Why There Is No Socialist Country Nowadays?
The Failure of Revisionism
Revisionism is the righ wing’s oportunism on its most advanced level, which consists of the interests of the burgeoisie infiltrators among the proletarian and because of its actions there is not one single socialist country in the world nowadays.
We claim, without remorse, that there is not one socialist country and we are going to clarify our views beginning our investigation in the Great Debate of Communist International Movement, which was a huge step to reveal the real face of the modern revisionists. It is important that we comprehend its historical meaning, including the point of view of the class struggle of this great battle between workers vs burgeoisie inside the communist movement.
It is known that proletarian’s ideology is an invencible method, but it is impossible to convince all the people about the truth of our ideology due to the fact the human being do not have a individual way of thinking and is not oniscient, but quiet contrary, he is motivated by his personal interests – and all those interests belong to one class. There will be those who feel certain, even in an honest way, about the “rightness” of revisionism believing it is marxism. In Brazil, Prestes was an example of an honest man, who used to seek for the righ answer, but due to the limitation of his ideology on conception of classes he was for a long period of his life the main leader of the right wing’s revisionist line inside the Communist Party of Brazil (PCB), and has contributed to make the party how it is shaped nowadays. If Prestes has not done his autocritic – which was an honest one –, probably today he would be thrown out from the brazilian communist movement as a revisionist. With these words of introduction we aim to clarify that it is not an analysis of individual “x” or “y”, if the man was a traitor or a limited honest man etc., but only the interests in which the classes has been defending to achieve especific positions.
1. The Great Debate and Centrism
During the 60’s, a huge battle between marxism and revisionism has made a huge step of quality towards the International Communist Movement, highlitghing one more time in the history of the communist movement a separation between real marxists revolutionaries and the revisionists reactionaries. This struggle was protagonized by the Central Comittee of the Communist Party of China (CC of CPCh) – guided by the revolutionary method of Chairman Mao –, who has sent a letter to CPSU – in that time, managed by the right wing revisionist click of renegade Khrushchov – named “Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement” of june 14, 1963, criticizing the revisionists thesis, and therefore the “Three Units” and the “Two Pacifists”, besides the incorrect approach on the Stalin question.
These theories and points of view made by the revisionists to the Communist International Movement on comrade Stalin were clearly anticomunists and counterrevolutionaries, who were really willing to destroy the proletarian dictatorship in the USSR, difamate comrade Stalin who was the biggest representative of the soviet proletarian of CPUS and establish communist parties in the world of right-wing, degenarated click which used to disable the advance of the World Proletarian Revolution.
The historical importance of this struggle is similar with so many others struggles between marxism and revisionism in the history of the communist movement. It was so important as the struggle fought between Marx and Engels against the disciples of Proudhon and Bakunin in the First Internartionale (struggle that settled marxism as the universal proletarian ideology and showed the true face of anarchism as a petite-bourgeoisie conduct); or as the struggle fought between comrade Lenin in the beginning of the century against the rengades revisionists of the Second Internationale guided by Bernstein and Kautsky; or even as the struggle between revolutionaty line of comrade Stalin against Trotsky and his followers in the 20’s-30’s.
All these struggles mentioned had one thing in commom, so does the Great Debate, the goal of wiping out strange elements inside the communist and worker movement, the goal of checking all the lines of the International Communist Movement highlighting a clear line where on one side consists of communists workers and on the other side consists of revisionists and bourgeoisie elements, in a situation where there is no middle-term or conciliation – and to do it is to side with bourgeoisie and revisionism. Finally, all the great struggles between marxists and revisionists were (and will always be) a reflect of the class struggle inside the International Communist Movement and its result was (and will always be) to unmask the revisionists: bourgeoisie representatives inside the worker and communist movement.
Thus, when the Great Debate hits up and the “soviet” directors Khrushchov and Brezhnev are exposed as revisionists in serving the bourgeoisie and restorers of capitalism in Soviet Union, a depuration was made by the International Commnist Movement, or, generally, a split up. From one side stood the revolutionaries and from the other stood the right-wing elements; there were also the centrists who, finally, were absorved by the right-wing as a result of their ideological incompetence.
To the left the Communist Party of China and the Workers Party of Albania took place influencing communists worldwide to side with the revolutionaries, like communists in India, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Peru, Turkie, USA etc..
