Is North Korea a leftist state?

Soviets were ethnonationalist? Really? You realise that North Koreans believe they are they are superior to other races?

Meanwhile in the USSR:
youtube.com/watch?v=B4gUI9VUi4k

Soviets were ethnonationalist? Really? You realise that North Koreans believe they are they are superior to other races?

Meanwhile in the USSR:
youtube.com/watch?v=B4gUI9VUi4k

Bullshit. Claimed by western authors who didn't source it. Songbun doesn't have a racial aspect.

Yes. Look at Stalin`s Russification of Baltics,Ukraine etc. He was no different form Tzar in that aspect.

Divine monarchy with a hereditary caste system and a dash of Confucianism is not leftist. It's basically the Joeson kingdom under a new dynasty.

it is actually existing nazbol

Horseshit. Stalin was anti-nationalist, he didn't "russificate" them. Lenin was more nationalist than Stalin, he wanted to support national liberation movements.

Tell that to the masses that were moved and forcefully intergrated into Russian. If he truly was anything else other than chevanistic proto-nationalist fascist he would have given full rights to other federal republics instead of forcing everyone to speak Russian.

Just because you relocate people doesn't mean you are a "chevanistic proto-nationalist fascist".

espressostalinist.com/the-real-stalin-series/deportation-of-nations/

Also, kinda big coming from a literal social fascist.

You can't have a nation without a single language.

What is Switzerland then? Or Finland nor any other nation that is bi- or multilingual?

He clearly hated those minorities as those actions proved. Not to mention that he was raging anti-Semite like Hitler.

Lol
leftcom.org/en/articles/2008-09-01/georgia-on-his-mind-lenin’s-final-fight-against-“great-russian-chauvinism”
theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/25/vladmir-putin-accuses-lenin-of-placing-a-time-bomb-under-russia

Come on guys, anti-communist socdems shouldn't fight each other!

Another stupid lie.

espressostalinist.com/the-real-stalin-series/soviet-nations/

He said on multiple occasions to hate the Jewish bourgeoisie, not the Jewish proletarian.

He was a minority himself

That first article is full of fraud and weird distortions. If I have time I might debunk that utter bullshit. Lenin was in favor of peripheral nationalism, Stalin had mixed opinions about that. Why don't you read the guy himself?

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm

There is literally no difference between Stalin and Hitler.
Molotov-Rippentov pact proves it.

Yes.

Bad post

There is literally no difference between socdems and fascists.
The fact that both have a mixed economy proves it.

There is no such thing as a "non-leftist" state. If you want egalitarianism or to ban any practice/concept, you require a state. If you want law or elections, you need a state to enforce the outcome (or a "just don't call it a state"). So when you're talking about abolishing classes or currency, or ending alleged exploitation, you need to have a state to remove the people you want removed.

-both were horrible military leaders
-both killed millions
-both were manlets.

There is, Fascists usually have ideological convictions and core values, we don`t hold such idealistic things.

It's an authoritarian shithole, so I don't much care whether the boot on its' people's face is on the left or right foot

oh boy the Juche Internet Defense Force bot is here, time to read all about everybody who doesn't want to ride Kim Dong Un's stumpdick being a burger imperialist porky

That's not how arguments work, watch some Monty Python

shiggy
so you think the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact was a good thing?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region

And Molotov-Ribbentrop was made to buy time for the Soviets because classcucked allies didn't want an alliance with the Soviets.

Ethnostate

However, Crimean Tatars were banned from joining this movement. Historian J. Otto Pohl has accused Mokrousov and Martynov of incompetence and extreme racism against the Crimean Tatar population. Some Crimean Tatar communists were forced out of their refuges in woodlands by the partisans, which resulted in their execution by the occupying German forces. The partisans specifically targeted and destroyed Crimean Tatar villages; according to Pohl, this was not because of their suspected collaboration but rather a "Slavic animosity against the Tatars". Crimean Tatar villages were also pillaged for food by the partisans.[7][10][11]

The other side wasn't providing any sources either. You should go back to reddit.

0/10

It might have something to do with the fact that Soviets launched an unprovoked invasion of Finland annexed Baltic states and sold oil other war material to Germans.

Finns had it coming

youtu.be/9_DQ3IhNH9o

lol

It's not like nazis were cooperating with Finland and planning to use the north west to attack Leningrad

All of which were at the time reactionary right-wing shit states

I have some land in Brooklyn to sell you and some Iraqi television about their 2003 victory and Holla Forums jaypeg artifacts about Autism Level scores to show you

In the unlikely event that your unembedded youtube link is evidence and not more shit-tier propaganda, that doesn't change the fact that yer boi lied flagrantly out his asshole about it and became an international punchline when people called him out on his obvious bullshit. Stop trying to distract from the fact that what you are presenting as evidence isn't.
lel I ain't clickin that shit

that why Stalin blew off the first few reports when Barbarossa happened and left the Red Army paralyzed and ass in the breeze against the Ostheer for the first few days?

