Essay:Taiwan is Chinese (PRC)

2023-09-18T00:03:11Z

Robinn:

2023-09-17T21:36:25Z

Robinn:

Essay:The Cleanest Farce: How "Experts" Distort the DPRK

2023-09-17T21:35:55Z

Robinn:

{{Infobox essay|title=The Cleanest Farce: How "Experts" Distort the DPRK|author=Robinn|date=2023-09-13|excerpt=On B. R. Myers’ The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters (2011), a novel by a supposed "leading expert."}}

Review of B. R. Myers’ ''The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters'' (2011), a novel by a supposed "leading expert"

= Notes =

* The preface makes no mention of joint [[United States of America|U.S.]]-[[Republic of Korea|ROK]] war games on the peninsula in order to paint a picture of NK “military escalations” which suits his purposes.
* When discussing the “superior economy” of the south, U.S. investment in SK and global sanctions on the north are not given adequate coverage.
* The “attacks on South Korean forces in 2010” (preface to 2011 paperback edition), are, according to Myers, a case of north Korean weapons posturing, though they were in actuality response to provocative south Korean war demonstrations.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Stephen Gowans|newspaper=What's Left|title=North Korea attacks South Korea... or is it the other way around?|date=2010-11-23|url=https://gowans.blog/2010/11/23/north-korea-attacks-south-korea%e2%80%a6or-is-it-the-other-way-around/}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Stephen Gowans|newspaper=What's Left|title=Wrong country blamed for artillery exchange on Korean peninsula|date=2010-11-24|url=https://gowans.blog/2010/11/24/wrong-country-blamed-for-artillery-exchange-on-korean-peninsula/}}</ref>
* The [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea|DPRK]]’s well-documented diplomatic and military support for African and Palestinian revolutionary liberation movements throughout its existence is not mentioned even in passing.
* Citations for several things, mostly the attitude of the DPRK, are lacking. Extremely specific things are stated matter-of-factly.

= 1 =
The title itself suggests some amount of think tank funding, and certainly an extremely infantile conception of the DPRK. The book states for example:<blockquote>'''"The north was more and not less hospitable to [Japanese collaborators]. As a history book published in the DPRK in 1981 puts it, 'the Great Leader Kim Il Sung refuted the mistaken tendency to doubt or ostracize people just because they... had worked for Japanese institutions in the past'" (p. 32).'''</blockquote>I was unable to find any results when searching the citation online but I assume that this book would (from there or within the ellipses) go into the level that Japanese institutions had permeated Korea and the futility of purging all who had participated in any form. There is a stark difference, however, between allowing willing Japanese war collaborators to continue in their positions (which the north evidently didn't) and defending people who "worked for Japanese institutions" (very vague!) from being ostracized.<blockquote>'''"But retaining the emperor's administrators was one thing, and retaining his propagandists another" (p. 33).''' </blockquote>You have not justified the notion that the north retained the bulk of the emperor's administration though! A single vague quote will not do this (this is all the evidence that is given). Here is a quote to counter:<blockquote>“When the Red Army entered Korea in early August, 1945, heavy battles took place in the north, but the Japanese rule remained tranquil in the south, for the Russians stopped by the Yalta agreement at the 38th parallel, while the Americans came several weeks after the surrender of Japan, and ruled at first through the Japanese and then through the Japanese-appointed Korean officials and police. So naturally all of the pro-Japanese Koreans - former police and officials, landlords and stockholders in Japanese companies - fled south to the American zone" (Strong, p. 13).<ref>{{Citation|author=Anna Louise Strong|year=1949|title=In North Korea: First Eye-Witness Report|pdf=https://www.bannedthought.net/Journalists/Strong-AL/Strong-InNorthKorea-FirstEye-WitnessReport-1949-OCR.pdf|publisher=Soviet Russia Today}}</ref></blockquote>Then two playwrights are named who supposedly collaborated with [[Japan]] and this is contrasted with pro-Japanese activities for which two people were supposedly imprisoned in Seoul. This creates an incomplete picture that genuinely illustrates that pro-Japanese collaborators were welcomed in the north and crushed in the south: I suppose the U.S.-occupied south forgot to prosecute Chong Il-gwon, a captain in Japan’s Kwantung Army, and that he became the south Korean army’s chief of staff and then prime minister by mistake. In addition, several other collaborators occupied high positions in the south:

- Paek Son-yop, also from the Kwantung Army, was the first four-star general in the south Korean army

- Paek In-yop (Kwantung), commander of south Korea’s 17th Independent Regiment

- Park Chung-hee (Kwantung), south Korean Army, south Korean President (1962-63)

- Kim Chae-gyu (Japanese military officer), head of south Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA)

- Kim Sok-won (colonel, Japanese Imperial Army), lead the 1948 6/2 parade consisting of 2,500 Japanese army veterans through Seoul (the manufactured capital of SK)

No sort of equivalence can be found in the north. Maybe another quote is necessary to establish an edge:<blockquote>“[There is] growing resentment against all Americans in the area including passive resistance... Every day of drifting under this situation makes our position in Korea more untenable and decreases our waning popularity... The word pro-American is being added to pro-Jap, national traitor, and collaborator”'''—''' John R. Hodge (U.S. Army Officer)<ref>{{Citation|author=Bruce Cumings|year=2005|title=Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History|page=198|publisher=W. W. Norton}}</ref></blockquote>We can see how long it takes to refute a lie encompassed in a couple of sentences.

= 2 =
<blockquote>'''“So-called Juche Thought functions at most as an imposing row of book-spines, a prop in the personality cult. (A good way to embarrass one’s minders in the DPRK is to ask them to explain it)” (p. 11).'''</blockquote>He cannot understand an idea therefore he rejects it! We are asked to explain the [[Juche|Juche Idea]] in simple terms, very well (perhaps Myers is unable to pick up a book and therefore unfit to teach a class on Korean literature?). We will start with two quotes, then explain them to Myers as if he were a child:<blockquote>“The Juche idea is, in a word, an ideology that the masses of the people are the master of the revolution and construction and they have the strength to push them. In other words, it is an ideology that man is the master of his destiny and he has the power to carve out his destiny.”<ref>{{Citation|year=2012|title=Juche Idea: Answers to Hundred Questions|pdf=https://www.bannedthought.net/Korea-DPRK/Ideology/JucheIdea-AnswersToHundredQuestions-2012.pdf|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House}}</ref></blockquote><blockquote>“It has already been established by materialistic dialectic that the world consists of material, not consciousness or ideas, and that it moves, changes and develops in accordance with its own laws, not by any supernatural force. It is an undeniable fact that the world is, in essence, a material entity, a material integrity, and that it moves, changes and develops in accordance with its inherent laws. The Juche philosophy answered a new question—who is the master of the world and what is the motive force for its transformation. It elucidated a new idea of the world that nature and society are dominated and transformed by man, and thus fulfilled brilliantly the philosophical task of our time when the popular masses are masters of their own destiny and history."<ref>{{Citation|author=Kim Jong Il|year=1974|title=On Some Questions in Understanding the Juche Philosophy|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-jong-il/works/On-Some-Questions-In-Understanding-The-Juche-Philosophy.pdf}}</ref></blockquote>Juche is a development of [[Marxism]] (and apart from it in certain respects) applied to Korea which regards the Korean masses as the vital force in the revolution and their own destiny and examines the human question from a Marxist standpoint. Individuals are the “motive force” which contrapose themselves with general material forces. Of course, there is more to it than that but we mustn't confuse Myers, he is an academic after all.