To the right all the revisionist click managed by the soviet masters of the revisionist CPSU, precisely all the governements of the “soviet block” in Europe excepting Albania took place influencing the great majority of communist parties worldwide to side with the revisionists; in Brazil, their biggest expression was the Brazilian Communist Party, guided by Prestes.
And, finally, there were the centrists with their clearly failed ideology and – in some cases – economically depending on Soviet Union, they did not took place in the Great Debate, they managed to mediate, to conciliate marxism and revisionism, conciliating classes interests. Regarding this issue, Communist Party of Vietnam and Workers Party of Korea were the main actors.
2. To Scan the Proletarian Dictactorship: What preceded the Great Debate
It is important to point out that the Great Debate has succeded the most transcendental advance towards the proletarian dictactorship e towards socialism. This advance concerns the whole process of classes struggle in socialism. It regards the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
Only Chairman Mao synthesized the experience of capitalim restauration in Yoguslavia and in the Soviet Union, developing the scientific comprehension of some facts which follows:
a) that the bourgeoisie survives in a socialist society throughout its culture, its habits, its values etc. which correspond to the old productives relationships, thus, corrompting individuals (including authorities) and the heart of the masses;
b) that the socialist society in construction and in consolidation keeps going to build up spontaneous bourgeoisie elements in society (developing the great thesis of great Lenin which stated: “unfortunately, there is still in the world a huge quantity of little production and it builds constantly, day after day, hour after hour, the capitalism and the bourgeoisie, for one spontaneous process and with the masses”), thanks to the little production and to the private small businesses and to the existence of the “bourgeois right”, as the difference between manual work and intelectual work, between countryside and city and between workers and peasants, besides imperialists countries worldwide; and that these bourgeoisie elements generated spontaneously carries on a new social base for the bourgeoisie, which will seek to resist e struggle to reconquer the power;
c) that ideology is the main element in the class struggle in socialism;
d) that the fact of one only factory could be administered by one erroneous individual, do not apply it constantly and completely to the proletarian line of the Party, it is already a political factor which creates, generates and moves constantly the new bourgeoisie and the capitalism restauration.
Before all these new comprehensions about the experience of the proletariat dictactorship, Chairman Mao concluded that this last obsevation could not be stopped, could not be forgoten, that the politics and the ideology of the proletarian must guide everything – including and mainly in the development of the productive forces –, that the masses must fiscalizate everyone and, thus, developing the practique of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) as a way to conjurate and keep away the capitalist restauration.
Shortly, we will sum up the lessons that guided the GPCR:
a) the proletarian must manage everything – the proletarian ideology must be apllied for everything, no exception, occupying all the spaces, including the ideological- cultural centre – and the masses must ficalizate everyone and everything – tha includes fiscalizate the technicians and contribute to the production, soldiers fiscalizing officials and building a proletarian dictactorship where the masses, finally, drives everything;
b) considering that the small production, the existence of imperialism, the old culture and the “bourgeois right”, besides the Three Great Differences (between manual work and intellectual work, peasants and workers and city and countryside) are objective condictions that spontaneously generates the restauration of capitalism and counter-revolution, so everyone must be supressed and to counterbalance this counter-revolution constantly is important successives and continuously mass movementes to erase the revisionists and oportunists – who are the products of this counter-revolution – and go depurating society (these movements from the masses are precisely the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution); we must clarify that while we do not exploit inside the communism, there will still be bourgeoisie and the classes struggle alive, so insane, so violent and tremendous as we know in the capitalist society;
c) the army is an element from the State, for example, in China was used by the revolutionaries to assist the masses in destroying the bureaucrats and the revisionists and to depurate society with a new culture and dominant ideology; meanwhile, after 1976, it also served as a revisionist weapon to learn, assassinate and dizimate the maoists during the State military coup. It evidences for what the Army must be cornered by – what Marx has told us – a sea of armed masses that will be ready to corner the revisionist enemy in case it commands the State and sets off, before Popular War, the counterrestauration of socialism;
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, as a result of the Great Debate in the 60’s, turned to be a split up, and its teachings, a true mirrored reflection to the revisionists. It is important to comprehend all the socialist experiences considering the most advanced experience of the proletarian dictactorship which was the Cultural Revolution. That is what we are going to do.
3. The Consequences of Centrism in the Great Debate
It is evident to everybody who has known the history of the USSR and Russia and all the european “soviet block” ruined and they are not, nowadays, socialists; but, the controverse on the existence of socialist countries has its debate concerning Vietnam and – mainly – North Korea, which were countries that took the centrist position in the Great Debate and, apparently (just apparently), have not being dizimated by the “thunderstorm” of the counter-revolution that took place in 1960-1991.
We must clarify on the two countries question.
3.1 Counter-revolution in Vietnam
During the Great Debate, the CPV still guided by Ho Chi Minh sorrowed and regreted (for our surprise) the discussions between parties; in the so called “political testament” from Ho Chi Minh, the part where the centrism and his failure ideology showed up in:
“I feel very bad for the current disunity between the parties. I hope our Party carries on to contribute efficiently to the restauration of the unity between the parties, basing themselves in the marxism-leninism and in the proletarian internationalism, according to the logic and reason.”
He recalled the Party not to expose the revisionists and to carry on the proletarian line, the line in which the class would be driven towards communism, but recalled the Party to mediate and conciliate, amenize the classes struggle in the International Communist Movement under the execuse of “fighting against desunity”. It happens that Ho Chi Minh did not know how to comprehend that it did not regard of a desunity between communists, between marxists-leninists, but it does regards a split up of classes, where the representatives of the proletarian must expose and kick out those bourgeoisie representatives.
The result of this incomprehension by Ho Chi Minh was a complete degeneration of the Party that was not anymore representative of the proletarian. As in the class struggle there is no blank space, so where the proletarian do not occupy the bourgeoisie does and, thus, the vietnamite State and the Communist Party have already being transformed in a revisionist centre where the bourgeoisie has settled a real headquarters against the proletarian, aligning Vietnam with “soviet” social-imperialism. To honour its duty of being a social-imperialist pawn and its complete degeneration, the revisionist click of Vietnam invaded, in a war coordinated by the soviet social-imperialism, the Kampuchea in 1975.
Currently, the vietnamites revisionists have been promoting a total submission to foreign capital sustained by revisionists thesis about the delayed of the productive forces, claiming that the economical delay disable socialism development; thus, they promoted the restauration of capitalism and the opening towards foreign capital “aiming for the industrialization”, where the bourgeoisie bureaucrat has emerged. This last one is the dominant class of Vietnam.
3.2 Counter-revolution in North Korea
During the Great Debate, Kim Il-Sung stood up to conciliate “sovietic” revisionism and the proletarian line of the CPCh and the WPA. According to the same logic of the centrist Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-Sung and his Party used to consider the Great Debate as a “silly and stupid misunderstanding” between parties. He has refused to take a position and to maintain relationships with China and the soviets (with the soviets, the relations were maintained until the last day of the USSR and continued next to each other after the ruin of Soviet Union). With the soviets, “loans” and all kinds of investments have happened. The bribery of the russian social-imperialists and the North Korea’s dependence on bureaucratic social-imperialist capital from USSR, and its “military aid” made Korea hostage.
I. North-korean economy
North Korea has earned, at the end of Soviet Union, US$ 10,96 billions in debts with the russian social-imperialism. A lot of this money, clearly, acquired through financial briberies from the social-fascist Brezhnev and his politics of subjugation of other countries under his area of influence. With his theory of “International Labor Division”, Brezhnev and soviet social imperialism perpetuated in the brand new liberated countries by revolutions the colonial kind relations in the benefit of the russian bureaucrat bourgeoisie interests.
In the earliest economy plane, since 1990 a lot of economical reforms has been taking place in North Korea, marked by disastrous results concerning natural resources and by the desintegration of the USSR (which resulted the end of the “aid” – popular known as bribery). Since then, the north koreans have been seeking normal relations with South Korea and the United States, a try not succesfully achieved with lots of ups and downs depending on the managers in charge at the moment.
In this process, the north-koreans signed a Treat of Non-Proliferation in 1994 which aimed to destroy two nuclear plants of Noth Korea and substitute them for two brand new nuclear plants build by South Korea and Japan, besides they permited inspectors linked with yankee imperialism to spy on their nuclear instalations – avoiding the production of pluton for its nuclear weapons. Even the recent experiment with H Bomb is not more than a retaking of power of “nuclear diplomacy” which Korea adopted while tightening its relations with South Korea, it does not mean a split up as what happenned in 1994.
