152
"Pyongyang’s once-empty streets are now jammed with vehicles that aren’t supposed to be there" (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by to c/slop@hexbear.net
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://xcancel.com/Reuters/status/2054098106136813829

Cars in North Korea??? That's not supposed to happen. It's ruining our narratives about them having dead rats for dinner. maddened

DPRK citizens now have access to superior Chinese EVs that amerikkkans can't have. juche-rose

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 4 months ago (9 children)

The big ommissions here are that the Soviets were not occupiers

Just because they weren't as bad as the US or the Japanese does not mean they weren't occupiers. They held military control over the north and disbanded the local branch of the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence operating under the leadership of Cho Man Sik. And then created the Assembly for the Provisional Committee without any Korean input. Going as far as to write the 1st version of their constitution.

Statesians had declared the People's Republic of Korea illegal, and had set up an occupying government called USAMGIK, and then set up the ROK, leaving many of the compradors from the era of Japanese colonialism in power as the new stage and chaebol.

The independence of the PRK in the south and the north both ended in 1945 after the trusteeship was agreed upon in the Moscow conference. Cho Man Sik was arrested and disappeared because he did not agree with the trusteeship and Shtykov chose Kim il Sung, a relatively unknown character outside of Manchuria over the logical choice of Pak Hon-yong, who had long been known as one of the fathers of communism in Korea.

The Soviets did not force the communists into power like the Statesians had forced the new capitalist government into power in the south.

They didn't have to force communism in power, communism had already been developing by itself in both the north and in the south. What they did do is assert their influence to control how it developed.

My argument wasn't that America wasn't worse, it was that the Soviets also asserted their influence over a foreign nation and that had negative outcomes that we still have to deal with today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (8 children)

    The soviets were loosely involved with the north, and did not choose for the northerners how to govern nor dictate their direction. They served as a stabilizing and advisory group, which was beneficial on the basis of the wide communist sympathies across the entire peninsula. It was the Statesians in the south that went against the grain, occupied the south, and handpicked their leaders. Kim Il-Sung was also not an unknown, and was picked by Korean resistance leaders.

    Ultimately, today, the DPRK is an independent indigenous state, while the ROK is still colonized by the US Empire. The soviets left the north as was always intended, while the US Empire maintained a permanent presence and explicit control over their military. To call them both occupiers erases that fundamental difference and erases the autonomy of Koreans in the north that ultimately did choose how to chart their own path, which is sadly not the case for the south (yet).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (7 children)

    The soviets were loosely involved with the north, and did not choose for the northerners how to govern nor dictate their direction.

    And what happened to Cho Man-sik?

    They served as a stabilizing and advisory group, which was beneficial on the basis of the wide communist sympathies across the entire peninsula.

    The Soviet civilian administration was more than an advisory group,they were the official ruling administration until 1948.

    It was the Statesians in the south that went against the grain, occupied the south, and handpicked their leaders.

    Again, no one has claimed the south wasn't being ruled by a fascist regime installed the US.

    Kim Il-Sung was also not an unknown, and was picked by Korean resistance leaders.

    He didn't arrive in Korea until 1945 and was mostly known by other Manchurian Koreans who survived the Minsaengdan incident. He was empowered by the Soviet faction to create the North Korean Branch Bureau which broke away from the CPK Central Committee.

    Ultimately, today, the DPRK is an independent indigenous state, while the ROK is still colonized by the US Empire. The soviets left the north as was always intended, while the US Empire maintained a permanent presence and explicit control over their military.

    Again, not what we were arguing about.

    To call them both occupiers erases that fundamental difference and erases the autonomy of Koreans in the north that ultimately did choose how to chart their own path, which is sadly not the case for the south (yet).

    It's called nuance...... No one is arguing that the north didn't have more independence than the south. However, to claim the Soviets didn't assert a massive amount of influence and limit the autonomy of North Koreans is just ahistorical and whitewashes the history of European chauvinism and the destructive interventional history of Europeans in asia.

