@afellowkid
@lemmygrad.mlThanks for your reply!
One suggestion I would make is when you make a new thread, post a link back to the previous week's thread so people can easily click back through them like a chain. Personally I think the timing and formatting so far are good, but of course, there is no harm in experimenting to find improvements. Thanks again for hosting this study group!
The part of this section that stood out for me begins with section 17, "Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?", where Engels basically explains that there is no instant communism button:
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
Very often, people ask, "What will XYZ be like under communism/'after the revolution'?" asking about various laws, industries, work, housing, and ways of manufacturing and acquiring goods and services. I think in many cases, the answer to these questions is a lot more mundane than some people might initially imagine. We see in section 18 a series of ideas of what a proletarian-led society might democratically implement for itself at the start of proletarian leadership. And, as OP pointed out, we see many of these (or similar) measures underway in AES countries today, providing us real-life examples of the process that we can learn from as it develops.
I think it's worth noting that Engels points out that these would basically be democratic measures undertaken by the proletarian-led society to continually reduce the prevalence of private property, using various methods to increasingly concentrate "all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade" into the hands of the proletarian state, with the basic aim of ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat, and multiplying the society's productive forces until "production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."
As we can see from the real-life AES examples, this is a long process, with some changes being rapid and dramatic and easily intuitive to the average person, and others taking decades of time and having many possible approaches as well as many possible pitfalls, since longer term and larger scale generational changes like that are often harder for people to perceive and carry out from their individual position without learning more in depth about it. (Actually, on that point, I am glad that Engels specifically mentions education in section 18, as I believe it's an important part in conveying the function of these longer generational processes to individuals in the society and strengthening their self-understanding of how they participate in building and directing their society.)
I think sections 17-20 could be good to go over with people who seem unclear on how (or why) socialist construction would take place, and on the meaning of terms like socialist-oriented market economy, socialist market economy, etc., as well as going into the reasons why development of the means of production is important (and how and why imperialism purposely hinders and sabotages that development in certain places).
Those are my thoughts, if anyone notices errors in my reasoning or understanding of the text, please point them out.
Thanks for leading this study group, I'm looking forward to its continuation.
The article also mentions and links this other interesting article: How America Broke Its War Machine: Privatization and the Hollowing Out of the U.S. Defense Industry
Some excerpts:
The International Institute of Strategic Studies, in its latest journal, delivers this withering verdict in an authoritative study: “The armed forces in European NATO and European Union member states are hollowed out, plagued by unserviceable equipment and severely depleted ammunition stocks.”
Few people understand the remarkably protracted lead times necessary to increase arms production. Two or three years between commitment and delivery of even some basic munitions and materials is standard. Those NATO nations still accustomed to fight at all — meaning mostly the US, UK and France — have focused upon relatively small outputs. The factories do not exist to provide long runs of — for instance — conventional artillery ammunition any time soon.
Britain’s BAE Systems recently told the Pentagon it would require at least 30 months to restart production of M777 howitzers, among the most vital weapons in Ukraine’s defense; a new £190 million deal with the British government for 155mm shells will have a similarly lengthy timeline. Germany’s Rheinmetall quotes at least a year for renovation and modernization of battle tanks, given production times of specialized steel and electronic components.
Prices for raw materials used in arms production but not mined in EU countries have risen astronomically. The French government recently asked MBDA Missile Systems to increase its production of Mistral air-defense systems from 20 units per month, and has been offered only an increase to perhaps 40 monthly by 2025.
Moreover, all the big manufacturers are wary of funding expansion, only to find the Ukraine war suddenly ending or governments continuing to resist rearmament.
During World War II, the US government owned almost 90% of the nation’s productive capacity of aircraft, ships, guns and ammunitions. Today, private industry accounts for nearly all new procurement. [...] Moreover, many parts of key weapons systems are now produced abroad; the supply chain for the F-35 fighter, the most expensive military contract in history, included a magnet sourced from China.
China is building major items of defense equipment five times faster than the US. Maintenance delays, especially in the Navy, are crippling combat readiness. Earlier this year, William LaPlante, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, told the New York Times that the US “really allowed production lines to go cold and watched as parts became obsolete.”
In the early months of the war, Ukraine sometimes expended up to 500 Javelin anti-armor weapons in a single day — burning through a third of the US stockpile in the first weeks of the conflict. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which now jointly produce 2,100 Javelins a year, say they will double that figure — but not until 2025 at the earliest.
Ukraine, to a considerable extent, depends on munitions shipped through third parties by South Korea, 56% of whose voters oppose direct military aid. Seoul is selling $13.7 billion worth of tanks, jet and other munitions to Poland. In 2023, it is shipping hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds, some of them to the US, enabling transfers to Ukraine.
Russia faces not so much a shortage of tanks, weapons and military equipment generally, but is obliged to rely increasingly on older materiel as its most modern kit is destroyed. [...] Yet Russia retains some advantages over the West: Because its economy and industries are subject to direct control from the Kremlin, Putin can focus his nation’s arms production on the munitions he needs most in Ukraine.
Ukraine is a historic test of Western will and staying power. Not for the first time in history, the outcome of the struggle will be determined not only on battlefields, but also in the factories of the West.
Thanks for the response, I'll check out the writings you linked!
Interesting idea about the quiz, I'd be curious to see what you do with that if you make something like that.
Happy birthday, I'm glad you're here. Thank you for always finding and posting interesting information, you do a lot of digging and I like that you provide a lot of quotations when you share information. I'll definitely check that film out.
Feel free to ask me anything
Have you thought about writing articles about any of the topics you've done a lot of looking into?
That's difficult because there is a lot of layers of brainwashing about it which make it difficult for people even believe their own eyes, for example when seeing a video of a north Korean person smiling they will imagine sadness and terror in the person's eyes, or seeing something good happen in the country must be some kind of staged show, etc.
Even images of north Koreans doing something as simple as smiling or using a smart phone causes cognitive dissonance in some people. Because a lot of the lies about DPRK are such ridiculous fabrications and distortions of reality, it becomes really difficult to "disprove" this big cloud of nonsense. For this reason I think there is no one single antidote or quick fix to the problem.
I would say one of the things that helps change peoples' minds is stories about defectors who want to return to DPRK. I think for people who have been heavily propagandized, the fact that anyone would want to return to DPRK after going to south Korea starts to make them question what they have been told about it. The 2016 south Korean documentary "Spy Nation" (자백) also deals with this topic, but goes more into detail about the NIS torture programs to produce false confessions of spying from people as well as the NIS forging documents, along with keeping people in south Korea against their will.
Another thing to consider is that north Koreans used to be able to work abroad until UN sanctions forced thousands of them to return to DPRK in 2017. But it's possible to see videos from before that time (and a few since), where south Koreans would randomly run into north Koreans while in Russia (no eng subs sorry) and have friendly chats (turn on eng subs), and the north Koreans would explain they are working in Russia but return to DPRK periodically.
I also recommend checking out this video by Ktown Social Club.
::: spoiler Quote from mainstream south Korean news about the problem of fake news about DPRK, quote from a former UN human rights consultant about lies and financial incentives for sensational defector testimonies, and a quote from a pro-unification activist about how US sanctions are killing north Koreans every day
Here's a mainstream south Korean news article talking about the problem of fake news about DPRK:
Time and time again, conservative outlets and foreign media circulate and reproduce rumors based on questionable sources ... once the government or foreign news outlets like CNN become involved, the reports tend to take off like wildfire. The result is an endless feedback loop, where the claims of a “North Korean source (or defector)” are published in the domestic press and then the foreign press, then republished in the domestic press and echoed by the administration, politicians, and defectors in South Korea. Notably, retractions and apologies are rarely ever provided when the reports are shown to be false. (Source)
Here's a former UN Human Rights consultant who's been interviewing north Koreans since the 90's:
There are numerous other stories told by North Koreans that are later found unreliable ... there is also a fundamental question about heavily relying on defectors’ testimonies as credible evidence ... One of these issues is cash payments for interviewing North Korean refugees, which has been standard practice in the field. ... North Korean refugees are well aware of what the interviewer wants to hear. Whether it is the UN COI, the US Congress or the Western media, the question has been consistent: why did you leave North Korea and how terrible is it? The more terrible their stories are, the more attention they receive. The more international invitations they receive, the more cash comes in. It is how the capitalist system works: competition for more tragic and shocking stories. (Source)
Here's a pro-unification essayist about the ongoing war on DPRK:
This build-out of military infrastructure occurs in the context of the ongoing war against the D.P.R.K. ... The labyrinthine financial restrictions and outright bans on items containing metal by the U.S. and U.N. have deprived the D.P.R.K.’s agricultural and medical sectors (along with all other sectors) of basic supplies and funds, and stymied efforts to deliver aid to the more than 15 million people living in poverty. The resulting delays and shortfalls affecting U.N. health programs alone resulted in 3,968 deaths in 2018 — including 3,193 children under the age of 5 and 72 pregnant persons. This figure does not include deaths caused directly or indirectly by shortages of basic necessities, shocks to the local economy, and impacts on critical infrastructure like water sanitation systems. Yet even with this figure of 3,968 deaths in a single year, we can extrapolate that the United States is killing approximately 11 people a day in North Korea, about 9 of them children under the age of 5. (Source)
:::
I would say that a debunking of lies about DPRK would at some point have to include learning about Korea in general. People have been programmed to compare north and south Korea without considering any context of Korea's history or culture, or even basic facts, such as the fact that south Korea has a bigger population than the north, that south Korea was the country's agricultural center before division, or that south Korea's economy developed under a series of right-wing fascist dictatorships with widespread torture, extrajudicial killings, and surveillance and outside investments to prop it up. There are also many things about DPRK that are portrayed as strange or inexplicable in Western media, but that can also be easily seen in south Korea either currently or in the past, or come as a result of Korea's division.
::: spoiler Another quote from the above essay, about how north and south Korea are compared to each other to legitimize US imperialism and occupation of Korea
Where South Korea offers a vindication of capitalist modernity that transforms conquest into liberal magnanimity, North Korea figures as a permanently abjected enemy whose depravity eclipses and necessitates the domestic and international brutalities of the U.S. world order. Packaged as foils according to the interdependent racial logics of the model minority and yellow peril, the two Koreas, or rather their simulacra, comprise an axiomatic terrain for the resolution of neoliberal contradictions. The extravagant villainy ascribed to the D.P.R.K. functions as a mirror that reflects U.S. settler colonialism back as an idealized Western liberty, affirming military hegemony as moral hegemony. The United States’ dubious distinction as the most carceral, nuclearized and militarized nation in world history is obscured through a fixation on North Korean nuclear weapons, prisons, and autocracy. The war is thus framed as a heroic struggle for the globalization of liberal freedoms rather than an incomplete conquest sustained by the U.S.’ geopolitical investment in the ongoing state of division, war, and occupation. (Source)
:::
For a general overview of demographic info and of living standards in DPRK, which do not paint a picture of a dystopia but rather an ordinary country impacted by sanctions and war, I recommend taking a look at this report, which is co-authored by the United Nations Population Fund and the DPRK's Central Bureau of Statistics: "DPRK Socio-Economic, Demographic and Health Survey 2014." (Also, if you're interested, it's worth comparing to UNFPA summary of DPRK census population data from 2008.)
A point of note from the 2008 report: "Housing is provided by the government free of charge. It is the responsibility of the state to provide housing to everyone. Hence, there is no homeless population." (p. 4)
Some points from the 2014 report:
::: spoiler Click for lots of statistics
:::
Thanks for your response. Yes, I felt it was worth sharing, for the reasons you stated here. I thought it might be a good video to have on hand for debunking purposes or if someone wanted to include the clip in a video, etc.
Thanks for linking that informative quote, although it's an awful thing to contemplate. Recently I was trying to write something regarding tactics like that, about starving people on purpose. I got too sick from researching it and had to put aside what I was writing. And of course, the US uses this disgusting tactic all the time to various degrees via sanctions; even when they themselves don't induce a famine but one happens anyway, they gleefully regard it as an opportunity to go in for the kill and to do everything they can to worsen and prolong the famine conditions, and then blame the victims.
On a somewhat related note, if you want information about a case of the US accidentally inducing near-famine conditions in south Korea thanks to forcibly introducing free market policies in place of a budding people-led economy, you can read this: A Policy of Amateurism: The Rice Policy of the U.S. Army Military Government in Korea, 1945-1948
I know that it’s basic history, but it’s shocking in retrospect how I didn’t learn about it until 2018.
I also didn't learn much about that until later in life. Amazing how major elements of history are just completely skipped over with things like this in education systems, media coverage, etc., although of course it's skipped for a reason. The less context people have for why anything in the present day is how it is, the "better".
Saw this interview on Fox News back in the day between right-libertarian Ron Paul and conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly. In this interview O'Reilly is trying to warmonger about Iran and then Ron Paul is like "Well I'm not scared of them, I see the Iranians as acting logically and defensively, considering we used the CIA to overthrow their government in the 50's" and then O'Reilly goes into turbo damage control mode and starts yelling over Ron Paul about how "We don't need a history lesson" and tries to continue his warmonger rhetoric while Ron Paul keeps saying "I'm trying to tell you it's our own policies of overthrowing governments that are causing terrorism to increase" etc.
Basically this conversation was a moment where the contradictions of U.S. foreign policy and imperialism and the inner conflicts of the right wing got accidentally exposed on the main conservative TV network and they tried to sweep it under the rug real fast. Seeing how Ron Paul, the only person I ever heard on TV saying the US should leave the Middle East, got completely smeared and regarded as a total joke and disregarded by everyone, got booed and side-eyed/cringed at in a debate for explaining the logical steps that led to 9/11 and for quoting Al-Qaeda's reasons, showed me something about how things work.
Anyway, thanks Ron Paul for making me a communist lol
Listened to ep. 1.
tl;dr: Thank you for your service o7o7o7o7 9/11 never forget Soldier Protecting Sleeping Child Meme
Their first guest was the current CIA director. Basically they all just talked about how the CIA has made countless hidden sacrifices for the American people and that while their failures are widely publicized, the dedicated sacrifices they make and the danger they face is hardly known, they talked about the CIA gender neutral bathroom CIA Memorial Wall of their fallen comrades and got excited about how its the CIA's 75th birthday and how Biden came to their birthday party, then congratulated themselves for saying "Russia bad" before this year and for doing the Ayman al-Zawahiri drone strike and how it brings justice for 9/11 victims etc. and said how "generations" of CIA personnel have been keeping Americans safe, thanked the CIA director for his service, oohed and aahed at his life story, etc. Talked about how they are now recruiting Mandarin speakers for their new China department. They also praised the CIA for its dedication to protecting America and stressed in particular that the CIA is "apolitical".