= 3 =
<blockquote>'''“Whatever kind of country Kim Jong Un stands to inherit from his father, it will not be a communist one even in name. The DPRK’s revised constitution, ratified in April 2009 and made known to the world in the fall, forbore even to pay lip service to that term, instead invoking ‘military first’ socialism as the country’s guiding principle” (p. 69).'''</blockquote>What awful analysis. The constitution is titled the “Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” Inasmuch as there has ever been a materially post-[[Capitalism|capitalist]] communist nation, which neither the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|USSR]] nor [[Mao Zedong|Ma]]<nowiki/>o’s [[People's Republic of China|China]] claimed to be, perhaps this would be a fair criticism. As there has never been such a nation, and complete [[communism]] is currently out of reach given the late-stage imperialist state of things, the DPRK is [[Socialism|socialist]]. The idea is that while communism should be an ideal, it has no use within the constitution (the constitution of the DPRK is very specific), and should instead be an interest of the party (currently the [[Workers' Party of Korea|WPK]]). This can be easily demonstrated. The [http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/node_2825.htm Constitution of the PRC] only ever mentions the concept of communism in reference to the party (CPC), (except once in reference to its ideals) whilst socialism is mentioned independently in a general national character. The [http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html 1936 Constitution of the USSR] just as well only mentions communism in reference to the communist party (CPSU). The actual specific term ‘communism’ is not directly included in the so-called “Stalinist constitution” (which makes this attempt at rebutting the “Stalinism” claim from his preferred angle hopelessly inept), only communist, as in the party of the respective country (the WPK does not include the word ‘communist’ in its title owing to the 1946 merger of the Communist and New Democratic parties).

In regards to “pay[ing] lip service to [the] term”, Myers cannot seriously deny that “communism” and “communist” are terms used frequently in state (DOTP) media; for example, a recent article featured in the Korean Central News Agency commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Socialist Constitution of the DPRK states:<blockquote>“It is a great honor and pride of the state and people to have the great political charter that would firmly support Korean-style socialism and push it towards realizing the far-reaching ideal until the day of building a communist society.”<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=KCNA|title=Fiftieth Anniv. of Institution of Socialist Constitution Marked|date=2022-12-27|url=http://www.naenara.com.kp/}}</ref> **''This also refutes Myers’ comments that “socialism” is not defined as a transitory period between capitalist and communist systems in the DPRK but is rather merely a stolen term for “the way they do things."''</blockquote>Or that at a speech in November of last year to Workers Party cadres Kim Jong Un had stated:<blockquote>"we should effectively promote the development of the Party in line with the party building orientation in the new era and thus establish the appearance and traits of the Party guaranteeing its eternal prosperity and confidently advance toward the building of socialism and communism.”<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=KCNA|title=Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un Visits Central Cadres Training School of WPK and Gives Commemorative Lecture|date=2022-11-18|url=http://www.naenara.com.kp/}}</ref></blockquote>

= 4 =
<blockquote>'''“In [March 28] 1965, the Cuban ambassador to the DPRK, a black man, was squiring his wife and some Cuban doctors around the city when locals surrounded their car, pounding it and shouting racial epithets. Police called to the scene had to beat the mob back with truncheons. ‘The level of training of the masses is extremely low,’ a high-ranking official later told the shaken diplomat. ‘They cannot distinguish between friends and foes.’ This is precisely the mindset that the regime sought to instill” (42-3).'''

