The True Cost of the Royal Family is More Than Pounds and Pence

Youtube educational channel CGP Grey made a video about the Royal Family five years ago, and its below average compared to their usually educational trivia. The poor quality is clearly a result of the presenters bias in favour of the Royal Family, a bias that jumps out of their tone and subject choices.

The first part of the video dealing with the economics of the Royal Family and relations to the rest of the UK (Parliament) is correct though it skips other some interesting and important incidents in that relationship, like the time in 1795 when the Prince of Wales married the Princess of Brunswick and Parliament raised an £65,000 per year to pay off her debts. This was at a time when food riots were common, and starvation threatened thousands of commoners.

But the real issues begin after the video moves beyond this into other areas. Tourism for one, he talks about American tourism and states that it is simply because of the Royal family, and so the Royal Family are responsible for the GDP share that tourism brings in.

This is a common argument trotted out by Monarchists in the rare occasions that the Royal Family is publicly challenged, and as per usual nothing is given to substantiate it.

Because there simply isn't, first US tourists aren't the most common tourists to the UK in 2014 they were in third place behind France (1,980,000) and Germany (1,460,000) with a total of 1,280,000. That's quite a high number but it isn't what is being argued here. And as for why those Americans visit we're given the answer "the Queen". So language and family connections don't factor into this at all hey?

Interestingly in that same year 24 million Americans went to Mexico, and 12 million to Canada, so if governmental systems are the main attractions for tourism and tourist revenue a good reason to keep or change that system, I guess the UK should turn itself into a Federal Republic. Oh and the only thing given as evidence for the importance of the Queen to the Yankee tourist dollar was France. Now according to the statistics I could find, boring Republican Paris is a close second to London, oh and France is global number one travel destination for tourism, having 84 million visitors in 2014. And the UK was beaten by the republican USA, China, Italy, Turkey, and Germany. But Monarchist Spain was third with 65 million tourists so its not all doom and gloom for the Crown.

But enough about tourism, the video gets much worse. At 3:30 the video talks about Royal prerogatives in a dismissive way. Showing a rather simplistic view, yes the Royal Prerogatives are really used by the actual Royal, but they've been used by most governments ever since. A Prerogative is

The Royal Prerogatives are a series of historic powers formally exercised by the monarch acting alone, but which in reality are exercised by government ministers. They enable government ministers to rule virtually by decree, without the backing of or consultation with Parliament, in many areas not covered by statute. A.V Dicey has described the Royal Prerogative as: “the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the crown”.

In relation to foreign affairs, the powers cover:

• the recognition of foreign states;
• the declaration of war;
• the making of treaties;
• the accreditation of diplomats; and
• the deployment of armed forces in the UK and abroad.

In relation to domestic matters, the powers include:

• the appointment and dismissal of ministers;
• the issuing and withdrawal of passports;
• the appointment of Queen’s Counsel;
• the dissolution of Parliament;
• the granting of honours;
• appointments to, and employment conditions of, the civil service;
• the commissioning and regulation of the armed forces; and
• the calling of elections.*

There is also the prerogative of ‘mercy’, which affects the judicial system. It means that ‘pardons’ can be granted in relation to a criminal conviction (i.e. it used to allow the withdrawal of the death penalty), or legal proceedings can be halted against an individual.

Now these powers are used by the Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean the Monarchy is sqeuky clean, the government is still using autocratic powers to subvert the principle of democracy, and given they do require the public consent of the Monarch of the day, that means the Queen/King is still complicit in these acts.

Thanks to the Royal prerogative the UK government can declare war on a whim, and control the civil service. These are very serious parts of the UK governmental system and they stem directly from the Crown. The video alleges that abolishing the Monarchy wouldn't change much and they may be right Republican movement have sometimes deposed one family simply to build another form of tyranny. But sometimes they have succeeded in granting at least limited freedoms. The fact that Royal Prerogatives come from the Royal family would suggest that an attack on the Royals legitimacy would also attack the legitimacy of its powers.

Then at 4:00 the video takes its final most absurd step by coming up with a hypothetical Queen Elizabeth II as global despot. This suggests that the maker of the video genuinely doesn't understand the institution of Monarchy at all really. The Monarchical system is more than the actual Monarch, human beings do not live for ever and so do not rule forever (Unless your name is Kim). Even if the current Monarch is amazing, that's no guarantee that the rest of them in the future will be.

After all King Edward VIII whom actually appears in the video at 02:04 was a Nazi sympathiser and an agent for the Axis powers.

"The active supporters of the Duke of Windsor within England are those elements known to have inclinations towards Fascist dictatorships, and the recent tour of Germany by the Duke of Windsor and his ostentatious reception by Hitler and his regime can only be construed as a willingness on the part of the Duke of Windsor to lend himself to these tendencies."

