Before discovering this community, I was in a different community that proudly calls itself leftist. I posted a documentary; Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang which was very eye-opening for me.

Anyway, posting that started to really upset people, saying that the documentary is PSL propaganda. That PSL is authoritarian, backed by a Chinese Maoist billionaire and that PSL is riddled with sex abuse scandals. That of course PSL would simp for DPRK because it’s authoritarian. I was even called a holocaust denier for defending DPRK.

So is PSL bad? Where can I find better information on this? I’ve already tried looking into PSL and it all seems okay? The sex abuse scandals I am not sure about, is there more information on this? Am I being too critical on this?

    • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
      7·
      7 days ago

      I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the controversies section of it, as you usually have detailed takes on issues with western parties, from what I’ve seen.

      • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
        12·
        7 days ago

        I appreciate the vote of confidence unfortunately I know nothing about PSL and never felt the need to learn more about them so this is as good as it gets lol. One thing I’d look for is if they recognize the US to be a settler-colonial state, I don’t think any of the major parties do. Oh, this comes up sometimes but some will weasel their way out of it implying or outright saying settler-colonialism is a thing of the past and that the US was settler-colonial but isn’t anymore (implying the colonization has succeeded and the settlers have somehow transcended their settler status to become part of the global proletariat). That’s probably the first thing I’d look for in a US org tbh. It’s the old “the imperial hegemon thinks it knows communism better than the people that practice it”, but this isn’t unique to PSL or anything, just what I’d personally look for to determine an org.

        • Nondiegetic (any) @lemmygrad.ml
          9·
          7 days ago

          This isn’t really a major critique of PSL, but I think it’s interesting that they (the last time I looked) seem to stress the need to honor old treaties with native groups.

          It seems to carry an implied sense of continuity with the settler entity that (fraudulently) made those treaties, and a lack of real deference to native groups to really set their own terms for whatever post-colonial state(s) happen.

          Not a big deal, broadly, it just feels strange to me.

    • Emmi@lemmygrad.mlOP
      6·
      7 days ago

      Thank you for the link, it’s helpful. Small question, is the link in the 15th source cited source broken? It keeps refreshing for me.