DPRK and Juche

[teenagebricks]

I understand that after the Sino-Soviet split the DPRK's official state ideology was changed to from Marxism-Leninism to Juche. With that in mind, can Juche be seen as a natural progression for Marxism-Leninism? Does it follow the traditional M-L-S path? Or does it skip Marx and Lenin entirely? Almost every article I read about North Korea mentions Stalinism in an attempt to decry its government, but it doesn't seem to me like Kim Il-sung or Kim Jong-il have even attempted to emulate Stalin.

[Dimentio]

Juche is an interesting ideology.

Interesting because it has so much to do with socialism as cyanide has to do with water. Yet it claims to be a socialist ideology.

But it is actually pretty easy to understand.

1. Man is the ruler of all things in nature.

2. Therefore, he should strive to establish an autarchic state under the leadership of the people.

3. The revolution is about establish this self-sufficient state.

4. The Korean people needs to be united under one nation, and all foreign military personnel disposed.

5. The army is the revolutionary subject.

I am sure that it would be beyond Marx's worst nightmare. The ultimate perversion of socialism, in hard competition with Democratic Kampuchea 1975-1979.

[teenagebricks]

Wait, so the armed forces are seen as the main revolutionary force? In place of the working class, is that what you're saying? Is there any particular reason for this? Or is it just an excuse to maintain the most militarised country on the planet?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^It's called 'substitutionism':

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm

[Ismail]

Wait, so the armed forces are seen as the main revolutionary force? In place of the working class, is that what you're saying? Is there any particular reason for this? Or is it just an excuse to maintain the most militarised country on the planet?The latter, which in turn is justified due to US imperialism.

Here's a good read on the subject: http://web.archive.org/web/20020602173534/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/China/KoreaNS.htm (too bad the color scheme is not very good)

Another on Juche itself: http://web.archive.org/web/20050109140828/website.lineone.net/~ncmlp/html/juchegaz.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20050109140828/website.lineone.net/%7Encmlp/html/juchegaz.html)

Regardless, at least the army is promoted as a "people's army" in the sense that it helps workers and comes from the workers, but the idea of the army being a vanguard is a very bad thing.


Interesting because it has so much to do with socialism as cyanide has to do with water.Not really. It's revisionist, but it is still socialist and doesn't ignore class struggle. The personality cult around the Kim family, the "army is vanguard" thing and the overemphasis on "this is Korean socialism" leaves it susceptible to further revisionism though. It also marginalizes the role of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. As Hoxha noted when he visited the DPRK in the 1950's (mentioned in his book The Khrushchevites): "On September 7 we arrived in Pyongyang. They put on a splendid welcome, with people, with gongs, with flowers, and with portraits of Kim Il Sung everywhere. You had to look hard to find some portrait of Lenin, tucked away in some obscure corner."

[Dimentio]

The latter, which in turn is justified due to US imperialism.

Here's a good read on the subject: http://web.archive.org/web/20020602173534/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/China/KoreaNS.htm (too bad the color scheme is not very good)

Another on Juche itself: http://web.archive.org/web/20050109140828/website.lineone.net/~ncmlp/html/juchegaz.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20050109140828/website.lineone.net/%7Encmlp/html/juchegaz.html)

Regardless, at least the army is promoted as a "people's army" in the sense that it helps workers and comes from the workers, but the idea of the army being a vanguard is a very bad thing.

Not really. It's revisionist, but it is still socialist and doesn't ignore class struggle. The personality cult around the Kim family, the "army is vanguard" thing and the overemphasis on "this is Korean socialism" leaves it susceptible to further revisionism though. It also marginalizes the role of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. As Hoxha noted when he visited the DPRK in the 1950's (mentioned in his book The Khrushchevites): "On September 7 we arrived in Pyongyang. They put on a splendid welcome, with people, with gongs, with flowers, and with portraits of Kim Il Sung everywhere. You had to look hard to find some portrait of Lenin, tucked away in some obscure corner."

And I, who in my innocence, pondered that socialism was that the working class should keep control over the resources, over the state and over their own lives.

If we should have a socialist state, it should be based on republican, not monarchist, tendencies. We should preferably have it arranged so no official has too much power, and that power lies in institutions, not in cliques.

[Sasha]

yeah, because only if it would have been the leader of a nation state recieving a "splendid welcome, with people, with gongs, with flowers, and with portraits of lenin everywhere" only then it would have been real socialism wouldn't it? :blink:

[Dimentio]

It is funny that all these glorious leaders repeatedly were against their personality cults according to their apologists, who then almost without exception then praise their particular glorious leader. I think that the position of glorious leader-ship might have been appropriate during the era of the pharaohs, but never ever appropriate to socialism.

The first warning signal for me is if a country is filled with portraits of a man.

[Ismail]

And I, who in my innocence, pondered that socialism was that the working class should keep control over the resources, over the state and over their own lives.Or an imperfect form of socialism where, though the workers do not exercise direct control over the state (which is of course the socialism we strive for), the party conducts actions on their behalf and in accordance with its needs due to its ties with workers, while the state itself does not behave in a state capitalist manner, no surplus value, etc. I would argue this is what the DPRK is, especially since they have rejected Chinese market reforms. This can also be used to describe Cuba (though half of its economy can be called state capitalist), Albania, and the early USSR.


yeah, because only if it would have been the leader of a nation state recieving a "splendid welcome, with people, with gongs, with flowers, and with portraits of lenin everywhere" only then it would have been real socialism wouldn't it?No, it just means that Kim overtook Marxist-Leninist classics with revisionism. Generally if you're a revisionist, you're going to want to downplay or twist around the words of said classics. Like Khrushchev declaring that proletarian dictatorship was "no longer necessary" and saying that the CPSU was then a "party of the whole people."


It is funny that all these glorious leaders repeatedly were against their personality cults according to their apologists, who then almost without exception then praise their particular glorious leader. I think that the position of glorious leader-ship might have been appropriate during the era of the pharaohs, but never ever appropriate to socialism.Except our "glorious leaders" (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin) are dead. Their works still ring true today and generally those that twist them or ignore them for their own ends in these states just happen to wind up to be revisionists.

[Dimentio]

Or an imperfect form of socialism where, though the workers do not exercise direct control over the state (which is of course the socialism we strive for), the party conducts actions on their behalf and in accordance with its needs due to its ties with workers, while the state itself does not behave in a state capitalist manner, no surplus value, etc. I would argue this is what the DPRK is, especially since they have rejected Chinese market reforms. This can also be used to describe Cuba (though half of its economy can be called state capitalist), Albania, and the early USSR.

Except our "glorious leaders" (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin) are dead. Their works still ring true today and generally those that twist them or ignore them for their own ends in these states just happen to wind up to be revisionists.

I think the problem with a vanguard party, is that no group which has ever administrated the resources of a whole nation, whether capitalists, nobility, priesthood or a party, has ever given away that power voluntarily. The parties, rather than being representatives of the working class, seem to develop into a class in their own right, or at least gains the acquisition of class-like characteristics.

I think personality cults are almost inevitable given the need for human beings to identify with each-other, but its tragic anyway. No matter if the glorious leader is living or dead, there is no moral obligation to make anyone a god or to basically awe for everything they did and shout down dissent. That is akin to "great man theory".