    It also omits the hubris of the western powers believing they had the right to divide Korea in half during the Moscow conference in defiance of the protest of Korean representatives from both the left and right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Did the Soviets have influence? Yes. Were they "occupiers?" No. Nobody is arguing that the soviets did not have any influence whatsoever, and it seems we are both getting caught up in the difference between "occupation" and "influence." This difference is perhaps most stark in your insistence that the Soviets and the US Empire both were guilty of European chauvanism, when it's abundantly clear both in theory and in practice that the US Empire was (and is) an actively imperialist country while the soviets treated the National question extremely seriously, and fought to abolish colonialism. This is why the north and the south had such different levels of autonomy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Did the Soviets have influence? Yes. Were they "occupiers?" No. Nobody is arguing that the soviets did not have any influence whatsoever, and it seems we are both getting caught up in the difference between "occupation" and "influence."

    I would agree that we're both caught up in the difference between occupier and influence. However, I think it's an important distinction. My argument hinges on the fact that both the US and the Soviets decided to occupy the peninsula during the Moscow conference despite the pleas from the representatives elected by the people of korea.

    Now I do think there is a distinction between the two countries behavior in that an occupation is by definition a temporary status. The Soviets occupied North Korea for less than five years while the US have defacto colonized South Korea.

    I wouldn't claim that the Soviet union colonized, annexed, or even invaded North Korea. However, I do think they occupied a country that did not want to have their independence stripped away via initiating a trusteeship with another great power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    When we compare the aims and actions of both countries, it's clear that the Soviets genuinely wished to help establish a state for the Korean people, and that they did not intend for the division to be permanent. The US Empire in fact was the one to split the peninsula. As you said, the Soviets were active for less than 5 years in the north (beyond the eventual trade and fraternal relations). Occupation to me implies that they were unwanted and staying anyways, neither of which are true for the soviets while both are for the US Empire.

    I think it's reasonable to critique the level of influence the Soviets had, but such a critique cannot be made to equate the role played by both the Soviets and the Statesians. They had entirely different methods, aims, and actions. In reducing both to "occupiers," you make it seem that the Soviets too wished to establish a colony, when this has proven false. In fact, it was the Soviet Union that insisted that the trusteeship be short, and it remains true that the Soviets upheld their commitment to aiding the establishment of a Korean state by and for Koreans.

    To simplify this to the same western chauvanism that the US employed in colonizing the ROK minimizes the gulf between how the two countries treated Korea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    When we compare the aims and actions of both countries, it's clear that the Soviets genuinely wished to help establish a state for the Korean people, and that they did not intend for the division to be permanent.

    I would heartily agree.

    The US Empire in fact was the one to split the peninsula. As you said, the Soviets were active for less than 5 years in the north (beyond the eventual trade and fraternal relations).

    I don't think splitting the state was their original intention, nor that they were solely or even mostly responsible for doing so. However, I think it's ahistorical to claim that they did not participate in the actual splitting of a nation.

    Occupation to me implies that they were unwanted and staying anyways, neither of which are true for the soviets while both are for the US Empire.

    They did institute a trusteeship which they were expressly asked not too by the elected representatives of Korea.

    I think it's reasonable to critique the level of influence the Soviets had, but such a critique cannot be made to equate the role played by both the Soviets and the Statesians.

    At no point have I equated the roles played by the Soviets and the US, and have in fact claimed the opposite to be true in nearly every response.

    In reducing both to "occupiers," you make it seem that the Soviets too wished to establish a colony, when this has proven false

    There is a difference between an occupation and a colonization. I would categorize the US as more of a colonizer, as occupation force eventually leaves.

    To simplify this to the same western chauvanism that the US employed in colonizing the ROK minimizes the gulf between how the two countries treated Korea.

    I don't think I ever attempted to conflate the two western countries to be equal in anyway. Just because they exhibited some similar characteristics such as western chauvinism in their decision to divide a nation between each other does not mean I think their motives or methods are the same. If anything I feel you are conflating any criticism of Soviet interaction with Korea as a tacit approval of US colonialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I understand your points and largely agree, my point is more that the way you framed it did make it seem like they were equivalent, which we came to a better understanding of your point through further dialogue. That's my point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    My apologies, that was never my intention. I would never want to equate the actions of the US government with the Soviet union in Korea. The two are systemically and undeniable on different scales of intentional and unintentional harm.

    It's a difficult topic to speak about in general, as the vast majority of people criticizing North Korea are doing so in an uninformed or disingenuous way, but I do think that critical evaluation of the events can lead to fruitful discussions of revolution in the modern age. Especially in regards to leftist dialogue between the east and the west

    Thanks for the chat, it's rare to have an informed dialogue with people about my motherland.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •