Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 15 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

The imperialists use disinformation as a weapon. Proletariat dictatorship is how to disarm them.

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   No comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Rainer Shea
Become a Fan
  (14 fans)

The difference between Marxists and liberals is that whereas Marxists strive for what's best for the proletarian revolution, liberals seek to maintain their own self-perception of moral superiority. As Mao wrote, "liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace." Which means liberals, and Marxists who give in to liberal ideas, aren't ideologically equipped to fight for the revolution.

Promoting imperialist narratives under the guise of opposing "authoritarianism"

Liberalism rationalizes letting actions and ideas which harm the interests of the people slide, for the sake of maintaining this hypocritical concept of peace. And it rejects things like there being a role for violence within liberation struggles, despite liberalism's neglect for ideological struggle frequently leading liberals to embrace imperialism's pro-war narratives. There's fundamentally a lack of principles within liberalism, because its priority is not in fighting the class war, but in upholding a subjective sense of virtue. One whose notions of what's right and wrong are defined by what bourgeois ideology and imperialist propaganda say.

One way liberalism cultivates this lack of willingness to engage in class struggle is by blanketly vilifying authority as a means for carrying out the revolution's goals. The "libertarian socialists" whose positions are informed by this mentality claim to dislike Marxist-Leninist states because these states are "authoritarian." but these states only get this label because imperialism's propaganda has worked to associate them with it. The criteria for what makes them "authoritarian" is arbitrary, tied not into their actual rates of repression but into who that repression gets directed towards. China's incarceration rate compared to its population is tiny compared to that of the United States, but China is called "authoritarian" in contrast to the "democratic" U.S. This is because China locks up agents of U.S. imperialist subversion, whereas the U.S. locks up victims of the poverty it cultivates. It's the U.S. that's facilitated the imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange for his journalism exposing U.S. war crimes, but China's speech suppression is seen as more sinister because it's directed at Washington's disinformation.

What China, north Korea, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and socialist-governed countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua are doing is what Engels said a revolution must do when he ridiculed the left's "anti-authoritarians":

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon "- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

It's for this reason, the one of a revolution needing to defend itself, that China and the DPRK especially have enacted systems for filtering out imperialist disinformation. As much as liberalism's argument for free speech absolutism causes liberals to decry these censorship measures, China and the DPRK are under no obligation to allow U.S. imperialism's propaganda into their borders unchecked.

This isn't because the governments of these countries don't tolerate any dissent. They in fact do, to far greater extents than the media leads us to believe. It's because imperialist propaganda is utterly malicious in its intent, and necessarily false. It exists only to advance imperialism's goal of destabilizing these countries, and dismantling their socialist projects so that foreign capital can set up neo-colonial regimes within them.

The censorship policies of these countries come not from corrupt elite groups that seek to crush dissent, as liberalism's mindset might lead one to believe, but from the democratic wills of their own people. This is because elitism is utterly incompatible with communism. When a communist party's leadership acts out of step with the people it rules over, the people respond by taking away its ability to act as a vanguard, and its power ends. This is what happened to the Soviet Union's ruling party, which abandoned the state as an instrument for class struggle, forsook Stalin and Lenin's theory calling for the bourgeoisie to be made politically powerless, and therefore made it impossible for socialism to be defended in the eastern bloc. Socialist Yugoslavia's leaders enabled imperialist sabotage through their own failures too, as I'll explain later in this article. China's ruling party hasn't repeated these mistakes, in fact Xi Jinping has directly diagnosed them. As has Kim Jong Il, whose ideas still define the DPRK's ruling Workers Party despite him being dead.

Because these parties act according to the interests of their people, they're able to censor imperialist disinformation without letting this veer into suppressing factually based criticisms of government officials. China has experienced great deals of protests over the years for its widespread corruption, corruption which Xi Jinping has been campaigning to eliminate in response to these demands from the masses. China isn't censoring these complaints, it's censoring the endless flood of imperialist media articles which repeat the lies about a "Uyghur genocide." Among the many other lies designed to sow unrest within the country.

Parallel evidence justifying the DPRK's censorship policies is that these policies have come not from above, but from below. The country's electoral system, one of the world's most transparent and free, has enabled communities to decide to limit their exposure towards the imperialist-controlled internet, and maintain an internet particular to the DPRK.

It's not Kim Jong Un who's made these decisions. It's the people, who have the education on anti-imperialist struggle to recognize when it's necessary to filter out imperialism's propaganda sources. With Washington using its south Korean puppet regime to perpetually manufacture fictitious accounts of DPRK human rights abuses, paying defectors exorbitant amounts of money to repeat such hoaxes for the imperialist media, the DPRK's people are wise to not want to expose their younger or less educated people to these poisonous lies. They don't want to undergo the process that Yugoslavians were subjected to.

Using disinformation to kill a nation & dismantle its socialist project

I say imperialism's propaganda is necessarily false because even when it's drawing upon actual events, or upon factually based critiques of the governments it targets, its bias causes it to infuse these facts with lies. To exploit a grain of truth, and use it to promote wildly dangerous disinformation. For example, when it comes to the former Yugoslavia, there are factually based critiques to be made of the government, including ones that can be made from socialist perspectives. I've seen Yugoslavian communists say they believe Milosevic's government had betrayed the values the country was founded on. According to them, human rights abuses occurred through the police, Milosevic carried out free market reforms without any clear plan for building the productive forces off of this, and he was a corrupt actor who stole state funds and violently sabotaged his political rivals. But these same Yugoslavians have agreed with my conclusion that the atrocities Milosevic supposedly orchestrated in the war were pinned on him by the imperialists to carry out a neoliberal expansion into Yugoslavia. Though they're able to recognize this nuance within the story, many of their fellow Yugoslavians weren't, and wholly embraced the narratives the CIA propagated.

The imperialists didn't destroy socialist Yugoslavia by bombing it from the start, they first had to use strategic disinformation to create a social base within the country which supported their planned military actions. The CIA fabricated atrocity stories, as well as carried out actual attacks against civilians, then blamed them all on the Serbs. It was a series of false flag operations to scapegoat Serbia, in the vein of imperialism's propaganda war against Assad. And it worked to the extent that the imperialists needed it to work, getting some Serbians to paint murals thanking NATO for supposedly having saved them. The CIA reignited old ethnic tensions, and flooded the country with so much disinformation that the different communities within it now have completely different perceptions of the conflict's history.

The imperialists then turned the Serbian officials they had captured into monsters in the eyes of the public, in the style of how George Bush called Saddad Hussein worse than Hitler. They convicted Milosevic of war crimes, assassinated him while incarcerated, then blamed his death on himself. When he was cleared on his war crimes charges a decade later, Radio Free Europe and the other parties guilty of promoting the disinformation claimed his exoneration meant nothing. But what are we supposed to think when the story of Yugoslavia's breakup has every red flag for being facilitated, at every step of the way, by one of imperialism's atrocity propaganda campaigns?

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Rainer Shea Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Rainer Shea is writing articles that counter the propaganda of the capitalist/imperialist power establishment, and that help move us towards a socialist revolution. Donate to me on Patreon here:

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

China is Saving the Uighurs From Jihadist Indoctrination

Do Americans Know How Close They Are To Dictatorship?

The coming U.S. regime change attempt in Bolivia

Counting down to civilization's collapse

As the American Empire Collapses, It Could Launch WW 3

The fall of the U.S. empire and the coming economic crash

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend