialism, but watered-down capitalism.

Corbyn lies between the two, and this, I think, presents a problem. He’s no Milliband, but nor he is he Marx. In the words of his deputy, Tom Watson, ‘Jeremy Corbyn is not a Trotskyist’ and ‘Liz Kendall is not a Tory’, and in the same sense that the reluctance of his former opposition is certainly noted and perhaps exaggerated, so are his ideas, perhaps to the point where the radical left could mistake him for ‘one of them’. In reality, I’d say he’s more of an in-the-middle leftist, a political island between social-democracy and communism; a radical moderate. And as a result, I believe he’ll do more harm than good. Here’s why:

There is a certain side to the British left which is largely destructive. The trade-unionist movement is an example, for, unlike those of genuinely radical socialists, their ideas aren’t scientific, they don’t stand on concrete principles, aren’t guided by a clear motive of socialism, and are, in a way, directionless. Devoid of a clear plan, these movements criticise, attack, threaten and whine about the way things are, and they do so marvellously, but what do they contribute? As far as I’m concerned, not a great deal. OK, minor alterations have been made to the economy as a result of their existance, yet, as these movements are still intertwined within the capitalist system, I’d still see their role as a counterproductive.

Corbyn falls in this camp, as do those who elected him, for they attack capitalism yet won’t commit to a communist alternative. It’s a bit like igniting a revolution but refusing to build a solution to the society you destroyed, which begs the question ‘why revolt?’ True, Labour will likely plan to transform the economy in certain ways, such as the re-nationalisation of industry, yet firstly, simply because an institution exists under state control doesn’t necessarily make it any less exploitive, and secondly, any attempts they does make could easily be undone by whoever replaces them.

If that day comes around (if he’s voted in in the first place, which he won’t be), Corbyn, the ‘extremist’, the ‘Trotskyite’, the ‘revolutionary’ etc., will leave office in a country just as capitalistic as it was before, yet with an economy in shambles and a reinforced hatred for socialism.

It doesn’t need saying that, irrespective of whatever views you may have, neither will do us any good.

The Evolution of Communist Symbolism

Posted on by
2
The emblem used by Communist Party of Britain

The emblem used by Communist Party of Britain

The Communist Party USA's logo

The Communist Party USA’s logo

...and finally, the Communist Party of Ireland's flag

…and finally, the Communist Party of Ireland’s flag

Above are three examples of the way in which communist imagery is used today, showing how some traditional symbols – the hammer and sickle, for instance – have been adapted to represent further ideas (as in the Communist Party of Britain’s emblem, in which the dove symbolises peace), or perhaps simply for artistic individuality (as would appear to be the case in the Communist Party USA’s logo).

Yet whist considerably different from similar imagery used sixty, seventy or eighty years ago, the same kind of images are portrayed. The colour red, the hammer and sickle, and, though not actually portrayed in the images above, the communist star, have certainly survived the test of time as the international symbols of radical socialism, which is interesting, since many of the ideas behind such imagery relate more closely to the conditions where they developed than they do to communism itself. The hammer and sickle, for example, developed in revolutionary Russia to represent a union between the Russian peasantry and the industrial proletariat, and whilst the colour red did have an association with revolutionary leftism in Europe prior to 1917, it is also deeply associated with Russian culture (the Russian word for the colour red (красный) is very similar to the word meaning ‘beautiful’ (красивый). As for the five-pointed star, there are different theories about its origins, with some believing that the five points represent the five continents, yet others, that they represent the five groups which would overthrow the Russian tsar, these being the peasantry, the industrial workers, the soldiers, the intelligentsia, and the youths.

Either way, we can definitely see a trend developing here; much of what we associate with communism worldwide is actually more closely associated with an individual country than anything else, relating to specific ideas that would only apply to the USSR. Yet this hasn’t stopped the exportation of these ideas internationally, not only among the socialist nations but through communist parties and movements operating within capitalist countries, from Peru to South Africa. So the question I’ll be answering today is this: how have these icons, often specific and relevant only to the revolutionary movement in the Russian Empire, been adapted to the multiple conditions in which they have been used?

Throughout the Twentieth Century…

I’ll start with the flag of China, the second country to experience a successful, independent revolution. This flag features one large star in the top-left-hand corner, surrounded to the right by four smaller stars against a red background. The stars are yellow and the background is red, both of which are colours used in the Soviet flag, yet if you look carefully, you’ll notice that the red background is a lighter shade on the Chinese flag than on that of the Soviet Union.

