From: "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: Stalinism; Before and After Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:41:28 -0500 () It is possible that this is my fourth post to M-I today, in which case I apologize. I just sent a reply to M-Sci that may show up here, but I hope not. Anyway, I think that Louis Godena's remarks deserve a reply. In an earlier post, LG accused me of "proceeding ass backwards" from the DPRK to a definition of Stalinism. I note now that he does accept that there is an ideology that we can call Stalinism, although I don't know if this convinces the other Louis who declared it to be dead. But, in fact, I proceeded "phallus forward," as it were, from those policies that came into place under Stalin's rule in the USSR to what is done in the DPRK. Given that there seems to be a very high overlap with the DPRK leadership extravagantly praising Stalin more vigorously than that of any other leadership anywhere on earth, I conclude that the regime and its system is "Stalinist." Louis G. lists various other countries that exhibit at least some of the characteristics that I have labeled as part of the Stalinist package, so to speak. But, none of them had or has nearly the complete complement of them that the DPRK has and has had. It is not true that the DPRK got no aid. Part of the reason for those incredibly high growth rates in the '50s, far exceeding those in the USSR under Stalin himself, was that during that period the DPRK received lots of aid from both the USSR and the PRC, much of this quite reasonable in light of the severe death and destruction the DPRK had experienced during the Korean War. The drop to the more Stalin-period-like rate of about 12% annual growth of industrial production in the 1960s partly reflected the drastic reduction of that aid as the DPRK got caught in the crossfire of the Sino-Soviet conflict, as I already mentioned. That was a major factor pushing Kim Il Sung to emphasize his "juche" policy, btw. In the 1980s, when the DPRK was back tilting towards the Soviets, it got favorable deals from them, particularly for energy, much as had Cuba. Part of the current problems of the DPRK relate to the ending of those deals, just as their ending for Cuba caused problems for its economy, despite Louis Proyect's denial of Soviet aid helping the Cuban economy in any significant way. Certainly, the DPRK was invaded and experienced extreme death and destruction. That the leadership would be fearful of outside threats is not unreasonable. But, let us keep in mind that the invasion of the DPRK followed its invasion of the ROK in June 1950. As a final note, Louis, I only cited right wing sources for data FAVORABLE to the DPRK, and noted that to give those favorable numbers credibility, since just about nobody believes official DPRK data. I have read deeply of pro-DPRK literature, as a matter of fact. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:15:22 -0500 (EST) Louis R Godena <louisgodena-AT-ids.net> wrote: > > You have to hand it to Barkley Rosser. The Professor has a large talent > for slyly marshalling vast quantities of irrefutable "facts" that, upon > closer inspection, turn out to be irrelevant or meaningless. He tells us > that North Korea is "Stalinist" and throws up a plethora of facile and > highly generalized "definitions" that really could apply -- with only slight > modifications -- to any number of developing countries, as well as to a few > in the first world as well. > > But it doesn't take an intelligence any higher than my own relatively low > capacity to realize that most of Barkley's post is devoted to the > *differences* between the DPRK and Stalin's Russia. Many countries > officially "praise" Stalin -- China is a notable example, as is Vietnam and > Iraq -- and virtually every socialist society implicitly accepts (like > Stalin, out of necessity) the *de facto* existence of "socialism in one > country". An emphasis on central planning could at various times during > the post-war era apply to Japan, West Germany, South Vietnam, Israel, and > (during the late 1950s) the United States itself. Heavy industry rode > high in Western Europe for much of the Adenauer/DeGaulle era, recovering > like the DPRK from a devastating war. > > The DPRK was destitute of much of the knowledge possessed by our "market > socialists", as well as the massive and unprecedented flow of aid which > helped our allies "recover" in Paris, Rome and Bonn. And I needn't point > out that North Korea industrialized largely without the aid of outside > capital (like Great Britain and Russia itself, something that perhaps > accounts for some of the unlovely features of all three). The DPRK's > suppression of "human rights" appears remarkable until one realizes that > such behavior has been the rule rather than the exception throughout our > unhappy century, and that the West's champion of these rights has less to > do with its professed object than the exciting of popular indignation and > hostility toward the goals of socialism. Countries that have been invaded > and laid waste by an enemy not only still extant but stronger than ever do > not put the enjoyment of "human rights" of potential internal enemies unduly > high on their agenda. > > So we can dismiss Professor Barkley's "evidence" fairly quickly as being > based not so much on scholarship as on popular misconceptions that, while > originating from sources closely allied with international capital, are > nonetheless spread far and wide in the monkey-see-monkey-do world of > academia which Professor Barkley is obliged for the time being to call home. > Professor Barkley has been caught out using shoddy evidence and "everybody > knows etc." arguments to bolster a point that is, finally, simply > irrelevant in the modern world. > > And yes, there was and is an ideology one could call "Stalinism". Its > relevance to our own time is being decided by the tumultuous course of > events occurring as I write, especially in central and south Asia. It is > not, however, an animal our Professor would find familiar, addicted as > he is to outworn shibboleth and archaic stereotypes. > > Louis Godena > > May I suggest some recently published works Professor Barkley and others > might find useful in devising a modern definition of Stalinism: Stephen > Kotkin's *Magnetic Mountain; Meanings of Modern Stalinism* (Berkeley & Los > Angeles, 1995: University of California Press); N.L. Krementosov, > *Stalinist Science* (Princeton, NJ, 1997: Princeton University Press); > Robert W Thurston, *Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941 (New > Haven, 1996: Yale University Press). > > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005