The revolutionary characteristics of Democratic Kampuchea

“The new Kampuchean regime has five distinctive revolutionary characteristics.

One is the continuing and substantial revolutionary secrecy. Although the Communist Party, which led the revolution, publicly revealed its existence last fall, only a small number of its leaders is known. When speaking, Kampuchean Communists habitually use quiet tones, almost a half-whisper.. In our travels from province to province, on our long journey through roadways in unbearable heat, we were efficiently transferred from hand to hand with the help of some secret and barely noticeable communications.

A second significant characteristic of the new regime is the absence of any civil government aisde from the National Assembly. There are no district or provincial assemblies nor executuve organs. Administrative affairs and political mobilization are the respobsibility of the party committees. The size of the party committees does not appear to be proportional to the number of workers in a given establishment or to the number of inhabitants in the locality. One small factory in Phnom Penh has a party committee of seven people for 300 workers. The party committee in the Kampng Som harbor, with about 6,000 workers, has only five members and it is directly responsible to the Ministry of Communications.

With the exception of unions on the factory and enterprise level, there are no cultural, technical, military, sport, humanitarian, professional or other organization in Kampuchea. Our hosts explained that because there are only two classes in the country, peasants and workers, it isn’t necessary to establish special social-political organizations, except for the Communist Party, which directly administers all affairs. Workers are organized in unions, peasants in cooperatives; that is sufficient for the system to function.

The third characteristic of the regime which struck us- probably because we expected a highly-organized system of political indoctrination- is the absence, even in mild form, of political indoctrination. According to our hosts, not one Marxist-Leninist work has been translated into Khmer during the three years since the liberation. There is no time for theory now, they say. We got the impression that ideological-political work is undeveloped at the grassroots level. When asked what political topics they had discussed recently, workers responded that they talked about national defense and fulfilling the production plan.

The political terminology in official use is closest to the Chinese. There is no doubt that Mao Tse-tung’s ideas, particularly in his works written during the Chinese revolution, inspired the political and ideological thought of Pol Pot. It is also certain that the strategy and tactics of the Kampuchean liberation army, especially in the final operations surrounding the cities with the support of the rural population, indicate a significant application of the experiences of the Chinese revolution to the concrete conditions of Kampuchea.

The fourth noteworthy characteristic of this society is the principal of egalitarianism, really ‘collective socialism.’ The absence of commercial relations or of any kind of compensation according to work leads in two directions. There is highly centralized state control which obligates the state to distribute everything from rice to the annual suit of clothes to each of its citizens. At the same time there is a fundamental radicalism in interpreting the concept of relying on one’s own resources.

The Kampucheans have proudly rejected international economic aid because they believe that they can develop their country with their own resources. Within Kampuchea this self-reliance often takes on extraordinary forms. One cooperative destroyed houses in order to recycle the iron stilts customarily used in Kampuchean buildings; in the neighboring cooperative there was an iron junkyard which no one had used yet. Truks filled with bricks for housing construction adjacent to a factory were rolling through the city streets while only a mile or so away there are empty apartment buildings whose former tenants have left for a distant cooperative.

The fith and last distinctive feature of this society- one which explains the necessity for developing utopian visions of the future- is the very evident sense of national pride. It is reminiscent of the behavior of a quiet and introverted person whose opinions were hardly taken into account earlier, but who now speaks out unexpectedly, but invariably passionately.”



The bartering system in Democratic Kampuchea

“One unique feature of the new Cambodia is that money has been withdrawn from general circulation. Instead, goods are exchanged through a sophisticated barter system.

I got an explanation of how this works at the Meas cooperative near Kompong Cham, one of the few we were allowed to visit. The 300 residents of this cooperative grow rice in nearby fields and weave cloth for brightly colored checked scarves and sarongs.

Since this cooperative produces more rice than its residents can eat, the rice is ‘sold’ to the central government in Phnom Penh. The cooperative recieves a credit for the rice- 4 riel per ton- and uses those credits to produce things it cannot produce such as gasoline for its tractors.

The accounts of each cooperative are kept on a national registry in Phnom Penh, an offical told us.

‘That is not so unusual,’ he said. ‘In your country you don’t use money often. You use credit cards and checks.’

Cooperatives like Preah Meas are administered by committees. These generally have three members with one person acting as a president.