See the report of the embassy of the [[German Democratic Republic (1949–1990)|German Democratic Republic]] in the DPRK<ref>{{Web citation|author=Horst Brie|newspaper=GDR Embassy in the DPRK|title=Report on the Incident involving the Cuban Ambassador and the Delegation of Physicians from Cuba while in North Korea|date=1965-04-02|url=https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/report-incident-involving-cuban-ambassador-and-delegation-physicians-cuba-while-north}}</ref></blockquote>Myers is correct on a number of points but chooses to omit several others. For instance, the report states, directly continuing the quote from Ri Hyo-sun:<blockquote>“They completely misinterpret our call for revolutionary vigilance. All of the militia members who were involved in the incident have been arrested, as well as the members of the Party's district leadership and the Party cadre of the street committee... Kim Il Sung had also authorized [the Cuban ambassador] to hold meetings with the Party cadre in Pyongyang, and that officials from the Foreign Ministry would address issues of behavior toward foreigners at these meetings.”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“Kim Il Sung received the ambassador two days later. He said that he asked for understanding that this meeting had to be brief. This was not because of the incident, but because he was very busy. He asked the ambassador to express his regret for the incident to Fidel Castro and the Cuban leadership, and made assurances that the guilty parties would be punished and measures would be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.”</blockquote>Essentially, the incident was resolved by allowing the Cuban ambassador to meet with Kim Il Sung and henceforth hold directed meetings at his discretion with the WPK cadres on how to educate the masses on their attitudes towards foreigners. In addition, the responsible authorities were punished and Kim extended personal apologies to the Republic of Cuba for the intense embarrassment. The militia members who acted violently towards the crowds were arrested and the party cadres who did not properly educate the people were as well. Compared to the U.S. in the 1960s where violence against the Black Panthers was rampant and state/white racist killings went unpunished or accompanied by conspiracy laws, this represents a deeply troubling incident but one that was rectified at a party level.

If, as Myers suggests, this was a response that the WPK had wanted, why did the militias act so violently against the masses? And why was the ambassador allowed to instruct the party cadres on how to properly educate the masses to welcome foreigners? And why were the militia members arrested when it was clear that the Cuban ambassador had been disgusted by their methods? And why is it not mentioned that Kim Il Sung, the nation’s premier, handled the incident with an apology to the Cuban people?

That Myers chooses to omit such facts and give the impression to his readers that all that was done was for a single official to downplay the incident to the diplomat, shows his dishonesty. Of course the Korean rioters acted in a racist manner, and this should be condemned to the highest extent, but the available evidence also shows that a legitimate effort was made on the part of the DPRK to educate the people and the party cadres and to punish the offenders, something which would certainly not occur within certain other "more developed" nations during this epoch.

= 5 =
<blockquote>“We do not assert that the Koreans’ biological constitution is more developed than those of other races. Defining the superiority of a nation according to biological or ethnic characteristics is the practice of reactionary, bourgeois ethnology. Arguing that national characteristics are defined by racial characteristics, bourgeois ethnologists classify people according to skin colors, namely white people as a ‘higher race’ and coloured people as a ‘lower race’. They say that only a ‘higher race’ can create advanced civilization. The reactionary ethnological doctrine has been used by imperialists as an ideological instrument for their policy of racial discrimination and obliteration of nations. Imperialists still use the bourgeois ethnological doctrine as an instrument to justify their domination over other nations, to spread national nihilism, the idea of subservience to great powers and the idea of dependence on foreign forces among the people of colonial, dependent countries and the people of the third world, and to obstruct their national independence and independent development. Fundamentally speaking, there can be no ‘higher race’ or ‘lower race’. All the races are endowed with creative intelligence and ability. The low level of civilization of nations under colonial subjugation in the past is not due to any inborn inability, but is the consequence of the imperialists’ predatory policy and their policy of keeping colonial people in ignorance. The people of the third world, who were despised by the imperialists as a ‘lower race’, have now become the masters of their destiny, are making brilliant successes in the creation of a new life and are steadily raising the level of their civilization.”</blockquote>These were Kim Jong Il’s words in a speech addressed to Senior officials of the WPK (countering an expected misunderstanding of the title of his speech).<ref>{{Citation|author=Kim Jong Il|year=1989|title=Let Us Highly Display the Korean-Nation-First Spirit|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-jong-il/works/Let-Us-Highly-Display-The-Korean-Nation-First-Spirit.pdf}}</ref> Of course, since the author’s thesis is that all Koreans to the north are involved in a conspiracy of ideological racial superiority which all defectors neglect to mention (because they are "embarrassed") and that communist rhetoric is merely for Western audiences, this speech must have been a joke, or otherwise a posture to satiate foreign masses. Why this would be a speech in the WPK central committee, and published first within the north where it is still available, is a mystery to me.

