The DPRK, Nuclear Weapons, and ‘Morality’

 

Allegory with a portrait of a Venetian senator (Allegory of the morality of earthly things), by Tintoretto, 1585.

Objective, material reality can be measured. In accordance with that, beliefs about the nature of novel viruses[1] or beliefs about our Solar System evolve over time and are subject to change; and it is because of ongoing observations, measurements, and advances in science.[2] In contrast to that, morality– or rather, bourgeois morality, does not change on such grounds because it is purely social and cultural.[3] At best, it is a weak argument for or against an issue. There have always been competing doctrines, ideologies, and theories; but ongoing methodical and investigative analyses of evidence points to one of those ideas or concepts as being correct, most accurate, or most principled.

For instance, communists who take a principled anti-imperialist stance do not have a problem with North Korea (a.k.a. the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) building defensive nuclear weapons — vis-à-vis the formal linkage between nuclear arms development and economic advance — in order to deter the United States and its allies who seek to invade the country, destroy them, reverse their revolutionary gains, and exploit their natural resources and labour power. The DPRK need not look any further than the examples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, and the “shock therapy”[4] they received, to see what would happen if the U.S. were to succeed in completely destroying it.

However, communists do take major issue with the U.S. maintaining its nuclear umbrella doctrine and using it to threaten countries — such as the aforementioned DPRK, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela — which are bulwarks against imperialism and are not friendly towards Wall Street’s interests. As long as the U.S. refuses to give up its nuclear weapons, and as long as imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism [5], continues its drive towards war, there can be no true world peace and by extension there will be no reason for such a small nation such as the DPRK to give up its nuclear deterrents. Therefore, the principled objection is to the material conditions around that American nuclear umbrella and the very real consequences that befall the targets of U.S. foreign policy. Regardless of what one may think of their destructive powers and capabilities, nuclear weapons themselves are, in the end, inanimate objects; but historical context and how they are used matters. 

Continue reading here.