|
|
Comparisons in the Land of the Nuclear Sun
Pat gets yet another scary no-prize for bringing us this perceptive editorial warning westerners about making ill-informed judgements about everyone's favorite loony dictator, Kim Jong Il:
This sort of cultural profiling, however, can get us into real danger. Japan’s emperor during World War II, Hirohito, was neither religious nor suicidal, and he led his nation into a war that no rational leader could have hoped to win. The point is relevant, because although journalists persist in calling North Korea a Stalinist state, its worldview is far closer to that of fascist Japan.
Putting all the levers of power into the hands of a single man nearly always leads directly to disaster. The longer they hold the levers, the more likely that becomes. For the most part, the disaster tends to involve the unfortunate citizens of the country in question.
I'm not so sure the editorial is all that perceptive. It tries to pretend that Stalin's and Hirohito's governments were different in ways they were actually identical, and identical in ways in which they were very different, in order to force through its conclusion that the DPRK is run more like Imperial Japan than Stalinist Russia. Just because Kim uses oriental imagery in his propaganda instead of Soviet imagery doesn't, by itself, mean he's running a fascist state instead of a communist one.
About the only thing he's getting right is the DPRK's propensity for xenophobia, which is enough for him to declare it a fascist state rather than a communist one, despite there being plenty of proof that communist states (especially China) can be racist, too.
Thing is, extremism is like a circle. You go far enough in one direction, you meet people coming around from the other. Your points are well taken, but it should be kept in mind the only REAL reason Stalin didn't invade Europe in '46 was he was truely convinced communism was inevitable, in a way that's hard to imagine today.
Nowadays it's quite difficult to think even complete nutters think Marx was anything more than a rich egghead with time on his hands. I found the essay perceptive, if for nothing else by providing a counterpoint to the "nobody's that crazy" prevelant view.
Posted by: scott on October 12, 2006 07:40 PMI dunno - I don't remember Stalin being all that xenophobic in the ways that Hirohito was. Hell, in Japan you've got be a 5th generation immigrant before you're concerned a true citizen. That's still there, whereas Stalin seemed will to co-op and expend anyone (his own race as well as others) in order to advance his brand of Communism. From that, I find the comparisons to the ethnic purity and the potential for excess that Japan extolled to be a very insightful point.
Posted by: ronaprhys on October 13, 2006 12:17 PMStalin wasn't. Xenophobia is more an ingrained feature of oriental societies, whether communist, fascist, or even democratic (take modern-day Japan, for example). The racial ideology of the Nazis was Adolf Hitler's contribution to fascism, not fascism's contribution to Hitler.
In any case, the issues with how the DPRK is perceived is more due to people thinking "tyrannical" is the same as "insane." The professor very nearly made this point, but then veered away at the last moment in order to push the standard agenda of academia; that everything evil and racist is also right-wing and fascist, and everything good and multicultural is also left-wing and communist. Thus, while Kim Jong-Il enforces collectivized farming and industry, and pretends that the fraudulent elections he holds are inducative of the social freedom that makes it a "Democratic People's Republic," he nonetheless is fascist, NOT a communist, because his regime is also racist.
But I don't think you can define facism as "totalitarian + racist". There's more to it that that. Facism also has a sort of "might = right" feel to it that is directly opposed to communism. More of a power in the few than power in the workers, etc.
Given that, and KJI's actions, I would place him closer to Stalin in a general sense, with a good measure of Hirohito thrown in.
But that makes him more of a dictator than a facist, in my book. Yes, he's using different ideologies, but it's those that keep him in power, not anything else.
Posted by: ronaprhys on October 13, 2006 05:26 PM"But I don't think you can define facism as "totalitarian + racist"."
I'm not; the professor who wrote the opinion piece is, and he's sadly just one of many who have, and continue to.
Both fascism and communism are complicated social, political, and economic systems, designed by some of the world's greatest minds as the perfect solution to all the world's problems, and both of which have proven unable to actually survive any contact with the real world without turning into totalitarian governments, for pretty much the same reason: they both demand particular aspects of human nature be eliminated, rather than harnessed. Fascism tries to eliminate sloth, while communism tries to eliminate greed. They both fail most spectacularly whenever put into practice, but they look so perfect on paper that fools just keep trying.