With all the charm lacking in the leadership of the western imperialists, and in genuine concern for peace, comrade Kim Jong-un crossed the small concrete block that separates North and South to greet the ROK President, Moon Jae-in. It was clear from the very start that, despite the fact the conference has thus far been hosted on the Southern side, it is comrade Kim Jong-un who is the commanding presence, and who has succeeded in disarming the often rigid personalities of the ROK’s government, military and press—figuratively, of course. A sharp contrast to the image of a crazed maniac, as depicted in western media, comrade Kim Jong-un has carried a warm and stunningly relaxed demeanor, in spite of the very serious matters to be discussed; whatever is said by imperialist propaganda, it is his leadership, and that of the Workers’ Party, that has brought about the most significant step toward a peace treaty and a progressive reunification that we have yet seen.
As to be expected, the Western media—both social and establishment—has been muddled and confused in their responses. Many resent that such an important event happened not only without, but in spite of the united $tates, and that the “little rocket man” is almost universally charming. A continuous stream of complaints ranging from exasperated liberals demanding there be no negotiations with a man who imprisons his own people in “labor camps”—an ironic sentiment coming from amerikans, especially—to sour conservatives demanding Trump be recognized for comrade Kim’s achievement. Everywhere on earth u.$. influence shrinks, the threat of war increases, as the beast knows no other recourse in such circumstances, but everywhere we see peoples unwilling to be cowed by threats.
The details of the final agreement between the DPRK and ROK have not yet been announced, but our best hopes are for the signing of a peace treaty to end the legally extant state of war persisting in Korea, guaranteeing an end to the u.$. occupation of the peninsula, and a more concrete future for reunification, oriented against, not with, u.$. imperialism. This may yet prove unlikely. The ROK’s government, we mustn’t forget, is still an extremely reactionary regime, full to the brim with anti-communists, pro-imperialists and monopoly capitalists themselves. In addition, the Southern economy, due to its close relationship with Western monopoly capital, enjoys a level of development that would easily consume the Northern economy if invited into open competition with it. The Workers’ Party of Korea may contain many revisionist tendencies and factions, but they are not willing to hand complete control over to the ROK reactionaries in their greatest moment of strength.
After all, it is through the leadership of comrade Kim Jong-un, and the determination of the Korean masses in the North, that has brought independent nuclearization, popular economic construction, and greater political unity of the Korean people as a whole. We cannot be too hasty in estimating the potential value of these negotiations, but we can certainly say that whatever their result, it is sure to spurn the imperialists who have been forced into the spectator’s seat, without initiative in the most significant development toward peace in our lifetime: An achievement belonging to the Korean masses, and to the political leadership in the North alone. The ROK has certainly seized the moment, but does so motivated by circumstances that have only recently developed, without which we would not have seen such a move at any time before the present. So many were skeptical of the political value of the DPRK’s nuclear program for the purpose of bringing peace and stability. They are discredited to the man.
In contrast to their Northern neighbors, the ROK has no such political unity, popular economic construction or even military independence, let alone nuclear weapons—aside those carried by amerikan bombers. Their previous president was ousted by popular revolt for her open corruption and authoritarian bourgeois rule, and their current government remains unable to heal the chronic ills of the country, from extreme poverty and disparity, to the lack of security caused by the u.$. occupation. Even now, in their attempt to demonstrate a common history with the DPRK they can fall back on nothing but the most archaic symbols of their past, a past that was fundamentally broken with in the North during the 1945 revolution. We should celebrate that such a meeting is taking place, but offer few congratulations for those bourgeois reactionaries forced by circumstance to consider it. Comrade Kim Jong-un and the Korean masses will have secured peace in the end, not the moribund neoliberal leadership in the South.
So while economically, imperialism has both deprived the Korean masses of their future, and empowered the comprador capitalists with development, and as a result put them ahead of the North, politically, it is without question that the DPRK has achieved a revolutionary consensus while the ROK struggles for even functional stability. As a result, the contradiction between the two resolves itself not in the monolithically lopsided way that the West has typically depicted. Comrade Kim Jong-un and the Workers’ Party of Korea stand far above their parliamentarian rivals, and thus have secured the right to their terms in negotiations. A long-term danger still exists, however, in the economic maldevelopment of Korea and its impact on the prospects of reunification and mutual cooperation, but we have total faith in the Korean masses and their party, the undue cession of power is neither on their agenda, nor a realizable goal for their enemies at this time.
So long as development is maintained on this path, peace is assured, and only so long as the united $tates is kept in its place, cowed by the superior determination of the Korean people. Today is their day, and the embarrassed imperialists must wait on them.
Toward a Progressive Peace and Reunification!
Death to Imperialism!
Long Live a Unified People’s Korea!
- Such criticism of “labor camps” by amerikans is made ironic by the clause maintained in the 13th amendment to preserve slavery by name in the case of incarceration by the state. This is observable throughout a great majority of u.$. prisons, with none more notorious than Louisiana State Penitentiary colloquially known as “Angola” after the Plantation it rests on, in turn named after the country in Afrika where many of its slaves had been abducted from. These same amerikans so quick to criticize labor in DPRK prisons have little to say about the explicit preservation of bonded labor for the purposes of punishment and profit in the united $tates. Consistency was never the imperialist’s forte.