 "The American understood he was being asked to carry a message to the President, but he was unsure of the exact terms. As he was leaving the governor general's residence, the duke's aide-de-camp spelt it out. He instructed Oursler to tell the President that if he would make an offer for intervention for peace, before anyone in England could oppose it, the duke would instantly issue a statement supporting the move. It would start a revolution in England and, the duke hoped, lead to peace."

Although funnily enough this absurd hypothetical isn't nearly as absurd or hypothetical as the video maker thinks. The House of Windsor is actually very comfortable with the idea of coups and brutal Monarchies. To take one example the Queen is married to Prince Philip, who as most tabloid readers will know is Greek. Greek royalty to be precise, the Greek Royal  Family remains close to the British family despite the embarrassment of being kicked off the throne in 1973. Constantine II was on the guest list for the Queen's diamond Jubilee before protests by the Greek government got him dropped.

 “Constantine is not allowed to go,” a courtier tells me. “If the Queen could invite whom she liked, of course he would be there.” Constantine attended the Duke of Cambridge’s wedding and is a regular guest at the most important royal events. His sister, Queen Sofia of Spain, has been invited to the luncheon.

Why so much hostility, well Constantine II wasn't happy being a constitutional monarch and decided on a little restoration, in 1967 there was a coup by right wing officers, mostly of the rank of Colonel hence the nickname "Colonel's Coup". The King decided to support them, (many generals and the Navy and Air force were loyal to the royal family). Unfortunately by December the relationship between the King and the Junta broke down, so the King decided to run his own coup using the officers and units loyal to him. The counter coup failed miserable merely strengthening the Junta's position so the King and his family fled to Rome. In 1974 the people of Greece would show their appreciation for the King's politicking and the regime it helped create by voting for a republic.





But that was Greece and decades ago, well at the time The Queen with the rest of the government backed the Junta even after the hapless Constantine had fled. Also on the Jubilee guest list were the King's of Romania and Bulgaria. Two houses that supported brutal genocide and oppression in the 20th century.

 Between 1941 and 1944, Romania was responsible for exterminating approximately 300,000 Jews, giving it the sinister distinction of ranking second only to Germany in terms of the number of Jews murdered during the Second World War.

The new legal policy, dictated by the governments of King Carol II and Marshall Ion Antonescu, discriminated against the Jews of Transylvania and Banat, among other groups, on the basis of citizenship. Moreover, it confirmed the intention to apply a "detailed plan" of deportation of the Jews from the above-mentioned areas (The Archive of the Jewish Communities of Timisoara, Doc. 76-78, 1943). Negotiations for these deportations began in November 1941 and were resumed in the spring and summer of 1942. All attempts to persuade the authorities to change this policy failed. An existing prejudice towards Jews as an ethnic group - according to which the Jews of Southern Transylvania could become spies or betray the Romanian interests as speakers of Hungarian and German - played an important role in the hostility against them. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/236-between-hungary-and-romania-the-case-the-southern-transylvanias-jews-during-the#sthash.ulNcVCMV.dpuf

The new legal policy, dictated by the governments of King Carol II and Marshall Ion Antonescu, discriminated against the Jews of Transylvania and Banat, among other groups, on the basis of citizenship. Moreover, it confirmed the intention to apply a "detailed plan" of deportation of the Jews from the above-mentioned areas (The Archive of the Jewish Communities of Timisoara, Doc. 76-78, 1943). Negotiations for these deportations began in November 1941 and were resumed in the spring and summer of 1942. All attempts to persuade the authorities to change this policy failed. An existing prejudice towards Jews as an ethnic group - according to which the Jews of Southern Transylvania could become spies or betray the Romanian interests as speakers of Hungarian and German - played an important role in the hostility against them. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/236-between-hungary-and-romania-the-case-the-southern-transylvanias-jews-during-the#sthash.ulNcVCMV.dpuf

The new legal policy, dictated by the governments of King Carol II and Marshall Ion Antonescu, discriminated against the Jews of Transylvania and Banat, among other groups, on the basis of citizenship. Moreover, it confirmed the intention to apply a "detailed plan" of deportation of the Jews from the above-mentioned areas (The Archive of the Jewish Communities of Timisoara, Doc. 76-78, 1943). Negotiations for these deportations began in November 1941 and were resumed in the spring and summer of 1942. All attempts to persuade the authorities to change this policy failed. An existing prejudice towards Jews as an ethnic group - according to which the Jews of Southern Transylvania could become spies or betray the Romanian interests as speakers of Hungarian and German - played an important role in the hostility against them. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/236-between-hungary-and-romania-the-case-the-southern-transylvanias-jews-during-the#sthash.ulNcVCMV.dpuf

Oh and there was a time when a commonwealth government was overthrown by the military in 1975 that had no protests or condemnation. That nation was the little known Australia, and the reasons for the coup involved the royal relationship.

 Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution”. Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished royal patronage, moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing.

 Sir John Kerr, the Governor General (the crown's representative to Australia) with the support of MI6 and the CIA deposed the elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam using the powers of the Crown.

 The democratic process destroyed using the powers of the Monarch. Every Monarchist should ask themselves, if the Queen is happy to hobknob with brutal autocrats, and have her powers used to topple elected governments, would she really be opposed to the same happening here?

Of course the greatest fault of the video is that the whole thing is a massive strawman. The objections to the continuation of the Monarchical system are not those presented in the video. Here's what Republic the largest and most prominent Republican group in Britain has to say on the matter.

It's simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

And because we can’t hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.

Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest.  The Queen can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.

The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.

It's simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.
And because we can’t hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.
Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest.  The Queen can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.
The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.
- See more at: https://republic.org.uk/what-we-want#sthash.sJ6Vh5Jy.dpuf

And in not one second of this video are these costs of the monarchy responded too.

*We now have fixed terms of five years, however there are two exceptions for an earlier election and they both require the consent of the ruling Monarch. 

Donald Trump and the American Working Class

The American elections are heating up, but I'm not going to talk about that here, instead I wish to talk about something that I feel is far more instructive to what we can expect from a Trump Presidency. Personally speaking I think the best measure of a politicians intentions real values, and leadership style and priorities is by their actions and not their rhetoric. To hell with "I'm _______ and I approve this message" and the obligatory "Paid for by a committee that's backing a rival to the politician we've just been attacking". Actions speak louder than words, or at least they should. Strangely politics is the one area where this isn't always true.

Now longtime readers will know I've opposed Donald Trump on principal for a number of years, I still think his actions in Scotland and Aberdeen in particular expose the man's priorities, ruining the lives of the local population so he can build another shrine to his own vanity. But today I have another example, Mr Trump is a businessman, and like all good capitalists he has a workforce. This workforce is organising because because Trump and his management haven't quite got around to making his own workforce great at all, never mind again.

I am a housekeeper at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. This past December, a majority of employees like me at Trump Las Vegas voted YES to a union. But Trump's company has refused listen to us and honor the results of our election.
Instead, they've blocked negotiations through legal challenges – which so far have gone nowhere. A federal officer recently recommended that the company’s list of objections be "overruled in their entirety" – and that the NLRB certify the union.Instead of sitting down to negotiate a fair contract, Trump company lawyers are still fighting to overturn the election.
If Donald Trump wants to “Make America Great Again,” he should start by negotiating a deal with his us – his Las Vegas hotel employees – just like his company did for workers at Trump Toronto in Canada.
Just last year, Trump workers in Canada voted for a union and have since negotiated their first contract – a deal that gives workers much like us a chance to provide for their families, keep their kids healthy, enjoy job protections and security, and one day retire with dignity.

Even the smallest slither of a concession from a businessman takes month's even years of organising and campaigning before it'll even come close to seeing the light of day. Toronto has organised successfully but the upper management stubbornly resist its spread.

This week Donald Trump’s hotel in Las Vegas is facing more heat for its labor record. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued another federal complaint against Trump Ruffin Commercial, LLC, alleging that the company unlawfully terminated one employee and discriminated against another based on their union support, and promised employees job opportunities if they abandoned the union.
Trump’s company has driven an aggressive anti-union campaign since workers began organizing at the Trump Las Vegas in 2014.  The complaint issued this week is the third one brought by federal government against Trump Las Vegas alleging unfair labor practices. In prior complaints, federal officials have alleged that Trump’s hotel company engaged in the following unlawful activities: 1) maintaining rules prohibiting workers from communicating with one another and the public; 2) interrogations and surveillance; 3) intimidation of employees by Trump management and security staff, including a manager physically pushing employees; and 4) suspensions and a threat to fire union supporters.

 Trump's company treats its own workforce like hostile children in need of control and harassment. The concessions made to the Canadian workforce are welcome, but I can't help noticing that the darling of American Nationalism treats foreign workers better than those from the Fatherland, but to be fair to the man cross class rhetoric combined with anti worker policies are standard practice with all major nationalist movements, so he's really just going along with the flow here.


I mean he's not been coy about demonising migrant workers and taking a patriotic guise to American Labor, which is probably why he's been attracting so much support from those white supremacists and ghosts, and yet his actions and the actions of his company say the opposite.

Reuters reports that in just the last month Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida applied for 70 visas for foreign workers because they could be paid lower wages than American workers, even as Trump hit the campaign trail denigrating Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers. Since 2000, Trump-affiliated companies have sought 1,100 temporary visas for foreign workers, and most of the requested vias were approved.

The Las Vegas workers took part in the protests in Chicago


If Trump is this callous and dismissive of his own workforce, the very people who made his fortune that he's now using to run a Presidential campaign, then how will he react towards American workers whom haven't done anything for him?

His workers already live under a Trump Presidency, as the capitalist he controls their means of existence and daily routines,  they know what his policies are like and most of them hate it, this should be very instructive to the entire American population, and yet I don't belief its received much coverage.