And that a convoy of African Americans visited the DPRK (1994) and documented it, finding no racist comments and openly espousing that no racism against them existed there as opposed to the U.S., this was merely a farce. Beforehand Kim Jong Il must have sat all of the people down and told them to hamper their all-important violent racist ethno-nationalist philosophy such that not a single hint of it can be found anywhere.

We should not go through the trouble of refuting this or that quote from DPRK officials (reactionist racists can gain positions of prominence in any society especially one that has been forcibly isolated by other nations). Books of this sort coated in heaps of garbage are produced every single day to satiate the ignorant U.S. market. We have done enough and to spend any more time would be a waste.<references />
[[Category:Essays by Robinn]]

2023-09-17T21:24:59Z

Robinn:

Essay:Free Press (and Speech)

2023-09-17T21:24:19Z

Robinn:

<blockquote>{{Infobox essay|title=Free Press (And Speech)|author=Robinn|date=2023-09-13|excerpt=The vestiges of the feudalist press and suppression were replaced with free press, free speech, and free expression. These phrases obscured the real essence of capitalism; where the press became an economic institution (the bourgeoisie possessing the masses of capital), it had at once reformed itself into a direct expression of class interest to which the proletariat were excluded on the very basis of their essence as a class.}}</blockquote>

= 1 =
<blockquote>

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas”— Karl Marx, [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ ''The German Ideology'']</blockquote>Under feudalism, the framing of history and the press apparatus was not just accompanied by an assumption of the legitimacy of its establishment but, at the same time, adopted its characteristics and mechanisms. The bourgeois revolutions (French, American, etc.), toppling resolute and evident structures of feudalist economic and political control, consolidated, in fact, new and more subversive frameworks of power. The feudal serf, who formerly was condemned to work for subsistence on his own land for a certain duration, and then work for his lord for quite another while, had become familiar with which labor corresponded to his own remuneration, and which labor was solely beneficial to his lord; labor was clearly divided into that which was paid and unpaid. With the emergence of capitalism, the serf became a wage-laborer, and set out to work for his wages with a concrete and final duration of labor undivided. The proletarians’ work, which appeared indivisible, was really a mirror of the feudal system, in that his labor power was again divided into two camps, but that, as a new development, the division had merely become obscured. His paid and unpaid work had become combined, so that his wages ''appeared'' as an equivalent of the expenditure of his labor power, while in actuality constituting only a fraction of his labor time, with the capitalist free to take his pick of the spoils. The political system of the bourgeoisie followed suit. The vestiges of the feudalist press and suppression were replaced with ''free'' press, ''free'' speech, and ''free'' expression. These phrases obscured the real essence of capitalism; where the press became an economic institution (the bourgeoisie possessing the masses of capital), it had at once reformed itself into a direct expression of class interest to which the proletariat were excluded on the very basis of their essence as a class. Speech followed suit, as the social formation for the dissolution of ideas expressed in the press and as a reflection of the dominance of a certain class in the historical sense. The class which owns and heads the means of production and its development to a certain degree has its own material sovereignty over ideas, which are only a social expression of these conditions.

