Located within the grounds of the Iranian embassy in Pyongyang, the Rahman Mosque was established in 1985, according to a sign posted on the outside of the building. Iran, a predominately Shia Muslim country, originally built the mosque at its North Korea embassy compound for staff-only use. But today, Muslims of all faiths can attend services at the Rahman Mosque, and the site is a key pillar of the Islamic community in Pyongyang
Learn to read. It has literally nothing to due with them being Muslims. My criticism is that they are Islamists. If you are unable to make that distinction then there’s a problem. When I do militant activity (almost every day), I do actually encounter a issue due to Islamism, especially in relation to trying to organize in support of Palestine. So frankly if I had to guess Id say that you’re probably an ultraleftist yank masquerading as an ML who has never been involved in the construction of an actual Leninist party.
Hell, I guess I’ll make a real reply too. The struggle for national liberation comes first, which in the present context universally means the struggle against western domination. Islamists aren’t your enemy either except where they serve western interests, which Iran plainly does not. Whining about the DPRK allowing a mosque serves only western interests, like most criticisms of AES states coming from outside of those states
Not a serious response at all. Ah yes: please tell the families of my closest friends, whose families were raped, tortured, and murdered by the Iranian Islamist government, that Islamist are only the enemy when they are supported by the West. You are just writing off the political contexts of these countries as if they do not exist. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. I do wonder whether anyone here would be offering the same ‘critical support’ if it were a theocratic evangelical group (whether opposed to the west or not).
Your take is a reactionary take. Thank you for taking the time to make this response as this is exactly the kind of ultra brainworms that I’m taking about. Thank you for admitting you are not a Marxist or a Communist, as that makes this easier. The idea that something is only reactionary or a political enemy when they serve Western interests is literally the definition of campism, and is confirming my suspicion that, frankly, the vast majority of people making these kinds of responses are self-flagellating yankies on the internet who have never been to a Islamic country, encountered Islamists, know many Muslims outside of liberal, western contexts, and have no idea of the fundamentally reactionary nature of Islamism in the context of reactionary societies. The nature and function of these groups is not restricted to some Western-centric, myopic view (which annoying and ironically is here virtue-signalling as if it were not).
Them being reactionary is not uniquely determined by whether or not they happen to serve Western interests. This is insane and exactly the form simplistic reductionism and western-centrism that I’m talking about. The fact you can say something that is literally a right-wing cliché of leftist stupidity is pretty shocking honestly. The Taliban are a depraved group of ultra-reactionaries whose social structure is based on systematized rape whether you like it or not. We are not on TV here. We are a small group of (supposed) communists on a small internet forum. The idea that in that context we should be ignoring the self-evident truth because reactionaries are going to agree with a part is not only baby-brained and misguided, but leads, as we’re seeing here, to consistent confusion and reactionary positions. You are arguing to give implicit or explicit support to far-right groups who are THE principal, immediate enemies of the left in those contexts. Taking this position again tells me your communist is abstract, idealist, and moralist, and does not have any relation to concrete militant activity, because you would rapidly realize that if you say that shit to an ordinary worker, they are going to think, with justification, that you are insane, and it will de-legitimize the rest of what you are saying.
There also seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what Islamism is, and you are simplistically reducing it to one partial and not really correct aspect to make your point. You are equating Islamism with national liberation struggle, which is the same misunderstanding that many others are making here. Certain Islamist groups are involved what for some is, subjectively, a struggle for national liberation, and what may prove to be objectively so (we don’t know yet). But again, this is other example of the repeated ignoring of the point that Communists have to maintain a realistic conception of what the political possibilities are, including the critique that theocrats are fundamentally reactionary, and that political movements based on theocratic principles are fundamentally limited in terms of their progressive potential. I’m guessing again that if you are not aware of this view them you are not familiar with the Marxist analyses of religion. Marxists groups in Palestine (to the extent they exist: very litte) do cooperate out of necessity with groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and you are correct that for them, in this particular context, it makes sense to cooperate for the time being in the face of Israeli fascism. But that makes no difference whatsoever to whether or not those groups are reactionary more broadly. Like if Boko Haram murder a another village in a day, do we as Marxists not recognize it as indication of reactionary movements in certain contexts. Someone not doing so because they are in the West is not political acumen, it’s ignorance and cowardice.
Islamism is first and foremost a modernist ideology which aims to extend particular modernist yet interpretations Islamic principles to as many aspects of social, political, economic and cultural life as possible. Like Fascism, it shares a focus on a return to a pure, mystical past through violence and bloodshed, radicalization of mass-movements, functions similarly to crush left-wing groups, and erects an absolute friend-enemy distinction between those in the group and those outside of it. The nationalism of certain groups, such as Hamas, is a political realignment towards national contexts as a result of political pragmatism. But Islamists are ultimately internationalists. Hamas see Palestine as a Waqf they must maintain on the route towards a greater Caliphate. But Islamist groups are not concerned with liberating their people. They are violent, far-right, misoygynistic theocrats who exert extreme patriarchal controls over women’s bodies and commit atrocities against religious, sexual, and gender minorities. Every single time an Islamist group has taken power, it has crushed the left. It is a fundamental obstacle to the left in those countries. The future Communist movements of those countries will perhaps have to face Islamists as their principal immediate enemies as the international political situation deteriorates.
Independence of a state is not the same thing as national liberation, and the fact that people here can easily understand this when the formal independence of a state is from Western Imperialism, but not in other cases or senses, is pretty worrying and says quite a bit about how much actual real thought and reflection people are putting into these questions. You can say it comes first all you like, but firstly that can actually be contended. Secondly, even if true, it in no way implies the literally baby-brained video-game geopolitical calculus of “something is bad if and only if it supports the West’s interests”. If you honestly think that, they honestly there is a real fucking problem.
So maybe don’t get so fucking sassy if you’re basic ability to use the concepts we talking about here is lacking.
The west is the foremost enemy of communism, globally. My stance has nothing to do with whether I think a political entity is good or bad, as you put it. My stance is that AES states know what they’re doing better than some bozo on the internet. Do you think the DPRK thinks Iran is its bestie?
You want to talk about doing militant action on the daily? You want to talk about sass? That’s rich coming from the person saying that the DPRK is “supposed to be an ML country”
I didn’t say that the DPRK were not Communist, though I’d also argue that any serious analysis of the history of the place, to the extent we have access to it( though lack of evidence doesn’t imply any positive conclusions either, something many people here also seem not to understand), also leaves much to be desired, though that obviously is materially very much a result of the incredibly difficult position they have always found themselves in.
Again, you are not actually making an effort to respond to what I’m saying, and you’re responding moralistically. You’re embarrassing yourself. Take the L and move on. If you can’t actually argue these points in terms of there content, but have to always retreat to a meta-position over the argument call someone a bozo, then that says a lot more about the weakness of what you’re saying than what I am saying.
You really need to get over this infantile idea that the only people who can any have any possible legitimate opinion on the place Fuck off with that reactionary nationalism. Since when has ever been the case in the history of communism? I guess Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin’s opinions on places they had never been were always totally incorrect then? You seem to be implying that when convenient. The only criterion is the arguments and evidence you have, and you haven’t provided any real substantial ones, making a bunch of simplications, and invalidly reasoning to conclusions that what you are saying doesn’t imply.
You want to know what communists from these places think? Again: please tell my comrades who have had their families raped, murdered and tortured by Islamists that they are not in fact reactionary or their enemies. You’re rather conveniently ignoring this point.
Even if (which I agree is a fact) the US-hegemonic Imperialist system is the primary enemy of communism in an overall sense, or the most powerful enemy of communist movements, and so there has to be anti-imperialism as a central focus of any leftist movement, and this has to recognize that otherwise deeply reactionary groups are currently the only armed means for opposing Israeli fascism, settler-colonialism, apartheid and imperialism, and that that implies that communists there have to cooperate (all of which is obvious and not what is up for discussion), you making the inference that this implies that there cannot be opposition to anything else more broadly, or that Communists should not clearly express their opposition to, and criticisms of, far-right theocracy because they are opposed to US imperialism, is so infantile and detached from reality that it honestly beggars belief. This isnt fucking hearts of iron. Some people are actually communists in these societies. Doing apologism for reactionary groups simply because they oppose the West is opposed to them is itself doing the anti-communist propaganda of the West for them.
Why would I make an effort to respond to your essay-length strawmen? You assert your credentials as though I know you and can verify them, when that’s more true of the nation you’re criticizing. We’re all internet bozos when we’re on the internet because it’s a trustless environment, and in that setting no one has standing to meaningfully criticize the decisions of AES states. You are not Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin. If you have the standing that you sanctimoniously claim, then write an article.
The only thing accomplished by English-speaking internet bozos whining about Islamism is to muddy the water surrounding Western aggression against Islamic states, and to disconcert support for AES states whose interests are currently aligned enough with them that they choose varying degrees of cooperation.
All AES have freedom of religion with party officials acting as regulators to ensure imperialism does not enter through religion.
Read the Chinese Community Party Central Committee’s The Basic Viewpoint and Policy on the Religious Question during Our Country’s Socialist Period from 1982 (also called Document 19). In addition to banning feudal religious rights and foreign missions agencies, they also admit that making religion illegal does more harm than good and make plans for the future by creating regulatory bodies for each major religion. In doing so, they are allowing people to be religious within the confines of a communist society rather than capitalist imperialism. They also predict a consistent decrease in religiosity but, in the 40 years since it’s publication, religiosity has continued to increase in China.
DPRK has a Buddhist Federation and Christian Federation to supervise all activities. They seem a bit laxer than CPC, perhaps due to Kim Il Sung’s Christian upbringing.
The policies of banning cults has been successful in China, Falun Gong and the Moonies being the most popular ones stamped out.
The building of communism is the priority. Religion serves to bolster that and gives a connection to non-communist communities as a way to continue to build an internationalist vision of communism.
If China and North Korea understand this, have had massive success in doing so (nevermind Cuba among others) and are succeeding in building communism in spite of fucking everything this world throws at them, I’d say it’s a good example to follow.
Xi has increased regulation recently to combat this, but yeah, it’s still a problem. Vatican still cries about not having any say over the Chinese Catholics which is very funny to me
Yes. I’m very aware. I’m guessing you haven’t seen other points where I’m fine with great degree of freedom of religion, indeed more than the vast majority of people on this site. You seem to be missing my point, which is that ML having to compromise through relations with Islamist theocratic states is a shame, in particular as the particular form of Shia Islam promoted by Iran is particularly nefarious, it being Islamist.
Global south liberation is more important than handwringing about specifics like this. When hands are finally off a region, they’ll be allowed to develop in their own way, and then the basis for a revolution will be even more possible. AES forming an anti-Occidental bloc to combat is more important for our vision than insisting that these societies must now immediately conform to our ideas. Not to say queer lib, women’s lib, worker lib, etc is not important; but instead that by working against these countries we delay those things even more.
OP’s comment made no implication of being against Islamism “more” than western imperialism. They’re just expressing disappointment in the relationship because even if it’s necessary for North Korea to survive, it still violates basic principles of international socialism and their own history.
Am I not allowed to be upset with Vietnam for having close ties to Israel and the US even though it needs to develop as a nation? What about China’s history of suppressing communists to spite the USSR (and now to form relations with the Philippines)? You don’t need to hold back views of the status quo just because there are greater threats out there, especially on an irrelevant forum where posts mean little.
In real life, I have to bite my own tongue over Hamas because the enemy doesn’t give a shit about nuance when you’re protesting and shutting things down. But on a website where nothing is happening, it doesn’t hurt to express disappointment that communists must compromise so much just to not be exterminated. My jokes about Hamas are more black and white because it serves to piss Zionists off, but when talking with other communists, well, I don’t fucking like them.
AES forming an anti-Occidental bloc to combat is more important for our vision than insisting that these societies must now immediately conform to our ideas.
Yes, of course. I like to compare it to the weird ideology of unions saving the world. If BRICS gets what it wants and the countries get more power and influence - great. Awesome. But look at the Americans - why would people give up their small, propagandized “luxuries” if every force and institution is pushing for the status quo, or even a mythical “before time” when everything was somehow greater? China already said it doesn’t export revolution, and I highly doubt that’s some 5D chess by Xi to hide his power levels until production forces are built. What little pro-revolution support China had for the third world during the 20th century is long gone. It’s the era of realpolitik, and everyone’s compromising. You can have hope all you want, but I prefer to look at what’s happening now and be disappointed in reality.