Oh and if your reading this and are American and don't like Donald Trump much, then I urge you to support the workers of Donald Trump's companies in their protests and organisation attempts, no matter what happened come election day a stronger more combative workforce in Trumps corporate empire will only be an improvement. Of course everyone should be doing this for all workers everywhere but given the situation giving extra support to Trump staff makes sense.

Far East Ostalgia: Thoughts on the bizarre love affair of hardliner “communists” with the Kim Dynasty

For a good few years now I’ve been annoyed by this bizarre phenomena that is the North Korean fan club. I couldn’t understand why a group that prides itself on being “Pure” and deeply committed to the revolution and the ideal of workers state would waste so much time defending the honour of the Kim dictatorship. Making dictators that oppose one or more Western power look like the best thing since sliced bread isn’t anything new for this sorry shower, but even for them the DPRK should be a bridge too far.

This is a “Democratic People’s Republic” that isn’t Democratic even in the liberal Bourgeois sense –though that hasn’t stop them before- hell it isn’t even a republic. It’s a monarchy founded with 20^th century baggage. While the Kings of old had court advisers they have a Politburo, instead of lesser nobles there’s Korean Workers Party chiefs, the knightly orders are replaced with the Special Operations Forces, and the role of the witch hunter is filled by the State Security Department that hunts down heretics from the Cult of Personality surrounding the Kim trinity, Kim Il Sung the Father, Kim Jong il the Son and now Kim Jong Un the holy ghost (he is everywhere after all). Now I’m being a little flippant, but only a little of all the parallels the comparison to the trinity is the biggest stretch but only because it’s a direct illusion to Christianity and so not really culturally appropriate. A Confucian comparison would be better, but my knowledge of Confucius begins with wall calenders, vaguely racist "Confucius say" jokes and that film released in 2010.

North Korea is so backward it lacks even the progressive tint that’s used as the foundation for the lines taken by so many “anti-imperialist” post 50’s tankies. I’ve seen dozens of documentaries on North Korea, many of which have interviews with members of the government and military, and all of their comments are filled with rampant nationalism, and bombastic militarism. On rare occasions one of them briefly mentions socialism, but it’s never expanded on and always came sandwiched between nationalist platitudes. I’ve also read a number of books on North Korea and even frequent the Korean Central News Agency website (the official English language site that reports from North Korean government)  I’ve never seen or heard them use any of the usual tropes and holy words all the other regimes did that these wannabe despots trip over themselves to praise. Hell by their own admission they rejected Karl Marx and the socialist concept of class, rejecting the two classes in conflict, in favour of national harmony between 55 class categories. Yes that’s right, North Korean society is based on total loyalty to the nation state, and has stratified its citizenry into 55 categories, based on occupation, family positions, and even ancestry is taken into account. 

Indeed, it started taking the works of Communist thinkers whose work contradicted and challenged the North Korean state out of wide circulation in the 60’s. “Books on Marx disappeared from library shelves about this time(1)as well. People could read Marx only in a few select libraries, and scholars had tio produce a reason for reading him.” 

Amusingly, the cult of Kim Il Sung also supplanted this crowds number one idle Stalin. “Three years after Stalin’s death, his cult of personality was officially denounced at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. This de-Stalinization influenced the DPRK as well: Stalin’s portraits were removed and the Soviet songs were to be performed in the new, edited variant. For example, if under Stalin North Koreans sang “Our toast is for the Motherland, our toast is for Stalin, our toast is for the banner of victories,” after 1956 the toast was supposed to be proclaimed not for Stalin, but for the party.

In the mid-1950s Kim Il Sung, who after Stalin death’s felt much more confident, started a campaign against Soviet influence, emphasizing the need for everything that is Korean and national. Since Stalin was neither Korean, nor national, his image began to wither away. It was not done very fast, and what is now Victory Street in Pyongyang kept its old name – Stalin Street – up to the 1970s. And in the late 1960s the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were removed from libraries and access to them was restricted: Kim Il Sung had no need for predecessors. After the DPRK became politically independent from the Soviet Union, Stalin still remained in the North Korean political discourse, but he occupied the place similar to that of Kim Il Sung in Stalin’s USSR: the leader of a friendly, but clearly a “junior” state, a positive figure which, as such, bowed to the world leader.”(2) 
And the regime has continued dropping bit by bit the old associations with any none Korean leftist.

Now would be the time were I bring up North Korea’s murderous regime and oppression of its population including its proletariat. But there isn’t any point because that’s true of every regime this crowd has championed. Of all the features of the North Korean system, its brutality towards its own citizen is by far its most typical feature.

It’s not really a surprise that these so called radical communists and militant socialists are nothing of the sort. Prick them on this and they’ll quickly pull up a North Korean state document maintaining that the DPRK is a socialist state, or Kim Jong Il’s speeches or books where he talks about the importance of “Socialist Construction” etc. But all that does is expose their own blatant ignorance of socialism. Poke them about authoritarianism and they’ll bring up the elections, rather hypocritically as many of these people will quickly denounce elections in western nations as shams, and in North Korea every eligible political party takes part in the same front with the Workers Party of Korea, meaning that elections in North Korea are even more pointless than usual. 

