M-Ls: Which M-L leaders were dictators?

[fa2991]

I'm curious which, if any, Marxist-Leninist leaders M-Ls consider dictators.

Ceausescu, maybe? Kim Jong Il?

[L.A.P.]

Any of those dictators are not considered Marxist-Leninists or even Leftists for that matter such as Kim Jong-Il. Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il were/are dictators and considered themselves "Marxist-Leninist" i would also say the same for Deng Xiaoping although I might get shit for saying that form the Trotskyists and Left Communists.

[milk]

Any of those dictators are not considered Marxist-Leninists or even Leftists for that matter such as Kim Jong-Il. Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il were/are dictators and considered themselves "Marxist-Leninist" i would also say the same for Deng Xiaoping although I might get shit for saying that form the Trotskyists and Left Communists.

He never got that far. The centralisation drive by the Communist Party, to subordinate the regional (or zonal) administrations to the central government was a process that was never completed. The bloody restructuring of the state was interrupted by the Vietnamese invasion.

[milk]

I'm curious which, if any, Marxist-Leninist leaders M-Ls consider dictators.

Ceausescu, maybe? Kim Jong Il?


Maybe better to go back to his father Kim Il Sung, and see the convergence of Stalinism with traditional mores (Hermit Kingdom), which the south has not escaped from post-war, and which helped to create one of the most awful political systems imaginable.

[Uppercut]

Well, none of the people mentioned so far were truely Marxist-Leninists, but none of them were really dictators either. Although state-capitalist, North Korea's unions have representation at the highest levels of government in accordance with Soviet Democracy. Economically though, the state gathers its funds by turnover taxes and by deductions of the profit gained by state enterprises. If North Korea was serious about developing socialism to a higher stage, taxes would mostly likely have disappeared by now and the centralized capital handed out to state enterprises would not fluctuate based on the amount of revenue they accumulate (aka "efficiency"), rather they would be distibuted based on what actually needs to be produced.

[Kiev Communard]

Well, there is not such a thing as "unified M-Ls", so the answer you might get from them depends on which government of 20th century nations that claimed to be "socialist" the group in question sees as "socialist". For instance, pro-Soviet left Brezhnevists and "mainstream" Stalinists would say that PRC under Mao, Albania and Pol Potist Kampuchea were dictatorial, while a Maoist would claim that Maoist China was the highest pinnacle of democracy ever achieved and it was the USSR that was a state capitalist dictatorship, etc. It really depends on the political orientation of those M-Ls whom you would ask.

[scarletghoul]

Anyone with even a basic understanding of Marxism would see how this question is not good.

Dictatorship is something exercised by classes, very rarely by individuals. And for someone to qualify as Marxist-Leninist they would have to accept the dictatorship of the proletariat, not of themselves or anyone else. So the answer to the question is "none"; not out of tendentious jingoism, but out of simple logic of what Marxism-Leninism is.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm curious which, if any, Marxist-Leninist leaders M-Ls consider dictators.

Ceausescu, maybe? Kim Jong Il?


I think history provides a good indication that Marxist-Leninism inevitably ends up in a Dictatorship of the Party. Lenin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Stalin, are all individuals who exhibited a disproportionate level of power - however, eliciting all of the actions under taken by their Regimes to their individual persona would be dishonest - it is the cadres and elites of the Communist Party who determined official policy, not an individual leader.

What I'm getting at, is the Marxist notion that state power is "the oppression of one class on another". So if you look at all Marxist-Leninist regimes (and leaders...) they mostly enacted legislation which was for the preservation of their power, at the expense of.....anything else. Now, I would think that any Marxist would be against "the dictatorship of the party" replacing the "dictatorship of the proletariat", so the theory of Marxist-Leninism is very contradictory to how Marxist-Leninism has been practiced. So really, every Marxist-Leninist "leader" has been a dictator (or part of a dictatorship), which I regard as being partly inevitable. The creation of a new political state, governed by party elites, not the proletariat itself, will never lead to Marxism - but to a dictatorship of the bureaucrats. It's sort of like: if capitalism worked in the way in which Bourgeios Liberals profess it does, Revleft wouldn't exist. No dictatorship besides the dictatorship of the proletariat should be created under the successful implementation of Marxist-Leninism, but due to its idealogical flaws, such an implementation can never successfully occur.

[fa2991]

Anyone with even a basic understanding of Marxism would see how this question is not good.

Dictatorship is something exercised by classes, very rarely by individuals. And for someone to qualify as Marxist-Leninist they would have to accept the dictatorship of the proletariat, not of themselves or anyone else. So the answer to the question is "none"; not out of tendentious jingoism, but out of simple logic of what Marxism-Leninism is.