This led me down a rabbit hole of seeing if there’s any strains of Islam in DPRK and sure enough, there is a Shia mosque on the grounds of the Iranian embassy that hosts Friday prayers, Eid celebrations, etc for anyone interested.
pretty neat
Removed by mod
Know your enemy
It ain’t fuckin’ Muslims
Learn to read. It has literally nothing to due with them being Muslims. My criticism is that they are Islamists. If you are unable to make that distinction then there’s a problem. When I do militant activity (almost every day), I do actually encounter a issue due to Islamism, especially in relation to trying to organize in support of Palestine. So frankly if I had to guess Id say that you’re probably an ultraleftist yank masquerading as an ML who has never been involved in the construction of an actual Leninist party.
Hell, I guess I’ll make a real reply too. The struggle for national liberation comes first, which in the present context universally means the struggle against western domination. Islamists aren’t your enemy either except where they serve western interests, which Iran plainly does not. Whining about the DPRK allowing a mosque serves only western interests, like most criticisms of AES states coming from outside of those states
Not a serious response at all. Ah yes: please tell the families of my closest friends, whose families were raped, tortured, and murdered by the Iranian Islamist government, that Islamist are only the enemy when they are supported by the West. You are just writing off the political contexts of these countries as if they do not exist. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. I do wonder whether anyone here would be offering the same ‘critical support’ if it were a theocratic evangelical group (whether opposed to the west or not).
Your take is a reactionary take. Thank you for taking the time to make this response as this is exactly the kind of ultra brainworms that I’m taking about. Thank you for admitting you are not a Marxist or a Communist, as that makes this easier. The idea that something is only reactionary or a political enemy when they serve Western interests is literally the definition of campism, and is confirming my suspicion that, frankly, the vast majority of people making these kinds of responses are self-flagellating yankies on the internet who have never been to a Islamic country, encountered Islamists, know many Muslims outside of liberal, western contexts, and have no idea of the fundamentally reactionary nature of Islamism in the context of reactionary societies. The nature and function of these groups is not restricted to some Western-centric, myopic view (which annoying and ironically is here virtue-signalling as if it were not).
Them being reactionary is not uniquely determined by whether or not they happen to serve Western interests. This is insane and exactly the form simplistic reductionism and western-centrism that I’m talking about. The fact you can say something that is literally a right-wing cliché of leftist stupidity is pretty shocking honestly. The Taliban are a depraved group of ultra-reactionaries whose social structure is based on systematized rape whether you like it or not. We are not on TV here. We are a small group of (supposed) communists on a small internet forum. The idea that in that context we should be ignoring the self-evident truth because reactionaries are going to agree with a part is not only baby-brained and misguided, but leads, as we’re seeing here, to consistent confusion and reactionary positions. You are arguing to give implicit or explicit support to far-right groups who are THE principal, immediate enemies of the left in those contexts. Taking this position again tells me your communist is abstract, idealist, and moralist, and does not have any relation to concrete militant activity, because you would rapidly realize that if you say that shit to an ordinary worker, they are going to think, with justification, that you are insane, and it will de-legitimize the rest of what you are saying.
There also seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what Islamism is, and you are simplistically reducing it to one partial and not really correct aspect to make your point. You are equating Islamism with national liberation struggle, which is the same misunderstanding that many others are making here. Certain Islamist groups are involved what for some is, subjectively, a struggle for national liberation, and what may prove to be objectively so (we don’t know yet). But again, this is other example of the repeated ignoring of the point that Communists have to maintain a realistic conception of what the political possibilities are, including the critique that theocrats are fundamentally reactionary, and that political movements based on theocratic principles are fundamentally limited in terms of their progressive potential. I’m guessing again that if you are not aware of this view them you are not familiar with the Marxist analyses of religion. Marxists groups in Palestine (to the extent they exist: very litte) do cooperate out of necessity with groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and you are correct that for them, in this particular context, it makes sense to cooperate for the time being in the face of Israeli fascism. But that makes no difference whatsoever to whether or not those groups are reactionary more broadly. Like if Boko Haram murder a another village in a day, do we as Marxists not recognize it as indication of reactionary movements in certain contexts. Someone not doing so because they are in the West is not political acumen, it’s ignorance and cowardice.