Got any sources? Here's mine
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

Not in 1940, no but after the war people were more eager to take revenge on Russians.

No, Finland was lead by social democratic government or mixture of socdems and centrists.

For the 15th time, those units of volunteers were not sanctioned by the state or the military thus Finnish government and people cannot logically be considered responsible for their actions.

Stalin didn't want to provoke any incidents on the western border to avoid a German reaction, that is why he responded so slowly. He also strongly believed Hitler would not attack the Soviet Union until the Brits were defeated first, so that just added to his disbelief. But yes I agree Stalin committed some huge strategical mistakes during 1941-42.

no

His mistakes started with his leadership over battle of Warsaw in the 20`s and continued trough 30`s with the great purge. He was nothing but a mistake, Bakuin would have been better leader. Or even Molotov.

Nigga, NK is barely even a State.

archive.org/details/BeforeTheNaziInvasion

"Jointly with the leading imperialist powers, the ruling quarters in Finland made great efforts to turn Finland into a springboard for an attack on the USSR. Powerful military installations were built under the direction of Western military experts at a distance of 32 kilometres from Leningrad, the cradle of the Great October Socialist Revolution. The fortifications called the Mannerheim Line, running across the Karelian isthmus were nearing completion in 1938. These fortifications were seen as a guarantee of the impunity of troops poised for aggressive action against the Soviet Union. Many more aerodromes than was needed by the Finnish air force were being built near the Soviet frontier with the assistance of German experts. In fact, they could accommodate almost 10 times as many aircraft as were then available to the Finnish air force. At the close of the 1930s, Urho Kaleva Kekkonen said, "The shadow of Hitler spread over us, and Finnish society as a whole cannot deny that it looked upon this rather favourably"

Small wonder that nazi diplomacy saw Finland as a “friend and support". The German envoy in Helsinki Wipert von Blikher reported as early as 1935 that in the eyes of Finland the Soviet Union continued to be the only possible enemy and that therefore it had to be treated with the maximum distrust. It was the Soviet government's view that by 1939 Finland, chiefly the Karelian isthmus, had become a military springboard for potential aggression against the USSR. The Soviet government did not exaggerate Finland's military potential, although the bellicose anti-Sovietism of the Finnish militarists gave sufficient grounds for anxiety. But the main thing was in something else. The Soviet government was concerned chiefly about the possibility that Finnish militarism might be used by the imperialist powers for anti-Soviet purposes. "We do not fear Finland, but some great power may use Finland against the Soviet Union" Stalin said to Finnish representatives in October 1939. Pointing to the region of Hanko on a map, he continued: "This is where the troops of a great power will land in Finland, and however much you resisted, you will not be able to prevent this; they will land and from there move in the direction of the Soviet Union across your country."

Building defensive fortifications =/= planning an offensive.
Finnish military was in middle of reform, there were plans to increase size of the air forces that were meagerly 100 planes. So 1,000 isint really much compared so Soviet arsenal in 1930`s.

Not to mention that Soviets were seen as the only potential enemy for a reason. During the civil war they had stripped Ukraine,Belrus and other states of their independence, not to mention their coups in China and Mongolia.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=Gqvwc0E2IQ4
hmmmm

If it is it failed miserably at raising the standard of living for everybody in the country and not creating a bureaucratic class that lives better lives than the workers.

depends what you mean by leftist. it's probably not communist or socialist unless you use some really retarded definition for those two terms.

No they fucking don't, that's imperialist propaganda

...

...

...

they themselves dont even claim to be socialist anymore

Not at all

...

It's the shittiest leftist state on the planet. Compare with Cuba or something to get off the hook.

North Korea is basically a monarchy

figures

Is North Korea as bad as everyone says it is? Serious question.

Basically this. NK is a one-party state, running against Kim is illegal and voting is mandatory.

It's just so wonderful, citizens can't help but risk their lives trying to escape into China.

more fascist with some leftwing leanings

No, it's not the twisted hellhole it's portrayed as, but it's got serious problems too.

That doesn't mean that it can't be democratic

What's wrong with this?

DPRK is like if the WRP had become the vanguard of a communist UK, or RCP in US

really underrated post

Its reactionary monarchy.

...