And Hitler wasn't a dictator, the NP was?

Come on, you know what I mean. Which M-L administrations were tyrannical, then?

[penguinfoot]

And Hitler wasn't a dictator, the NP was?

Actually, I think this is a legitimate debate to have - there is a long standing disagreement within German history and political science between those who, on the one hand, contend that Hitler was a "strong dictator", with these scholars arguing that the Nazi regime was a totalitarian order, in which Hitler had an effective monopoly on power, made distinct from pre-modern forms of autocratic government by its ability to win over large segments of the population and secure something like an ideological consensus as well as its desire to create a new kind of human being. On the other hand, there is an alternative view which characterizes the Nazi regime as a "polycratic" one, which demonstrated an inability to resolve certain problems of administration and resource allocation, not least because of Hitler's preference for a philosophical rather than technocratic leadership style, and in which there were multiple nodes and centers of power, including party leaders at the regional level, as well as different ideological strands within the NSDAP itself. I think that Marxists should in general avoid a commitment to the totalitarian model when seeking to understand authoritarian systems of government and should emphasize that the state is first and foremost the governing apparatus of a ruling class, and that its modes of operation are limited by the members of the state being dependent on the ruling class for their own survival over the long term.

[DWI]

All of them...?

Come on, all M-L gave the world was the restoration of various absolute monarchies, under new (and thankfully shorter-lived) ruling dynasties.

[chegitz guevara]

Lenin was the only one who wasn't.

[ComradeOm]

Actually, I think this is a legitimate debate to have - there is a long standing disagreement within German history and political science between those who, on the one hand, contend that Hitler was a "strong dictator", with these scholars arguing that the Nazi regime was a totalitarian order, in which Hitler had an effective monopoly on power, made distinct from pre-modern forms of autocratic government by its ability to win over large segments of the population and secure something like an ideological consensus as well as its desire to create a new kind of human being. On the other hand, there is an alternative view which characterizes the Nazi regime as a "polycratic" one, which demonstrated an inability to resolve certain problems of administration and resource allocation, not least because of Hitler's preference for a philosophical rather than technocratic leadership style, and in which there were multiple nodes and centers of power, including party leaders at the regional level, as well as different ideological strands within the NSDAP itselfIts also a complete red herring in the context of this thread. Both the totalitarian school and the more revisionist 'Nazi-government-was-one-huge-mess' proponents assert the Hitler was a dictator who occupied, both nominally and in fact, an extra-constitutional role at the centre of the Nazi state. In this regard the only real difference between the two schools is how Hitler exercised his power - through a monolithic party/state machine or by actively encouraging and playing off the various petty empires of his underlings. Either way he was unquestionably a dictator in every reasonable sense of the term

Now few M-L leaders actually occupied such a position of power and it was exceptionally rare that they did so in any legal sense (N Korea being the most obvious exception). Most heads of European 'socialist' states were simply the tip of the bureaucratic or military castes and were ultimately beholden to these. They were simply more established than most tin-pot dictators. The most obvious example of an actual M-L dictator is the original - Stalin. Despite what his horde of fanboys will argue, no doubt rolling out the usual legalistic arguments, there is little question that during the 1930s Stalin was the undisputed master of the USSR

[Palingenisis]

I'm curious which, if any, Marxist-Leninist leaders M-Ls consider dictators.

Ceausescu, maybe? Kim Jong Il?


Ceausescu was not a Marxist-Leninist.

He was best mates with the British Royal family.

The level of central planning in Romania is highly debatable.

[Red Brigade]

Ceausescu was a Marxist-Leninist leading the Romanian people threw socialism to communism but was unfournately stopped. Kim Jong Il is a socialist but not a Marxist-Leninist but the north korean government/system and juche are very influenced by Marxism-Leninism. Neither of them are dictators.

[fa2991]

Ceausescu was a Marxist-Leninist leading the Romanian people threw socialism to communism but was unfournately stopped. Kim Jong Il is a socialist but not a Marxist-Leninist but the north korean government/system and juche are very influenced by Marxism-Leninism. Neither of them are dictators.

(I've always wanted to say this: )

Cool story, bro.

[Nuvem]

To even try to compare the situation in North Korea or Kim Jong Il to Marxism-Leninism is a serious flaw in perspective. Marxism-Leninism doesn't call for juche and doesn't call for the madness that pervades Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung's shared personality cult. Nor does it call for the complete intellectual isolation of a nation and the massive warping of global perspective (both historical and present, I must point out). Nor is Kim Jong Il a Socialist; he's a vindictive little egotistical punk who rules by hereditary tradition with near absolute power. The situation in the DPRK is more similar to Fascism than it is to Communism or Socialism and is certainly not Marxist-Leninist.

