[Marxism] What do Koreans think

[Sam B]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Néstor Gorojovsky <nmgoro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Sam B <sam.b.ann.arbor at gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Lajany Otum <lajany_otum at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why should a non-western socialist, whose county has never oppressed
>> DPRK, nor bombed Iraq or Afghanistan, defend DPRK against imperialism?
>>
>
> In the context of this debate, this question is either provocative or
> full of ignorance.
>
> If the said socialist belongs to a semicolonial country, the answer is
> obvious: what hapens to happen to the DPRK can happen to her or his
> own country.

This question came up within the last year in India. Let us recapitulate.

About a year ago, the Indian parliamentary left (CPI and CPI(M))
withdrew support from the Congress government because the Congress
government was perceived to be getting too close to the USA. I.e. the
Indian parliamentary left acted out of anti-imperialism.

But, in withdrawing  support from the Congress government at the
Center, the Left did create the possibility that Congress might fall,
which could have left the way open for the rabid Hindu right-wing
party BJP, to come to power. (Fortunately the BJP lost seats in the
last election, but the danger of it coming to power was real.)

Thus, when the alternatives were secularism and anti-imperialism, the
Indian parliamentary left chose anti-imperialism.

Was this the correct choice? I think it was an irresponsible one. The
potental danger to the Indian masses (especially to non-Hindu
minorities in India) at this time, is much greater from the rabid
Hindu right-wing, than from imperialism.

So, the Indian parliamentary left's decision to choose
anti-imperialism over protecting secularism was quite irresponsible.

There is no formula that says what the left should always choose
anti-imperialism over organizing against the home-grown right. To
quote the verse from Goethe you yourself like to quote, "Gray is
theory..." etc.