Islamism is first and foremost a modernist ideology which aims to extend particular modernist yet interpretations Islamic principles to as many aspects of social, political, economic and cultural life as possible. Like Fascism, it shares a focus on a return to a pure, mystical past through violence and bloodshed, radicalization of mass-movements, functions similarly to crush left-wing groups, and erects an absolute friend-enemy distinction between those in the group and those outside of it. The nationalism of certain groups, such as Hamas, is a political realignment towards national contexts as a result of political pragmatism. But Islamists are ultimately internationalists. Hamas see Palestine as a Waqf they must maintain on the route towards a greater Caliphate. But Islamist groups are not concerned with liberating their people. They are violent, far-right, misoygynistic theocrats who exert extreme patriarchal controls over women’s bodies and commit atrocities against religious, sexual, and gender minorities. Every single time an Islamist group has taken power, it has crushed the left. It is a fundamental obstacle to the left in those countries. The future Communist movements of those countries will perhaps have to face Islamists as their principal immediate enemies as the international political situation deteriorates.
Independence of a state is not the same thing as national liberation, and the fact that people here can easily understand this when the formal independence of a state is from Western Imperialism, but not in other cases or senses, is pretty worrying and says quite a bit about how much actual real thought and reflection people are putting into these questions. You can say it comes first all you like, but firstly that can actually be contended. Secondly, even if true, it in no way implies the literally baby-brained video-game geopolitical calculus of “something is bad if and only if it supports the West’s interests”. If you honestly think that, they honestly there is a real fucking problem.
So maybe don’t get so fucking sassy if you’re basic ability to use the concepts we talking about here is lacking.
The west is the foremost enemy of communism, globally. My stance has nothing to do with whether I think a political entity is good or bad, as you put it. My stance is that AES states know what they’re doing better than some bozo on the internet. Do you think the DPRK thinks Iran is its bestie?
You want to talk about doing militant action on the daily? You want to talk about sass? That’s rich coming from the person saying that the DPRK is “supposed to be an ML country”
I didn’t say that the DPRK were not Communist, though I’d also argue that any serious analysis of the history of the place, to the extent we have access to it( though lack of evidence doesn’t imply any positive conclusions either, something many people here also seem not to understand), also leaves much to be desired, though that obviously is materially very much a result of the incredibly difficult position they have always found themselves in.
Again, you are not actually making an effort to respond to what I’m saying, and you’re responding moralistically. You’re embarrassing yourself. Take the L and move on. If you can’t actually argue these points in terms of there content, but have to always retreat to a meta-position over the argument call someone a bozo, then that says a lot more about the weakness of what you’re saying than what I am saying.
You really need to get over this infantile idea that the only people who can any have any possible legitimate opinion on the place Fuck off with that reactionary nationalism. Since when has ever been the case in the history of communism? I guess Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin’s opinions on places they had never been were always totally incorrect then? You seem to be implying that when convenient. The only criterion is the arguments and evidence you have, and you haven’t provided any real substantial ones, making a bunch of simplications, and invalidly reasoning to conclusions that what you are saying doesn’t imply.
You want to know what communists from these places think? Again: please tell my comrades who have had their families raped, murdered and tortured by Islamists that they are not in fact reactionary or their enemies. You’re rather conveniently ignoring this point.
Even if (which I agree is a fact) the US-hegemonic Imperialist system is the primary enemy of communism in an overall sense, or the most powerful enemy of communist movements, and so there has to be anti-imperialism as a central focus of any leftist movement, and this has to recognize that otherwise deeply reactionary groups are currently the only armed means for opposing Israeli fascism, settler-colonialism, apartheid and imperialism, and that that implies that communists there have to cooperate (all of which is obvious and not what is up for discussion), you making the inference that this implies that there cannot be opposition to anything else more broadly, or that Communists should not clearly express their opposition to, and criticisms of, far-right theocracy because they are opposed to US imperialism, is so infantile and detached from reality that it honestly beggars belief. This isnt fucking hearts of iron. Some people are actually communists in these societies. Doing apologism for reactionary groups simply because they oppose the West is opposed to them is itself doing the anti-communist propaganda of the West for them.
Why would I make an effort to respond to your essay-length strawmen? You assert your credentials as though I know you and can verify them, when that’s more true of the nation you’re criticizing. We’re all internet bozos when we’re on the internet because it’s a trustless environment, and in that setting no one has standing to meaningfully criticize the decisions of AES states. You are not Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin. If you have the standing that you sanctimoniously claim, then write an article.
The only thing accomplished by English-speaking internet bozos whining about Islamism is to muddy the water surrounding Western aggression against Islamic states, and to disconcert support for AES states whose interests are currently aligned enough with them that they choose varying degrees of cooperation.
Learn to write, and then stop because your opinions are shit
Ohhh spicy drama, could you please repost the removed comment but I guess make it more palatable so I know what you 2 are arguing about?
It’s in the modlog if you wanna check. I’m not confident in my ability to rephrase what they said in a more normal way.
nerd
deleted by creator
okay
good so we’re on the same page that at best it’s commendable political pragmatism.
All AES have freedom of religion with party officials acting as regulators to ensure imperialism does not enter through religion.
If China and North Korea understand this, have had massive success in doing so (nevermind Cuba among others) and are succeeding in building communism in spite of fucking everything this world throws at them, I’d say it’s a good example to follow.
lol this has lapsed
Xi has increased regulation recently to combat this, but yeah, it’s still a problem. Vatican still cries about not having any say over the Chinese Catholics which is very funny to me
Yes. I’m very aware. I’m guessing you haven’t seen other points where I’m fine with great degree of freedom of religion, indeed more than the vast majority of people on this site. You seem to be missing my point, which is that ML having to compromise through relations with Islamist theocratic states is a shame, in particular as the particular form of Shia Islam promoted by Iran is particularly nefarious, it being Islamist.
Global south liberation is more important than handwringing about specifics like this. When hands are finally off a region, they’ll be allowed to develop in their own way, and then the basis for a revolution will be even more possible. AES forming an anti-Occidental bloc to combat
is more important for our vision than insisting that these societies must now immediately conform to our ideas. Not to say queer lib, women’s lib, worker lib, etc is not important; but instead that by working against these countries we delay those things even more.
Opposing Islamism more than Euro Dominance just makes you a nerd like Christopher Hitchens.
OP’s comment made no implication of being against Islamism “more” than western imperialism. They’re just expressing disappointment in the relationship because even if it’s necessary for North Korea to survive, it still violates basic principles of international socialism and their own history.
Am I not allowed to be upset with Vietnam for having close ties to Israel and the US even though it needs to develop as a nation? What about China’s history of suppressing communists to spite the USSR (and now to form relations with the Philippines)? You don’t need to hold back views of the status quo just because there are greater threats out there, especially on an irrelevant forum where posts mean little.
In real life, I have to bite my own tongue over Hamas because the enemy doesn’t give a shit about nuance when you’re protesting and shutting things down. But on a website where nothing is happening, it doesn’t hurt to express disappointment that communists must compromise so much just to not be exterminated. My jokes about Hamas are more black and white because it serves to piss Zionists off, but when talking with other communists, well, I don’t fucking like them.
Yes, of course. I like to compare it to the weird ideology of unions saving the world. If BRICS gets what it wants and the countries get more power and influence - great. Awesome. But look at the Americans - why would people give up their small, propagandized “luxuries” if every force and institution is pushing for the status quo, or even a mythical “before time” when everything was somehow greater? China already said it doesn’t export revolution, and I highly doubt that’s some 5D chess by Xi to hide his power levels until production forces are built. What little pro-revolution support China had for the third world during the 20th century is long gone. It’s the era of realpolitik, and everyone’s compromising. You can have hope all you want, but I prefer to look at what’s happening now and be disappointed in reality.