In 2002, they went even further e under the execuse of developing its economy, they launched a planned “Development of Economy Managemente” which was, actually, the opening towards the foreign capital in certain areas called “Economic Free Zones” – similar to current China – and wages reforms and the cost of life. The wages lowered and turned up to be subsidies for food, the peasants were incentivated to exploit the sales of the surplus in the so called Farmer’s Markets (similar to the brazilian ones).
Since 2010, there has been less State controlon the economy and more dialogue with the imperialists. That act turned up to be a bargain, that the European Commission came back suppling food aid to the country. In this period, including, there was a major support from imperialist China to Korea to garantee its influence among that region having invested in “bilateral cooperation” (known as “unilateral benefit” for China). In order to recompensate, Korea has promoted a bigger opening towards chinese capital strenghtening the commerce between both of them.
In 2011, Kim Jong-Il, the manager of Korea went to China and visited the most developed area (in the east of the country) to “study the chinese economic reform and to apply it in Korea”. After this and concerning the facts happenned last year, China has begun to heavily invest on Korea’s infra-structure. Even the cassinos, gumbling games and degenerated capitalist products have their place in the “Best Korea”, aiming to incentivate tourism – tourism was alreay very strong.
Thus, it makes very evident since 1990 that there is a deregulation in the economy, opening itself completely towards the foreign capital – mainly chinese – and becoming economically, politically and militarly dependent of China. China has been managing its own region of influence (the region where belongs the sino-soviet imperialism). Meanwhile, the presence of the foreign capital was already present even before the end of the Soviet Union and before the econommical reforms, through russian social-imperialism, that when the country turned up to be Russia again, this system continues to keep going.
II. The Juche Idea and the Songun Doctrine
The north-korean centrism during the Great Debate was followed by the “Juche Ideology” (which means self-reliance) in 1964, which came followed by the germ of capitulation. Innitially, presented as the creative application of Marxism-Leninism into the reality of Korea, it turned to be a total brand new and original ideology, which renegaded the dialetical historical materialism. It is important to point out that Juche Ideology also has not considered the learnings from the GPCR of China we mentioned before and has commited the same mistakes.
From now on, we will follow a degenarated evolution similar to the brazilian Labor Party (PT).
First, on dialetical materialism and the Juche Idea there is the denial of the first and the claiming for the second as being original and new, and there was not an “application of dialetical materialism in Korea” as some may say. As claimed by Kim Il-Sung, the founder of Juche:
“It is not the objective conditions, but the man who develops his function in the development of history.” (…) “The animals are a part of nature and their destiny ir determined by the natural laws of change and development, as the man is not a being who obeys the natural laws of change and development.” (…)
“In the contrary of all live material, which is submitted to the objective world, the man domain and transform the world, according to his wishes and desire.”
The son and heir, Kil Jong Il, carries on:
“The Juche philosophy is an original doctrine which is developed and sistematized in their own principles. Its historical merit is the progress of philosophical ideas not being developed the marxist materialistic dialets, but to define new philosophical principles concerning the man.”
“Since now, also the society changes and developes not by the human action, but according to certain rules. Meanwhile, the action of the laws in the society differs with the laws of nature. In these laws there is spontaneity, independent of human actions, but society play the laws through independent activities, innovatives e coscients of man. Between the social laws there is also the general laws for the whole society, the kind of regime in importantless, like the ones that are applied only in socialist regimes. Like all the social laws launched by the activities of the man, this action can be done clearly, streghten or tighten according to human desire.”
“The main limitation of the materialist conception of history is not showing clearly the own laws of the social movement, but developing his own principles mainly according to his community and the nature evolution, which are equally materialistic.”
This is nothing more than the old bourgeoisie idealism which centres the reality of ideas and human conciousness, treating him as the all-mighty, the old bourgeoisie humanism and, worst, sustained by the independece of man from the nature; this is pure revisionism, denial of marxist philosophy.
In a second moment, we will see a tendency to apply the theory of “productive forces” in another frame, where developing the productive forces, like “revolutionalize, proletariate e intellectualize all the members of society of all the members of society”, those are the main goals and ways to achieve communism. Kim Il-Sung claimed:
“In essence, the technical revolution consists in eliminating the fundamental differences between the so many categories of work and liberate the workers from the heavy tasks. The technician revolution is not a company techno-profissional only to develop the technique and the productive forces in order to increase the production of material wealth; it is an important political work to liberate even more obstacles of nature already liberated from the exploitation and opression and, thus, guarantee a complete equallity in the social life, also in an independent and creative life. Only giving strenght to the technician revolution that the working class proletarian can eliminate the fundamental differences of work, liberate the workers from hard tasks and build with success the materlistic protection needed until communism.”
“We must develop the productive forces, at least, in the level of developed capitalist countries, consolidating continuously and firmly the materialistic bricks of socialism and eliminate completely the difference between workers and peasants. For this, we must mechanize the agricultural tasks, carry on the fertilizing and irrigation and applying the eight-hour work journey, through the technician revolution in a level which all the developed capitalist countries have developed the capitalist countryside.”
The problem of this tendency to a bigger concern with the productive forces instead the concern of class stuggle is that it opens space to profess the biggest development of the productive forces as the only conditions to achieve the “independency” and “socialism”, opening itslef towards the foreign capital (as a way to “promote the developent of the means of production”, like what has happenned in Vietnam). This would overshadow the class struggle and prioritize the productive forces when, on contradiction, the proletarian ideology teaches that the class struggle is the main point of marxism.
Finally, the denial of dialetic materialism, there was a huge step in the quality of revisionism that made a denial also of the marxism as a whole, renegading it. Kim Jong Il claimed:
“The Marxism represented the time when the working class has appeared in history e began its fight against capitalism. But time has changed e history has developed, thus, marxism has acquired inevitables historical limitations.”
Still on the revisionist degenaration of the WPK, there is still the Songun Doctrine, which there is a vast superstimation of the Army and there is not a siege of the Army by the armed masses, not even to prevent an occasional “coup anti-Party” nor to allow that the masses save the country from a military offensive of the yankee imperialism.
Songun Doctrine does not consider the proletarian as the vanguard of the Revolution, but the Army! This is precisely desconsidering the leading characteristic of the proletarian.
“Applying the Songun Doctrine, our party has defined it as the main force of revolution, not the working class, but the Popular Army, considering a new reason and a new concept of material and of the function that the Army has in the revolutionary and constructive process” (…) “This is a sublime mission of the Popular Army, his heavy, but glorious revolutionary duty, that even working class has not or any other social colective has not accomplished in substituting theirs.”
And, finnally, Kim Jong Il explain the reason for the Songun Doctrine to substitute the marxist method of defending the revolution:
“In the middle of the XIX century, the analisys if the relations social-classits of capitalists countries has made Marx to elucidate that the working class is the most progressist and most revolutionary, that assumes the mission to overthrow the dominance of capital and all the exploiting regimes and establishes socialism and communism, and define it as the guiding of the classe and fortress of the revolution.” (…) “But, the theory or the formula exposed by Marx has already one century and a half and it cannot be adopted to the reality of nowadays. A lot of time has passed by and huge changes has been made both in the social circunstances and in the classes relations, likein the working class situation.”
The Songun Doctrine meant, the withdrawl of the proletarian as a leading class in the Revolution as the only capable of being the defender of the revolution and the country. It was a complete denial of the communist method of defending the revolution, which consists, as Marx has stated and Mao has synthesized, in a sea of armed classes defending their interests in a fight of life and death with the enemies of the class.
And for what reason the Army substitute the proletarian in the function of being the “the main element to defend the Revolution”? This was a reflection of the objective reality where a new bureaucratic bourgeoisie located in the high positions of the army has begun to manage the north-korean State, and not the proletarian anymore.
To conclude, we shall see what the maximum leaders of the WPK, Kim Il-Sung, claims on the Perestroika question and on the titist revisionism. First, on Perestroika:
“This new change that is taking place now in the soviet Union is unthinkable beyond the energetic activitie of comrade Gorbachev, a genuine Marxist-Leninist.”
Finnally, on titist revisionism:
“Yoguslavia and Korea are non-alligned countries and socialists.”
All this process represents a gradual and progressive split up of the WPK with marxism-leninism and with communism, process initiated after taking centrist position in the Great Debate.
To sum up, was like this that the Juche Idea have been built up with the germ of capitulation; with the Songun Doctrine, the anounce of a consolidated split up with the proletarian was made. Songun Doctrine is the result of an ideology (Juche), a strange ideology for the marxism-leninism-maoism (or even for the marxism-leninism) and the main actors of this ideology claim that this is all true, it is nothing new that nobody came to do a little investigation on this.
And, finnally, we know that ideology has a major role in the revolution and the only proletarian ideology is marxism with its untouchable historical dialetical materialism; so besides that, there is no socialism nor proletarian disctactorship, and the Juche – as a “brand new and original ideology” which denies the basic principles of marxism – it is not the exception.
III. Internal Class Struggle
Considering the ideological and economical question on Korea, applying the teachings of the proletarian with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, we can make a cientific analysis that only the proletarian ideology provide us.
It is a fact that in revolutionary China in the 60’s and 70’s, a conclusion was made that it is not enough to nationalize the property, but the proletarian must guide the State. It is due to the non-correct way to apply in the society, having the risk – almost certain – of a new bourgeoisie come up inside the socialism to restore their way of production through revisionism, even in a nationalized economy, developing a new bureaucratic bourgeoisie from the State (this is what has happened in the USSR in the 60’s and with China in the 70’s).
In North Korea, where the small production and the small businesses, the “bourgeois right” and the Three Great Differences (mainly between manual work and intellectual work) are not surpressed, but quite the contrary, they are incentivated, denying the teachings of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution about the classes struggle under socialism and the constant building of the counter-revolution; so it is clear that it has happened in North Korea. It has emerged from the high rankings of the army a new bureaucratic monopolistic bourgeoisie from the State, aligned with the social-imperialism – first, the russian and then China – that drives the country.
This sino-russian imperialism dependency has contributed to the military agressions from the yankee imperialism, because it has a double contradiction: the main one, between korean nation and the agreesive yankee imperalism; and also in the dispute with the chinese imperialism – which has lots of influences in that region – and the yankee imperialism. That way, we have to defend Korea from the yankee agression and legitimize its right to self-defense from the imperialists agressions.
In any case, it is not a proletarian regime after all these points mentioned and, therefore, it is not socialist. The considerable high level of “democracy”– when compared to a western capitalist country – it does not mean socialism, but quiet the contrary, it is an expression of corporativism and domestication of the masses. North Korea is managed by a revisionist Party which is controled by the High Rankings of the Army, where the new bourgeoisie has emerged.
Some honest comrades defend the existence of socialist countries because they are locked in a bourgeoisie logic. According to this logic, if there were nota socialist country it is because socialism has failed and, thus, it is impossible to exist. There comrades need to break the bourgeoisie logic by studying the proletarian ideology, marxism-leninism-maoism, to comprehend the teachings of the great proletarian leaders worldwide, split up with the bourgeoisie way to see the world and adopt the proletarian conception and conceive the reality as it is, and not by how we wish could be.
In order to break this bourgeoisie logic, we must understand that no class has taken the power in so small period of time without any violent struggle with the old classes overthrown. The feudal class has lest 250 years to overthrow and win all kinds of resistance from the pro-slavery class in ancient China; the bourgeoisie in the west has lest 300 years to overthrow the feudal lords and disable the reconstruction of the old society; in all these processes mentioned there were struggles between the pro-restorers and the counter-restorers and with the proletarian it will not be different. We have, in average, 150 years of struggle and this is relatively new for the experiences we have acquired, our failures, contrary with what the bourgeoisie thinks, they are temporary and occasionally, because victory is innevitable to the proletarian.
To avoid the restauration of capitalism is needed a sequence of cultural revolutions depurating a new socialist society and developing and exploiting the proletarian dictactorship, arm the class and siege the elements of the State, leaving the masses ready to intervine against revisionism and the new bourgeoisie.
If we want to achieve communism, we have to comprehend the reality and not in revisionists illusions. We must dodge from anarchism, trotskysm, titism, kruschevism and brezhnevism, dogmato-revisionism from Hoxha, centrism, revisionism Juche and the most recent revisionists from the “new synthesis of Avakian” from RCP (USA) and from the “Prachanda path” of Nepal. They all end in restauration and in capitulation, not in communism.
Serve the People with Heart – Brazil
On Some Problems of Education in the Juche Idea, in: On Carrying Forward the Juche Idea, Pyongyang, 1995
The Historical Lesson in Building Socialism and the General Line of Our Party, in: On Carrying Forward the Juche Idea, Pyogyang, 1995
On Having a Correct Understanding of the Political, Moral and Material Incentives, in: Selected Works, Volume 1, Pyongyang, 1992
The Workers’ Party of Korea Organizes and Guides All the Victories of Our People, 1990, in Kim Jong Il, On Enhancing the Party’s Leading Role, Pyongyang, 1992