At Le Bo cooperative in Takeo, we were shown what officials hope will become the norm for Cambodia in the future.

It seemed to be almost entirely self sustaining. Besides its clean huts, the cooperative had a large bamboo chicken coop, neat vegetable plots around the homes and, we were told, a pigpen farther out in the fields.

Neat the communal dining hall and patio was a foundry where agricultural implements were produced. Inventiveness was in evidence everywhere. One man was peddling a bicycle bellows while another melted down brass from spent American ammunition casings. ”


NACAZAI talks about the revolutionary potential of America

“The USA, the epicenter of imperialism, fortress of world Zionism and the exterminationist settler-colonialist project, whose creation and maintenance entails the greatest systematic crimes in world history, is not a valid nation, but a project whose very existence negates the alienable rights of usurped people.

We argue that it is incapable, under any circumstances, of being a consolidated socialist and anti-imperialist unit.

Going clear back to the savage attacks by the petty bourgeoisise journalist John Reed and the original Communist Party of the United States of America, the supposed ‘revolutionary heyday’ of socialism and anti-imperialism in the US, against Marcus Garvey and others who defended the principle of race-first and nation-first policies with regards to colonial subjects and descendents of the African slave trade, there has never been nor ever will be a legitimate ‘multi-cultural’ communist or anti-imperialist party within its boundaries or contaminated with the idea of a progressive American project.

White the much longer and complicated circumstances of the USA, in a number of ways, make the solution to the dismantling of the USA and the creation of the various socialist and national democratic projects of its usurped people more difficult to assess than the clear solution of the Arab-Zionist conflict, i.e. the total liquidation of the Jewish project of Palestine in favor of the eternal Arab character, the non-recognition of the USA still looms as the only just, thorough and plausible solution.

While we fully affirm and recognize the rights of progressive and anti-imperialist regimes to attempt to build normalizaed relations with the USA as part of an overall policy to end embargos and sanctions against their people, we ask the international communist and anti-imperialist forces to correct their delusional belief of the capability of the ‘multi-cultural’ proletariat to form a socialist USA, regardless of what this or that revolutionary leader or party stated in the past.

The First Nations people of America and all of its oppressed ethnic groups will always negate ‘multicultural’ America in favor of the right to self-determination and self -preservation, rightfully so.

Americanization of the world is the number one enemy of freedom-loving people everywhere, and this Americanization is more than a product of modern imperialism, but being much older and institutional, goes clear back to the origins of the rape and genocide of the First Nations peoples’ and hundreds of millions of enslaves African compatriots, eternally incompatible with socialist construction and anti-imperialism, regardless of the economic and social changes which emerge through the centuries.”


“How long should our unawareness continue?”- Ibrahim bin Ad-ham

“Our hearts were covered with three seals, and verily, the slave will not reach certainty [in Faith] until these seals are removed: delight in what is there, sorrow for what has been lost and rejoice by receiving praise. When you are delighted with what you have, you are a tightwad. If you grieve for what has been lost, then you are an outraged person, and such a person will taste the torment. If you rejoice when you are praised, then you are proud, and the proud will have their actions annulled.”- Ibrahim bin Ad-ham


Democratic Kampuchea talks about it’s Foreign Policy

“Democratic Kampuchea, born after the great victory of April 17th, 1975, resolutely follows the policy of non-alignment. This is a strategical and non-occasional position, for it corresponds to the profound aspirations of our people. We have firmly abided by this position since 1955, and this position was constantly prevailing during the whole war for national and people’s liberation against the barbarous war of aggression of the US imperialists and their lackeys (1970-1975). After our victory, we have repeatedly proclaimed this position. Our constitution has made it clear as follows: ‘Democratic Kampuchea resolutely remains in the great family of non-aligned countries’.

For centuries, we had been victim of interventions, interferences and aggressions. During this period, we had lost a lot of our territories and our country was meanly reduced to slavery. Our national dignity was despised and our people had lived in the worst misery. We had almost completely lost our national soul. Now, our country and our people are liberated. Therefore, our people have recovered their national dignity together with their soul. They are endowed with ardent and pure patriotism. They have no feelings of contempt or hostility for the others. They have no intention of expansion, annexation or aggression with regard to any country. Our constitution stipulates as follows: ‘Democratic Kampuchea is endowed with goodwill and firmly determined to maintain close and friendly relations with all countries having common borders with her, and with all countries throughout the world, near or far, on the strict basis of mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity.’

‘Democratic Kampuchea abides by a policy of independence, peace, neutrality and non-alignment. No foreign country whatever is allowed to establish military basis on her territory. She stands resolutely against all foreign interference in her internal affairs and fights resolutely against all subversive and aggressive acts from outside.’

‘Democratic Kampuchea never interferes in any case in the internal affairs of other countries. She scrupulously abides by the principles that every country is sovereign and has the right to dispose and decide by itself its internal affairs without foreign interference.’

Our country is small, with a small population and remains still poor. But our people, like other peoples, cherish independence and peace. Like other peoples too, they have to resolutely defend their national independence and their territorial integrity. Our people, like other peoples, need to be master of their own destiny, and in any case, they do not want any foreigner to do it at their place. Therefore, like other peoples, our people have to defend the principles of equality, mutual respect of independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and mutual interests. We have always respected and defended these principles, for these are the aspirations of our people. We all, small, medium-size and weak countries the world over, are extremely attached to these principles and are safeguarding and defending them resolutely. That is our profound conviction.

It is for this reason that Democratic Kampuchea remains in the great non-aligned family. The great non-aligned family is ours. The place of Democratic Kampuchea is in the great non-aligned family which we are sincerely attached to. We are determined to carry out our activities within this great family to defend and consolidate the sacred principles of non-alignment, and that, by all our forces and in accordance with the possibilities of our country which is just out from the war.

At the same time, Democratic Kampuchea does her utmost to jointly unite with and support the revolutionary movements of the peoples in the world and with the movements of struggle of the brotherly peoples in the Third World for independence, freedom, democracy, friendship and social progress. We will do everything to bring them support and we consider this as a revolutionary noble duty. Our country is small, our people remains still poor and we are just out from the war. Nevertheless, we try our best to express our solidarity with and bring them our support, particularly in the political and moral fields. Our determination is unshakable to remain, in all circumstances, by the side of the brotherly peoples of the Third Word against imperialism, colonialism and against any act of interference and aggression from outside.

We are firmly confident that the sacrifices consented by our people in their struggle for national and people’s liberation against the war of aggression of the U.S imperialist constitute a modest contribution to the struggle of the peoples of the world against imperialism and colonialism. They modestly contribute at the same time to the strengthening of the non-alignment principles.

Our people are convinced that their present efforts to win success in the pursuit of the Revolution in their country, in the rehabilitation of economy and in the national edification based on the principles of independence, sovereignty and self-reliance, will be another modest contribution to the revolutionary movements of the peoples in the world, to the movements of struggle of the brotherly peoples in the Third World, and to the consolidation of the cause of our great non-aligned family. Our slogan is the following: it is only by striving to carry out well our revolution by ourselves that we could well contribute to the revolution in the world and to struggle of the peoples of the Third World. ”


(Opinion) Riley Dennis and the importance of the Syrian Conflict (Pt.2): Anti-Imperialism against Hilary Clinton

This piece is in response to a video that Riley Dennis recently made, here it is:

While 14:11 isn’t exclusively a third-worldist site or paper, it does draw from some of the conclusions that third-worldists come to, specifically with regard to the revolutionary potential of the first world worker. It’s hard to deny that the first world worker is very privileged compared to his third world counterpart, due to this security the first world worker is less likely to be revolutionary in outlook, at best he can support some revolutionary causes such as Anti-Imperialism.

The most recent election heightened this fact really, none of the candidates involved supported any kind of non-interventionism, the best option was that you could sort of say that Donald Trump represented a detente with Russia while still supporting fighting the Islamic State in Syria. So while you’d avoid WW3 you’d still have the military bombing Muslims that are trying to make their own governmental decisions. Of course there are bigger geopolitical reasons behind these bombing campaigns, some of which are talked about by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and are posted on this site.

For ‘progressive’ people to support Hilary Clinton simply because she was better than Donald Trump is pure First-world privilege, and not in terms of the Social Justice phrasing of it. This privilege is in the sense that, while the progressives in the U.S get their health care and their ‘free’ college you are supporting a candidate that openly calls for regime change in Russia and in other places around the world, particularly in the third world.

So if Hilary Clinton can call for action against Russia, imagine what she’d do to smaller states such as North Korea, or Syria, or Iran, or any other country that doesn’t want to go along with U.S policies. We already have an idea of what it’d be like, remember she voted for the Iraq War and went along with the Bombing of Yugoslavia. She’s also a fervent Zionist and a supporter of Israel, so how does that work with the ‘progressive’ attitude of supporting Palestine?

So she supported a number of wars of aggression against countries that didn’t do anything to the U.S, she supports escalating a war in Syria that has nothing to do with us and probably feels the same way about Afghanistan too. Yet she’s the ‘progressive’ choice.

No.. No she’s not, she’s the imperialist choice. She’s the choice of people who care nothing for third world people, yet want all their resources for themselves. She’s just another war hawk that seems to delight in killing people and has made a career out of it.

Bernie Sanders was just as bad, he was a Zionist too and supported intervention in Syria, he is cut from the same cloth as Hilary Clinton. It’s not about being left or right, it’s about saying No to wars that have nothing to do with the U.S, and in a lot of cases the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ was more progressive on this issue than many of the Social Justice types.

Why would you still support her? What could make you forget about what she did in Libya? You should give me an Intersectional analysis of why Libya exploded like it did Riley, tell me why Hilary Clinton supported groups of people who attempted to wipe out a town called Tawergha simply because it was a town that had a predominately black population.

So just to recap, Hilary Clinton was not the progressive choice, there was no progressive choice in the latest U.S election, it was a contest between different factions of imperialists. If someone is an imperialist it doesn’t matter what their gender or sexuality is, they’re still an imperialist.

The first response to Riley Dennis:

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri talks about what Freedom means:

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri talks about why Israel is there:

The Khmer Rouge talk about the struggle to liberate Kampuchea

“The people gave us support by hiding food and by hiding our guerrilla forces and cadres. This taught our cadres to be vigilant in following the party line of combining with the masses and relying upon the masses. Our army was not very big then. It fought with bows and arrows, especially in the northeast base areas. We gained the confidence of the people by showing them that traditional weapons could kill the enemy. The people then believed in the party line and in the revolution. The enemy used all kinds of weapons especially in the north-east where our Central Committee had its base. But this region was very strong; the enemy could not do a thing to us. However, the Vietnamese revolution was in trouble then because the enemy had built strategic villages in South Vietnam. Having no land to escape to, the Vietnamese asked us for refuge and got it. This led to the 18 March 1970 coup d’�tat of the US

The US sought to destroy our revolution, but as we were strong, we began establishing our own state power in the liberated areas. We were successful immediately in 70 per cent of the rural areas; if the US had not invaded, we could have liberated the whole country by June 1970. In 1967-68 many people said we were ultra-leftist; in 1970, everyone agreed we had the correct position. Everyone followed us. Socialist countries and other countries around the world supported us, enabling us to continue our economic, military and international work better than before. But I would like to stress that even with favourable conditions we kept the existence of our party secret and we continued to build upon the secret struggle as a fundamental tactic. We became masters of the situation because we had our bases in the rural areas, and because we had the forces of the united front.

At first, we did not notice our contradictions with Vietnam. To be frank, we thought the Vietnamese were our friends. But instead of helping us Vietnam came to seize forces, to build up its own forces and to grasp our party as a whole. There were lots of difficulties. We had to fight the US-Thieu forces sent to help Lon Nol, while at the same time they tried to stab us in the back. Our party, of course, decided to resolve the principal contradiction first that is, to win victory over Lon Nol.

The contradiction between us and Vietnam deepened towards 1973 when Vietnam united with the US at the negotiating table. The US immediately imposed conditions, obliging Vietnam to pressure Kampuchea to come to the negotiating table. They tried but we refused. The Vietnamese then made every effort to undermine our revolution. Meanwhile, as Vietnam and Laos laid down their arms, the US mobilized all its forces to bomb Kampuchea ? all its forces in South-East Asia! ? for 200 days and 200 nights, to force us to the negotiating table. Our party was resolutely opposed to kneeling to the US. Had we done so the Lon Nol traitors in Phnom Penh would have gained time to build up their forces. We decided to struggle to the end. We were in any case able to resist the US air war, and by defeating the US air war confidence grew in our party line. More and more people were convinced that our line was correct I must make clear that awareness of the party line did not come overnight or through theoretical studies. It grew as a result of the concrete experiences and suffering of the people and as a result of class hatred. It was only through practice that understanding of the party line deepened.