However the extensive lip service paid by the regimes of old to “socialism” international revolution and the working classes gave them enough jargon to camouflage themselves. North Korea doesn’t give them much room to do this, its isolationist instead of internationalist, and its preoccupation is reunification of Korea and building up its military industry at the expense of living standards for the average North Korean, both nationalist pursuits in place of workers liberation. These cheerleaders of the Dear Leader still try to paint North Korea as a model Socialist society, but the gulf between reality and their arguments is so vast and so noticeable that they don’t wash with anyone not already inducted, and makes them look callous and delusional.

But why this brutal cold war relic in particular? Why doesn’t China, Laos, Vietnam or Cuba command the affections of this crowd? Especially since they all make a much better show of continuity with the good old days? Well the answer may lie in the combination of militaristic posturing and state control of the economy.  Of all the other “Communist countries” left the one that could compete with North Korea for the affections of this crowd (though why they’d want to I don’t know) was Cuba. And what is Cuba famous for? A leadership clad in Olive green army fatigues shouting angrily at the US, state control of all production including sugar cane cultivators, and sponsoring revolts in Africa and Latin America. However since the 90’s Cuba has progressively followed a more market orientated economy, and conciliation with the USA. And it’s been years since Cuban soldiers have been seen carrying out nefarious schemes in the third world. Che Guevara still has some pull but overall the enthusiasm for the sunshine Stalinist state has dimmed amongst the ranks of the hard liners. 

Compare this to North Korea, a regime that repeated threatens its neighbours and the US with missile, nuclear missiles and maintains a stranglehold on the economy. When I first started visiting youtube the only “socialist” videos I found for years, were footage of Soviet mayday parades with thousands of soldiers, tanks and missiles. I have also seen many of these pro NK types take time out to specifically congratulate the North Koreans on nuclear weapons tests and rocket launches. This from the types who shrilly denounce NATO and the US armed forces. I have also seen these Kimchi jingo’s celebrate the execution of Jang sun-Taek because he was apparently a capitalist sell out.   So that covers the military fetishism, what about standing up to the markets?

Well like most things concerning North Korea reality shows the official line to be wishful thinking at best and outright lie at worst. The North Korean economy much like its claims to democracy and socialism only helps proves how out of touch the cheerleaders of the Great General are. I could launch into a lecture about the collapse of the ration system in the 90’s during the famine, privileges for heads of industrial and agricultural concerns, the existence of wage labour, the state taking surplus profit from economy to invest elsewhere, the state operating like a corporation, the establishment of state owned companies, and the thriving black market which tarnishing the ideal of a fully planned economy, but I don’t really need to. North Korea doesn’t really oppose market capitalism or private finance. It welcomes them provided the terms of the deals made benefit its overall aims. North Korea’s mobile phone network was built by an Egyptian company Orascom, which joint owns a public/private partnership company called Koryolink. A public private partnership was the key pillar to Tony Blair’s economic vision, and is usually seen by tankies as the first crack in the walls of a “socialist economy” when it occurs elsewhere. Nor is it the only example 

 In the past, China persuaded North Korea with various joint venture projects arguing that, “You have nothing to lose from these projects. Although it’s based on market principles, ultimately it’s beneficial for both parties.” North Korea on the other hand maintained the stance, “You (China) invest and we will manage,” holding on to management rights of these companies. However, for this very reason Chinese companies were reluctant to directly invest in North Korea. Even after contracts were signed, large -scale investment did not transpire due to poor management.

However, North Korea finally yielded to China’s request, handing over major management rights to Chinese investors. This recent move is analyzed as an attempt to attract more foreign investment to actualize North Korea’s goal of building a “Strong and Prosperous Nation” by 2012. With large-scale management rights transferred to the Chinese companies for joint ventures, the DPRK-China economic cooperation volume is expected to grow.

There's also official commitments by the DPRK to protect foreign investment.

Indeed the DPRK is so eager to encourage investment in North Korea, that it set up the IKBC (The International Korean Business Centre) and advertises its services through the Korean Friendship Association the official mouthpiece of the North Korean fan club. 

The IKBC sales pitch includes the following:

Lowest labour cost in Asia.
Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.
Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.
No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies.
Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.
Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.
New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).
Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.

So an official arm of the North Korean government is other monopoly capital schemes, corporate tax cuts, and guarantees the loyalty of its workforce? How's that for socialism?

So why the lack of alarm in this case? Well the North Korean state is still the main force in the North Korea’s economy and it’s not squeamish about taking severe action against those who failure to deliver, so this goes away to reassuring them. Several companies that do actually invest in North Korea have been alleging being ripped off. But realistically speaking, I  think they just don't want to see it. I know some of these fellows turned a blind eye to Fidel Castro’s early reforms or justified them as pragmatic, and ended up condemning his brother Raul for continuing the reform process. North Korea still lags behind the alternatives, especially China and Vietnam so it’s the last stop on the line. If North Korea goes “revisionist” or “capitalist roader” then that’s it. This is a loose coalition of people made up of those who for decades have deflected criticism by simply pointing to examples of “actually existing socialism” so without an actual example of “actually existing socialism” they have no more platform. The other big trend in this group are the extreme anti western “progressives/socialists/anti-imperialists” who also have few options else left now since all the other anti western “modernisers” have either capitulated to the western order or been overthrown. Well Assad’s still clinging on in Syria, and it’s possible a Conservative shift in Iran could reopen wounds.  There’s also Putin, but his brand of conservatism and capitalist economics will keep all but the most desperate from rallying around him now.  He's even increased his criticism of the Soviet Union so no one but those strange Russian nationalists whom dress like 1940's red army officers will stick around.

There is another question here, does any of this matter? I would say yes but admit this North Korean caucus is a minor problem. Compared to all the other obstacles and outright threats we face. Though Korean Friendship Association et al  have raised funds for North Korea and been used as an intermediary for business deals and who knows where that money goes? Their existence and visibility is also an embarrassment  for individuals and groups identified with socialism or communism from interacting with the public. Explicitly Anarchist groups don't have that problem, but that's mostly because in the mainstream anarchism is still associated with Individualistic Terror.   But the equation of socialism and workers power with Juche and the Workers Party of Korea is an issue, just like how it was when the Soviet Union was around. Now North Korea isn’t as imposing and omnipresent as the Soviet Union or China during Mao’s day, but it has and will pop up in places. There are parts of the world where North Korea is quite well known and where this problem will be more pronounced, South Korea and Japan spring to mind, but also parts of Africa where North Korea has some involvement via trade and aid. There are Kim Il Sung study groups and societies in countries like Nigeria and Tanzania(3). 

 Yes of course. There are so many North Koreans here. They are in Nigeria helping us, in our health care system, with our agriculture.  They also provide technical experience and there are also some joint ventures between Nigerians and North Koreans. These joint ventures are in chemicals, fertilizers, agricultures, furniture, marble, mostly from granite (the North Koreans are very good in this), hospitals in Yobe, Adamawa, Zamfara, Enugu, Nasarawa, Delta, Rivers and Borno as well as Lagos states.The three DPRK doctors that were killed were working in Yobe state, which is in the northeastern part of Nigeria. As you may aware, the northeastern part of Nigeria is the hot bed of the insurgency in Nigeria.

 

And here in the jolly old UK we have the Communist Party of Great Britain Marxist Leninist (CPGB-ML) a group that champions North Korea among other things. Again I must confess my ignorance, despite encountering them several times online, I've never had the pleasure of meeting these folks in the flesh, indeed I've can't recall seeing a banner or group participating in the TUC marches I used to go too. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're not a force in another region. Although to be fair to North Korea, the CPGB-ML has many other daft ideas, and still champions a few of the other progressive strongmen like Assad and Castro.

So I think that these embarrassing “comrades” can be considered an active problem, and added to the list. Unfortunately I don’t have much in the way of a practical solution; the one positive I can say about these people is their dedication to the cause. More the pity they’ve chosen such a rotten banner to fly. They’ll keep on banging the (war)drum until the regime itself goes away or is no longer to their liking. Public criticism of North Korea and other “progressive” dictatorships might help a little but making it a priority given the low level of trouble this lot have caused (unless of course you’re in an area where there’s a pro NK group of some size) would be a mistake. You may think that’s hypocritical of me having written all this, but it’s not a priority for me either, I wrote this at work during a break from my other projects, and felt compelled to because as a NK watcher I encounter these people regularly and get tired of their callous and ignorant bile.

 1: From Exit Emperor Kim Jong Il, “this time” refers to the March 25^th purge in 1967 of a “liberal” Kapsan faction of the party and the expansion of censorship and the positioning of Kim il Sung as the Supreme Leader.

2: From an article by Fyodor Tertitskiy on NKnews https://www.nknews.org/2016/01/the-image-of-stalin-in-north-korea/

3:In addition to material and military aid, North Korea has built a number of governmental buildings and national stadiums for various African countries.  

Revolutionary Ramblings and Doom Sayings

Warning the below post is a lengthy criticism of a Youtube Vlogger, if this doesn't interest you then I suggest skipping this post entirely.


I was blessed to receive a Youtube recommendation of a video from the #1 Marxist on Youtube. The eponymous Maoist Rebel, Canada's Chairman of internet agitprop, Jason Unruhe. There is dire news from the Revolutions cyber centre and angry commentator cadre are bombarding the head quarters. And I promise to knock off the Mao speak jokes.



Full disclosure, I've followed Jason for many years on and off, usually several months will go by before I come across him again, and each time I'm surprised by how different he is. The man knows how to reinvent himself, its a shame each iteration is more odious than the last. So this rambling video about the dire state of "Marxism" rattling off a diverse group of misdeeds and guilty parties. Its starts off alright, he condemns the CPRF's homophobia but he tells his audience this news as if its a surprise, that a "Marxist-Leninist"(ML) party is homophobic, which means he's unaware that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union made homosexuality punishable by time in a Labour camp. Kinda of a worrying oversight for Youtubes No 1 Marxist hey?

Then he goes on to warn about a trend of ML parties turning to Fascism, and cites the use of antisemitism amongst the regions that broke away from the Ukraine. However annoyingly he doesn't give a specific example or a link to establish what exactly he's referring too. This is frustrating since the issue of antisemitism is rather confusing in this area. It's definitely being used by someone but both sides accuse the other and plead innocents, the infamous episode of anti Jewish leaflets shows how murky and prevalent `The Socialism of fools` is in the region.

And he offers no real substantiation for his claim that ML parties are trending towards Fascism. Though the evidence of some of them flirting with it isn't hard to find, in Eastern Europe they're known as Red-Brown alliances. Indeed the CPRF itself is part of such alliances,But again vague wording and a refusal to cite sources or give examples mean is impossible to tell how accurate Jason is. He also briefly states ML parties in the US are putting out Fash statements but he doesn't say which parties or which statements are Fascistic, meaning its impossible to tell if he's correct and nearly impossible to look up.

Then things get a bit weird, we go from ML's becoming Fash, to Maoists (in the first world mind) doing something with a gender bandwagon, which is bad because....? It just is. I honestly have no idea what he's talking about here, Maoists in the first world is somehow even vaguer then his previous statements. Talking about Gender apparently won't lead to Revolution, okay, I guess we have to take Jason's word for this since he doesn't elaborate at all. But taking Jason at his word, Maoism would also be bankrupt. The ideology of Maoism hasn't led to a successful Revolution since 1949 in China, and that was made possible thanks to the inherent instability of the Chinese state after the 1911 Revolution, and the weakness of the KMT. Everywhere else Maoist tendencies have tried to seize control through force of arms, what Mao called People's War they failed, Jason even brings up an example of this failure later in the video. The closest a Maoist group has come to a successful "revolution" was the downfall of the King of Nepal, but the King was defeated by a mass alliance of seven political parties and the new Maoist government has been vigoursly denounced by Maoist organisations throughout the world, from Afghanistan to the USA.

He then links these two seemingly completely separate trends (ML Fash, and Maoist Genderists) with a common cause, lack of relevance to the working classes. Here Jason is sorta correct, the Maoists and ML's and Trotskyists (whom Jason doesn't mention) are declining in influence and numbers. Well at least in Britain and Ireland and the USA from what I've heard from American friends. Jason tells his audience to look at the numbers, but doesn't show the numbers, apparently Jason wants his audience to do his work for him. But it is correct anecdotely speaking these groups used to be fairly prominent at Mayday demonstrations and Trade Union marches, but their presence has decreased at each march I attended, and several organisations have collapsed over the years. But I doubt this has much to do with gender fixation or Fascist leanings. For a start this Gender stuff is apparently a new trend but Maoism has never had a big presence in the British Labour movement, in America they were more noticeable, but they peaked in the 70's. Most of the Maoist groups shrunk and collapsed in the 80's and 90's which is before this Gender stuff became fashionable, I assume. I'm also not convinced that gender is alienating the working masses from embracing interpretations of 1940's era Chinese politics. But I can't be sure because I don't know what he's talking about*.

The closest we get to a piece of evidence actually seems to contradict his own assertion. Jason brings up the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, but then says they're small and marginal despite downplaying gender. This would suggest that the relative decline of Maoist parties would have little at all to do with Gender then would it not? Apparently not, it seems the Canadians flaws lay elsewhere. Now I'm going to give Jason the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows warfare pre-dates the existence of firearms and that what he meant to say was that its fraudulent for Canadian Maoists to claim to be fighting a People's War without some sort of armed wing. Seems reasonable, but looking up the RCPC program's section on People's War, it states that the RCPC is preparing for People's War and that it sees this war as being protracted and long and that it will first involve a lot of work, building their movement, boycotting elections, boycotting the state etc, and only engaging in insurrection when they believe the time is right. Apparently Jason must think the time is right for the insurrection and the establishment of the Toronto Commune, right now. Basically Jason is advocating that a small group of students get some guns and then get themselves killed. Unless Jason honestly believes a Guerilla army can topple the Canadian state -in which case he should be busy trying to start his own band of freedom fighters, surely?- right now, this complaint is petulant and potentially very dangerous. I have no love for Maoism but what Jason is (I hope accidentally) doing here is trying to shame a group of people into getting themselves and other people killed, in a fight they couldn't possibly win.

Now Jason isn't well known as a competent speaker, he's often incoherent and his seeming inability to cite his sources or back up his statements often kills what little sense you can scrape out of his more baffling statements. Here I can only surmise that he is advocating an insurrection this very second, since he doesn't criticise the doctrine just the RCPC's lack of progress in building their own Red Army. This is simply a shocking level of callousness, and I honestly hope the explanation for such a statement is his own intellectual laziness. It also raises another question, does Jason believe that an insurrection, by nature a clandestine affair waged primarily in the wilderness, led by students would be more appealing to the Canadian proletariat? Are Canadian workers really itching to live in wilds being hunted by Canadian security forces?

Actually there is a silver lining of a sort here, it seems clear that Jason a self described Maoist, doesn't actually understand what Protracted People's War means. Mao's lecture which were compiled in 1938 as On Protracted War, were about China's military situation resisting Japan, since the army of the Empire of Japan was superior to the Republic of China's armies and the Communist partisan units Mao argued against conventional large scale battles in favour of smaller skirmishes and ambushes. Which honestly strikes me as simple common sense really. If you don't regiments and a well supplied and coordinated logistical wing, don't plan to fight like a General with a battle line. He also argued against a weapon centric attitude to conflict in favour of a people centric view.

48. This is the so-called theory that "weapons decide everything", which constitutes a mechanical approach to the question of war and a subjective and one-sided view. Our view is opposed to this; we see not only weapons but also people. Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive factor; it is people, not things, that are decisive. The contest of strength is not only a contest of military and economic power, but also a contest of human power and morale. Military and economic power is necessarily wielded by people. If the great majority of the Chinese, of the Japanese and of the people of other countries are on the side of our War of Resistance Against Japan, how can Japan's military and economic power, wielded as it is by a small minority through coercion, count as superiority?

Basically what he's getting at is that a war involves more than a clash of arms, and requires political and economic actions. I'll say this for the RCPC their statement on Protracted War is far closer to Mao's speeches when stripped of their references to the Chinese resistance to Japan.

Moving on Jason claims that Marxism globally is weak and laments that we don't live in the area of Soviet tanks and Maoist Guerrilla's, showing how little Youtube's number one Marxist understands Marxism, and basic history. Not only were the regimes of Eastern Europe not Marxist, they differed from Social Democracy and the Paris Commune both movements Karl Marx did endorse, but they also failed, that's probably the most important thing to remember, the Soviet Union was a global superpower, and it failed utterly in all of its aims. It didn't manage to transition to Communism, it didn't hold back Western Imperialism, it didn't a free and open society for its citizenry and it didn't survive as a political system. Maoism did not sweep Asia in the 60's it failed outside China, the only successful "Communist" movements in Asia, (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) owed their success to the collapse of America and France in the region, and massive handouts from the Soviet Union and the PRC. Laos and Vietnam were very close to the Soviet Union, and Cambodia remained tied to China for support against its neighbour Vietnam, none of these regimes were Maoist in a sense that means anything. Same was true of Latin America, the only successful resistance movements of note, the Sandinista's and Castro's 26th of July Movement weren't Maoists, neither were most of the other groups that grew powerful enough to worry their governments. The only exception were the Peruvian Shining Path, and they failed. And probably a good thing that they did too, given how brutal they were in their `Revolutionary base areas`

And as for Europe, the Soviet Union et alls brutal repression of its own working classes  ensured a collapse in support for the Communist parties in the East and a mass Exodus in the West. Hungary 56, and Czechoslovakia 1968 where the most obvious examples but there was no shortage of them. It also didn't help that the populations of Europe were on the receiving end of Soviet military posturing. It's hard to recruit amongst the workers when your best example is pointing missiles at their families.

Moving on again, we now get a list of reformist movements that didn't lead to an uprising, despite the claims of some. Mixed in with some admissions that third world Guerilla armies haven't toppled the pyramid of imperialism and are actually exhausting themselves. I guess that means grabbing guns and going off into the wilderness to fight the running dogs of the bourgeoisie isn't so effective hey? He continues to equate revolution with fighting in the bush and lamenting the decline of it. The revolution is not the army, historically People's armies have a very poor record in military terms, and the few revolutionary regimes they manage to put in power turn out to be not very revolutionary at all.

If this is Marxism (and for the record it isn't) I say let it die. Thankfully it isn't, and the class struggle continues to be waged and will continue to ebb and flow until its finally solved once and for all.

Jason is quite welcome to waste his time "updating" things, I just hope that when he's doing crafting his Unruhist party program he'll stop referring to himself as a Marxist and a Communist. He should also stop calling himself a Maoist but I won't lose any sleep if he doesn't. 


Oh and I find it very amusing that his patreon link flashed on the screen when he was castigating his viewers for not doing anything, accident or well timed plug?


*A bit of an aside, at around 02:30 in his video lamentation about Maoism, Jason mentions that in addition to not being able to reach "the workers" (tm) these groups also can't reach the "black masses". This is a bizarre remark, surely the black masses, like the masses and the people include non proletarian black people, like black businessmen, so why on earth would any Revolutionary group even try to appeal to a group to initiate a Revolution when it includes non revolutionary classes and sections of society?