According to the website World Atlas, the large star represents communism, whilst the four smaller stars represent the social classes in China. Apparently, the total number of stars (five) ‘reflect the importance placed on the number five in Chinese thought and history’.

In this case, the hammer and sickle doesn’t make an appearance, though it is obvious that communist connotations have been used, with the design creatively blending socialist imagery with features of Chinese society and culture. Such a trend can also be seen in the designs and emblems of both communist movements and countries of that time period…

Here, the flag used by Yugoslavian Partisans during World War II is almost identical to that of the former Yugoslavian Kingdom, with only the single addition of the red star signifying communist ideology. Whilst, like the flag of China, it does seem to combine Marxist and national imagery, it appears to place a heavier emphasis on national, rather than communist identity. Since the red background is also present on the flag of Albania prior to communism, the same can be said for that of the Democratic Government of Albania.

We can see from these examples how the revolutionary movement in the twentieth century has brought about a whole new wave of art, displaying the merging of political and cultural symbols; the combination of national and international imagery, which can perhaps be seen most clearly in the flags of these revolutionary countries. But, if this is largely the case in the 1900s, what about the communist movement after the turn of the century?

After the Fall of Communism…

It’s difficult to find political examples of socialist imagery after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism in Europe, though certain parties and organisations around the world appear to have followed in the same national/communist trend, such as the Communist Party of Belarus (the logo of which is displayed below which superimposes the star, the hammer and sickle, and the open book on the outline of the country) and others (like those displayed at the beginning) have adapted such symbols in their own, individual ways.

Communist_Party_of_Belarus_Logo

Other than these small organisations, however, socialist art hasn’t exactly flourished; no new communist states have arisen, and the now-greatly-diminished communist world hasn’t made any great cultural contributions since 1991, although one interesting change did occur…

After the end of the Cold War, communism gradually became ever less of a threat to the stability of society. As a result, the culture of hatred that developed around the idea began to wear away, and people began to analyse Marxism from a more open, more casual perspective, creating a generation who looked to the left in what is perhaps a more superficial way.

This gave rise to a bizarre blatantly ironic commercial industry, one which I’ve already mentioned in my entry ‘The Commercialisation of Communism’, that exploited a range of communist symbols (often bringing them back from history’s grave) for profit-making purposes.

Cuban Revolution T-shirt

Following On…

When it comes to the future of such an art, who knows what will arise (or what won’t)? We live among certain symbols and icons which change all the time, like party logos, and some that have stuck around for thousands of years, like the cross of Christianity, and it’s interesting to imagine which path communism will travel down. Assuming some change occurs, one (by this I mean I) could waste hours of time predicting the symbols and icons that will develop communist connotations. Quite possibly, in a world where capitalism has undergone significant evolution, the hammer – representing the industrial worker – may no longer be applicable, yet what will replace it is down to the future conditions to follow.

On second thoughts, perhaps we’ll stick with the classic imagery of the 1900s, with both movements and countries worldwide reluctant to alter the icons which contain in them such a great deal of history. After all, there’s certainly something unifying about these symbols and the ideas contained within them, and it’s hard to imagine that this will be simply forgotten. In the words of John Thune, ‘I believe our flag is more than just cloth and ink. It is a universally recognized symbol that stands for liberty, and freedom.’ If the communist movement felt the same about their beloved red banner, perhaps we’ll still see these icons around and about hundreds of years into the future.

If change does occur, however, I’m willing to bet that any future development of communist symbolism will stick to the same theme, this being inequality; I think we’ll still see imagery, like the hammer and sickle, that glorifies the exploited class in whatever scenario is then present. This may be in the form of an icon representing their suffering or exploitation, or a tool they are associated with, which represents their labour, be it a robot or laser gun (insert any future gadgets or technologies you find to be appropriate here) but given that communism, by its very nature, emancipates the weak and exploited, I’m certain that it’ll be these people who inspire any future art of the revolution.

256px-Minimalistic_ray_gun_logo

Either way, I’m looking forward to seeing the result.

For any further reading, I’d like to recommend to you the following site: http://maoist.wikia.com/Communist_symbolism

Whilst not a Maoist, I felt that this website gave an insightful description of many of the concepts which I talked about today, and also some which I have not, such as the flag adopted by the Worker’s Party of Korea.

The image of the logo used by the Communist Party USA was provided by Communist Party USA from Wikimedia Commons (though this is not to say they endorse this blog or my use of their work), and was licensed under the following: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en

The image of the logo used by the Communist Party of Belarus was created by Xanadao from Wikimedia Commons, and was licensed under the following: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode