Thanks for pointing this out. The paywall really hits different in this context. I was familiar with there being a presentation hosted by the WPK going over the history of socialism going all the way back to Fourier, which naturally put great emphasis on Marx and Lenin, but I missed there being public portraits even though I think it was probably reported in some of the same articles.
Anyway, it’s better for them to have that than not have that, I guess, but do you see why I might not find it all that meaningful? I was mostly trying to express a question about trying to understand where Kim Il-Sung believed what he was saying regarding Marxism versus paying lip service. KJU putting up portraits but continuing with his not-even-revisionist ideological lines that he inherited from his grandfather (with various transformations, but I don’t think those are very relevant here). Like, this really strikes me as red-washing that is even more superficial than what I was already calling extremely suspect.
I’m not sure if it’s red washing either, it just seemed like relevant info. I haven’t yet read the entire Espresso Stalinist blog post to have an informed opinion (sorry).
archive.ph seems to be down, but you can probably open it in a private/incognito window.
Edit: Private browsing isn’t working either. I was able to read the entire article just a few minutes ago, too. Apparently I don’t know how the web works.
There’s no need to apologize, but I think you might find the article interesting. The worst part is the start where he’s occupied with his Hoxhaist ax-grinding; the rest is pretty succinct and helpful imo, even if I don’t agree with everything he asserts.
I don’t see it as red washing at all. The idea of there being a national bourgeois class ruling the country under a false revolution doesn’t make sense if they’re just giving lectures on ML political theory to build party cadres this just seems undialectical.
Legitimizing yourself by pointing to a heritage is very different from training cadres using a specific political theory that is part of but definitely not all of that heritage (again, it went back to Fourier), especially given we have no specific evidence of that presentation representing broader patterns of instruction, and that presentation itself is not especially Marxist. Meanwhile, we can see in the article that I linked in the first comment that they do give instructions that are completely opposed to the basic ideas of Marxism.
Thanks for pointing this out. The paywall really hits different in this context. I was familiar with there being a presentation hosted by the WPK going over the history of socialism going all the way back to Fourier, which naturally put great emphasis on Marx and Lenin, but I missed there being public portraits even though I think it was probably reported in some of the same articles.
Anyway, it’s better for them to have that than not have that, I guess, but do you see why I might not find it all that meaningful? I was mostly trying to express a question about trying to understand where Kim Il-Sung believed what he was saying regarding Marxism versus paying lip service. KJU putting up portraits but continuing with his not-even-revisionist ideological lines that he inherited from his grandfather (with various transformations, but I don’t think those are very relevant here). Like, this really strikes me as red-washing that is even more superficial than what I was already calling extremely suspect.
I’m not sure if it’s red washing either, it just seemed like relevant info. I haven’t yet read the entire Espresso Stalinist blog post to have an informed opinion (sorry).
archive.ph seems to be down, but you can probably open it in a private/incognito window.
Edit: Private browsing isn’t working either. I was able to read the entire article just a few minutes ago, too. Apparently I don’t know how the web works.
There’s no need to apologize, but I think you might find the article interesting. The worst part is the start where he’s occupied with his Hoxhaist ax-grinding; the rest is pretty succinct and helpful imo, even if I don’t agree with everything he asserts.
I don’t see it as red washing at all. The idea of there being a national bourgeois class ruling the country under a false revolution doesn’t make sense if they’re just giving lectures on ML political theory to build party cadres this just seems undialectical.
Legitimizing yourself by pointing to a heritage is very different from training cadres using a specific political theory that is part of but definitely not all of that heritage (again, it went back to Fourier), especially given we have no specific evidence of that presentation representing broader patterns of instruction, and that presentation itself is not especially Marxist. Meanwhile, we can see in the article that I linked in the first comment that they do give instructions that are completely opposed to the basic ideas of Marxism.