In 1974, the year after the air war, our party decided to launch the final big offensive, to liberate Phnom Penh and the whole country in the dry season of 1975. Vietnam was naturally informed. The Vietnamese believed the US would not allow us to win. Moreover they were not prepared to allow us to have victory in advance of their victory. Consequently, they refused to transport ammunition being sent from China and other countries, but especially from China. We had to use ammunition captured from the enemy; we received nothing from Vietnam. The Vietnamese opposed our winning because they wanted to liberate Saigon and then send their forces to liberate Phnom Penh, to build up a political apparatus here and to create a new party, thereby eliminating the Communist Party of Kampuchea and establishing an Indochinese Federation.

In spite of these difficult conditions, our party did its best and liberated Phnom Penh on 17 April 1975, two weeks in advance of the liberation of Saigon. Once we had liberated the whole country and secured our independence and sovereignty, that is in June 1975, the Vietnamese sent their troops to occupy our island, Koh Way. We defended it and forced Vietnam to withdraw. What we want to make clear to you is that, throughout the period of national democratic revolution, there was a hard, complicated struggle involving difficulties with the Soviet Union and Vietnam but we overcame these and won victory.”



NACAZAI argues against the New Left

 Grasp these truths clearly, that the question of morality in our era is not in its ever most primacy a question of right wing or left wing morality, secular or religious, but the question of whether on not the defense of morality should exist at all.  NACAZAI is in the camp with those who stand by the defense of the masses, of the nation state, spirituality,  progressive aspects of the people’s religious institutions, the sacred nuclear family, and of socio-political integrity as matter of principle.  The deathbed of dogmatic western leftism in favor of nationalist and religious principles in a number of countries is largely  the call for the primacy of the social mode over the individual as a globalist consumer.
  For this reason, we cannot agree with nor accept for the sake of political expediency deviant liberal leftist appeals to social decadence, excessively harsh attacks on religion and spirituality, militant cosmopolitanism over socialist patriotism,  a whole series of deviant fetish issues the pro-imperialist Zionist-controlled left make into red lines while negating genuine red lines based on opposing imperialism and Zionism while promoting National Liberation.
  One does not engage in proactive positive social upliftment and the defeat imperialism, Zionism, neo-colonialism, nor capitalism in these ever-destructive globalist times, by instilling in the masses weakness, lumpenism, degeneracy and fetishism, nor individualism and mammonism.  Rather, we argue that these destructive destractions are our enemies and that to love the masses is to strive for their greatness and not the acceptance and romanticism of their backwardness.
  NACAZAI thoroughly relishes its dismissal from organizations and personages it consider largely opportunistic anyways, and takes as a badge of honor complaints on our position against homosexual “liberation”, the imperialism destruction of all nations,  our opposition to the destruction of healthy family life or the liberalization of what that means, and our support for those righteous people who love God and from perceived divine guidance meet the enemy in combat.
 One does not build Socialist Revolution and smash imperialism and Zionism by the destruction social fabric in its entirety, as if the baby should be thrown out with the bath water.  That which is a positive historical example or accomplishment, whatever its limitation and our reservations toward it, must be defended at all costs.
  We cannot give the enemy one inch nor surrender the livability of our children and our children’s children by the erosion of social cohesion.   Alliances with these “leftist” military target enemies of humanity at the expense of the defense of the future generations is nothing less than treason.”

NACAZAI talks about the alienation of the youth

(NACAZAI or the North American Committee against Zionism and Imperialism is a now despanded group, it had ties to the DPRK and was big in the early 2000’s. It also seemed to have ties to the Rural People’s Party as well, their site can be found on the Wayback Machine.

Source: )

“Contrary to the psychobabble and socio-babble of the ‘social scientists’ who serve the globalist agenda, there is nothing normal and healthy about a ‘generational gap.’ In healthy societies there is solidarity among generations. Young people look up to their elders and are eager to learn from them. The middle-aged and elderly cherish young people and are eager to teach them. There are a few isolated pockets of the world where this kind of social health still exists (e.g. northern Korea), and it is a shocking contrast with the social alienation to which we have become accustomed. It has gone on so long in the USA that some of the early youth rebels are themselves elderly now. Those who wouldn’t trust anybody over 30 are now over 60.