== 2 ==
<blockquote>
“All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake ‘public opinion’ for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. This is a fact. No one will ever be able to refute it”— V. I. Lenin, [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm ''A Letter To G. Myasnikov'']</blockquote>When the bourgeoisie speaks of bringing “freedom of the press”, to which countries are they referring generally? This is a double-edged sword; the latter, duller edge, will be expounded upon later. Socialist nations—those which have reversed somewhat the bourgeois class dictatorship and replaced or are attempting to replace it with a worker’s dictatorship for the suppression of the former—are hounded by the bourgeoisie and its press for certain reasons. The immediate aim of the liquidation of the national bourgeoisie’s political power taken up by the dictatorship of the proletariat is not in any sense removed from bourgeois power elsewhere. This point manifests itself in the consideration of the state of the press, which has more and more become a close link between the capitalist class at large, a class that retains a political dictatorship over the majority of developed nations and several national dictatorships over their respective colonial shares of maldeveloped nations. Owing to the supreme authority of the world bourgeoisie, the proletarian masses who have consolidated political power domestically must suppress the siege on their delicate rule internationally. A workers’ state is necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie altogether, but also to keep the dominant world class from taking hold over the press machine. Having already shown how the bourgeoisie so perfidiously defines "freedom", and in much the same way the bourgeoisie regards their state apparatus a free one [how can this be when the state necessarily arose to suppress class contradictions?], it is no wonder that the bourgeoisie so ruthlessly condemns the proletarian press as “not free.” If there is no free press, if the press is a manifestation of the ideas of a particular class and their political supremacy, and if the press is the organized expression of speech, then how can there be free speech? Kautskyist cries for free speech are only counterrevolutionary ploys adopting the bourgeois linguistic framework to give grounds for assisting the latter. The bourgeoisie refutes this by denying the historical role of the state altogether, regarding it as an impartial organ for the administration of things. That the state only surfaced as a result of the necessary suppression of class antagonisms, clearly evidenced by the maldevelopment of the gentes and the emergence of the patriarchy, must be ignored. The bourgeois press is only ''free'' insofar as it is free to express the will of this or that trust and have condemnations of this relegated to weak opinion pieces which serve to consolidate criticism. The bourgeoisie does not need the state to evidently regulate such a thing, since their rule over capital is absolute. The capitalists employed the most vast violence and suppression when overthrowing the past order, this is quite correct, but their guns and batons were cast aside just as soon as they attained their domination, and are taken up again without hesitation each time it is threatened.

== 3 ==
<blockquote>“Private property based on the labor of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy, all the catchwords with which the capitalists and their press deceive the workers and the peasants are things of the distant past. Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries. And this ‘booty’ is shared between two or three powerful world plunderers armed to the teeth (America, Great Britain, Japan), who are drawing the whole world into their war over the division of their booty”— V.I. Lenin, [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ ''Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism'']</blockquote>It is well known that apart from the conflicts between capitalists and conflicts between capitalist and socialist nations, there is also the conflict among capitalist nations, each acting as giant capitalists seizing resources and territory for their national liquidators. Many capitalist nations have placed retroactive restrictions on speech and the press; this is manifested in “first world” nations such as America or South Korea, which the world bourgeoisie largely accepts, but also in “third world” capitalist nations such as Eritrea and Cambodia. These nations are critiqued for being without freedom for a very good reason: capitalist development has been hindered in these places where nationalism is substituted for the melded chainlink of world late stage capital. In this case, censorship is actively employed on the basis of suppressing a particular class where the development of bourgeois rule is tenuous; the methods of the state apparatus in these countries are focused on establishing independence from the capitalist periphery in addition to subduing domestic threats to leadership. We then have on the one hand a class monopoly on speech, and on the other hand, national monopolies of the expression of stronger nations against weaker ones, which reinforces again the part played by the historical development of capitalism.

== 4 ==
<blockquote>“These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production”— Karl Marx, ''[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ Wage Labor and Capital]''</blockquote>The “press”, of course, has expanded its reach by reintegrating itself with speech, from which several trends may be noticed. Modern technology has, in some ways, opened up the potential of information, which is self-serving for capitalism in certain ways, allowing firms to profit from socialized speech and entertainment through advertisement, but with the effect as well of undermining the press monopoly on information, allowing atrocity propaganda and official narratives to be more easily rebutted through unleashed access to a wider range of information/sources and for capitalist individualism and atomization to be counteracted through the socialization of speech in various platforms, both mainstream and in general. Just as credit in the short term allows for greater profits and expansion under capitalism with the ultimate effect of spreading resources thin and undermining certain long term interests, so too this development of “interconnectedness” favors capitalist expansion for some time but ultimately builds the groundwork for a competing social order; the scale of development of the forces of production creates relations in its image, with these relations ultimately undermining the backward nature of these forces and progressing the overall nature of society.