The styles of music pushed on the younger generation by the Jew music industry keep changing and becoming more bizzare and decadent. Rock replaced Jazz. Punk replaced rock. Rap replaced punk. Greater levels of promotion of promiscuity became acceptable in film. The elderly were in turn sold the concept that they should isolate themselves from young people and establish ‘retirement communities’ from which young people are banned (such as Sun City here in Arizona.)

This social alienation did not develop spontaneously, nor can it be blamed entirely on some nefarious Jewish conspiracy (as much as Jews love encouraging it and helping it along). It developed from the internal contradictions within imperialism. European-American children of the early Cold War era grew up in an anomalous environment of prosperity coupled with fear. Unlike their parents and grandparents, they had not suffered the real hardship and poverty of the Great Depression, and they were also concious that most of the world’s people did not enjoy living standards as high as those they enjoyed. They also grew to understand that, although they ate well, they did so with a gun pointed at their heads. There was the constant threat of nuclear anihilation as a result of Cold War policies. There was the recent history of the Korean War, and the possibility of being subjected to actual war loomed with the start of the Vietnam War at a time when military conscription was accepted practice.

The authority figures and role models to which the young people looked for direction failed them. With few honorable exceptions, the teachers, parents, clergymen, and government officials told young people that they owed the government their obedience and ought to go fight the war in Vietnam and make no trouble about it. Naturally many yougn people couldn’t accept that they should fight over a country across the Pacific which had never been the territory of the USA and posed no threat to their homeland just for Cold War political interests. Many of them doubtless felt betrayed by the adults in authority who wanted them to submit to this imperialist war.

With solidarity among generations broken in this way, young people naturally searched for a sense of community elsewhere and a way to oppose the imperialist war and other injustices which they perceived were part of society. They were easy prey to ideological hucksters. Some were taught that the material prosperity of their society depended upon imperialist wars, and this notion was certainly reenforced by the adults who told them to be grateful for such a fine country and to willingly serve it. In reaction to this, many tried to drop out of society and into communes, accepting voluntary poverty. Some were sold on the idea that drugs were a form of liberation and ‘mind expansion.’ Many learned the hard way that drugs brought nothing but harm to them. Some were sold on the idea that the traditional family was itself a problem. After all, the adult members of those families had misled them towards war. They were told to experiment with ‘free love’ as an alternative family which really became sexual promiscuity. This cause futher alienation, as the next generation grew up without fathers or with unstable families.

The Vietnam War eventually ended, and so did conscription. Even the Cold War eventually ended. Despite the reduction in the threat to young people that had caused the social disruption and alienation, the damage once done tended to propagate (and, as earlier mentioned, was encouraged by those seeking to destroy the social fabric of European-American society). Apart from the disruption to the family unit caused by promiscuity, it was hard for parents to teach solidarity among generations to a new generation given the example they had set, even assuming they wanted to teach it. Diminishing living standards faced young people as the Cold War ended. Despite the growing wealth of society overall, it was going to the bourgeoisie. Working people could not expect to do as well as previous generations had done. The inability of a man to earn enough money to support a family naturally helped prevent stable family life, requiring two-income households and latchkey children.

Many of the old distractions remained. Drug use and promiscuity continued, though few people were still foolish enough to uphold them as social ideals, as was done in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Young people eager to improve society’s lot were given a number of new wrong answers. Some were and are being sold on the idea of anarchism. They were told that being white was something to be ashamed of at a time when solidarity among white people was necessary to resist imperialism. They were told they needed to engage in the vegan lifestyle and support all sorts of fetish causes giving lower-order animals “rights” that many human beings do not enjoy. Some were sold on all sorts of environmentalist hysteria into wasting time fighting imaginary hazards or hazards whose dangers were grossly exaggerated. Those who opposed imperialist wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia usually did so in a grotesque parody of the protests of the 1960s, promoting vulgar pacifism, not genuine anti-imperialism.

Imperialism’s most effective tactic is “divide and rule,” and if our people cannot show solidarity among generations, it will be all the harder for us to resist imperialism and globalism. To the elderly and my fellow middle-aged people, I say that we should try not to be alienated by our young people, however strange and decadent they may seem to us. It’s our duty to guide them towards the right path. We can’t do that by hiding from them in retirement communities or otherwise avoiding them, nor can we do it by harshly berating and bullying them rather than engaging in constructive criticism. We also need to include self-criticism in sharing our experiences and our knowledge. We don’t have to appear to be paragons of perfection. If we made mistakes when we were young, we should explain these to them so that they may learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

To our young people, I say don’t regard us as alien beings with alien thought processes. We were young once, and we remember what it was like to be young. Don’t hesitate to talk to us. We have much to teach you, and you will find that we can sympathize with the problems you face. We’ve been there. Once you talk to us, you may be surprised to find that the nonsense you’ve been taught by the enemy is often simply a repackaged form of the rubbish we were taught and that we also sometimes fell for it. When we fight the enemy together, it is harder for the enemy to break us.”


Kim Jong Il exposes the military industrial complex (monopoly capital)

“After the war the US monopoly capitalists were confronted with a vital problem: how to maintain their colossal munitions industry, and what to do with their tremendous amount of surplus capital.

The US imperialists clamoured about a ‘communist threat’ in order to provide an excuse for continuing to expand their munitions industry, adopted the policy of a cold war that was directed against the socialist countries and increased international tension, under the pretext of protecting the ‘free world.’ This was essentially the ‘Truman Doctrine.’ Meanwhile, in order to avoid an economic crisis and dispose of their surplus capital, they carried out the policy of gaining hold of the economies of the major capitalist countries in Europe by means of captial investment in the name of ‘aiding’ their economic recovery from the ravages of war. This was what they called the ‘Marshall Plan.’

In this way US imperialism acquired a firm grip on the capitalist world militarily and controlled it economically, while clinging more and more to an aggressive policy in order to check the growing socialist forces and materialize its ambition for world conquest. Drawing on developed technology and superior economic strength the monopoly capital of the United States intensified its inroads into other countries and estabished multinational companies by setting up daughter companies in various countries. In the 1960s many multinational companies based in the other developed capitalist countries also appeared. Thus the internationalization of capital was accelerated and the economies of the capitalist world were brought under the domination of the multinational companies of the US and other developed capitalist countries.

Wih the rapid internationalization of capital through multinational companies, new changes took place in the mutual relations between capitalist countries.

Before the Second World War the capitalist powers engaged in fierce competition to seize commodity markets and spheres of influence, and this led to destructive armed clashes and wars. It can be said that both the First and Second World Wars were the results of the sharpening contradictions and antagonism between the capitalist powers. As the internationalization of capital prgressed after the Second World War, however, the capitalist powers depended on and collaborated with each other economically and technically.

Previously they had expanded great energies on competing with and defeating each other, but, from that time onwards, they joined hands to oppose socialism and intensify capitalist exploitation and plunder. It might be said that the greatest change in the capitalist world since the Second World War has been the capitalist powers have gone over from dog-eat-dog relations to those of alignment and cooperation. Of course, this does not mean that no contradiction exists between the capitalist powers, but now this is of secondary importance and alignment is the basis of their relations. During the 40 years since the end of the Second World War there have been more than 170 wars, major and minor, but none of them has been fought between capitalist powers themselves; rather their military alignment has been strengthened through military blocs.

As a result of capital being internationalized and of world imperialism having realigned itself, centering on US imperialism, capitalism has survived its imminent doom and made rapid economic and technical progress.

Since the end of the Second World War the imperialists have not only aligned themselves with each other politically, economically and militarily, but also evolved more cunning techniques of domination and crafty methods of plunder. This is also an important feature of contemporary imperialism.

The imperialists could not help being extremely alarmed at the rapidly-growing socialist forces and the upsurge of the working-class movement and national-liberation movement in the colonies. That is why they have devised new and more cunning techniques of ruling and crafty methods of plundering to weaken the influence of socialism and appease the working-class movement and national-liberation movement in the colonies.

The imperialists were keenly aware of the fact that they would not be able to maintain the capitalist system unless the working-class movement in their own countries was undermined, so they brought up large numbers of labor aristocrats, while striving to conceal capitalist exploitation and to subdue the resistance of the working masses through unemployment and poverty. ”

(Source: )