The only truly Marxist-Leninist national leaders in history have been Lenin, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh, Thomas Sankara and one may argue for Mao, though he took many liberties with the ideology.. Every Soviet leader after Lenin was either Stalin (Not ML) or a revisionist and the bloc nations' leaders usually conformed more or less to the tendencies of the Soviet leaders. After Mao China fell to revisionism, Vietnam fell shortly thereafter.

The vast majority of Leftist leaders either took such extreme liberties with baseline Marxism-Leninism that they must be considered a separate tendency or never conformed to Marxist-Leninist guidelines in the first place.

And an edit for justice, lulz and rage: Pol Pot was an Anarchist.

[ContrarianLemming]

Kim Il doesnt consider himself a marxist, nor does Korea. they're Juche

[Nuvem]

I know. It just makes me want to pull my own eyeballs out with salad tongs when people connect Kim or the DPRK to Socialism or Communism.

It's like the North Korean government read "This Godless Communism" or some other 1950's American anti-Communist propaganda and said, "Let's make THAT happen!" and took it as gospel Marxism.

Also, anyone who hasn't read This Godless Communism, here it is in .pdf format. You must read it.

http://ia311328.us.archive.org/1/items/ThisGodlessCommunism/treasure2.pdf

[Dimentio]

Well, none of the people mentioned so far were truely Marxist-Leninists, but none of them were really dictators either. Although state-capitalist, North Korea's unions have representation at the highest levels of government in accordance with Soviet Democracy. Economically though, the state gathers its funds by turnover taxes and by deductions of the profit gained by state enterprises. If North Korea was serious about developing socialism to a higher stage, taxes would mostly likely have disappeared by now and the centralized capital handed out to state enterprises would not fluctuate based on the amount of revenue they accumulate (aka "efficiency"), rather they would be distibuted based on what actually needs to be produced.

I guess then that the Swedish king Gustav Wasa was a real people's democrat then since the peasants had representation in the Swedish riksdag and every subject had the right to come to the king with pleas and looking for advice?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stalin onwards, in the sense that they were not really 'elected'. Not that i'm falling for the 'multi-party liberal democracy' fallacy, but there is certainly a better version of democracy than that which existed in the former USSR.

I'd not call the Kim dynasty Marxists, let alone Marxist-Leninists. Fidel Castro, it is clear to me, has never been an M-L in his heart, the USSR relationship was (probably) a purely economic one.

So, yep, Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and - oh, the last guy wasn't an M-L. Twat.

I would add that I use 'dictator' in the electoral-elective sense only, I am not commenting on their abilities, successes or failures as leaders, merely that they were not elected in proper elections, so to speak, and they were Marxist-Leninists, in essence.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ah, fail me, add Ubricht and Honecker to the list, as well as that Krenz fellow.

Might add Mielke to this list just because he was an arse.

[fa2991]

I'd not call the Kim dynasty Marxists, let alone Marxist-Leninists. Fidel Castro, it is clear to me, has never been an M-L in his heart, the USSR relationship was (probably) a purely economic one.

Actually Castro was democratically elected.

[Pawn Power]

The Great Sparrow Wars (http://fatfinch.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/the-great-sparrow-wars/)

[Soviet dude]

There has never been and never will be such a thing as a "dictator." The very idea is anti-Marxist nonsense. There are only dictatorships of classes.

Most of the bullshit in this thread that tries to pass itself off as analysis is just racist, jingoistic, Western propaganda.

[dearest chuck]

Most of the bullshit in this thread that tries to pass itself off as analysis is just racist, jingoistic, Western propaganda.
worse yet, it's pure liberalism!

[Pawn Power]

There has never been and never will be such a thing as a "dictator." The very idea is anti-Marxist nonsense. There are only dictatorships of classes.

Most of the bullshit in this thread that tries to pass itself off as analysis is just racist, jingoistic, Western propaganda.

Lets see the racist stuff that you claim people are exposing. If so, they should be restricted.

[Pawn Power]

worse yet, it's pure liberalism!

Repudiating the glorification of state leaders and naming their crimes is liberalism. :lol:

Lets put our heads on straight and start thinking for ourselves.

[ComradeOm]

There has never been and never will be such a thing as a "dictator." The very idea is anti-Marxist nonsense. There are only dictatorships of classesI suppose that Marx was being "anti-Marxist" when he repeatedly used the term to describe historical figures (http://www.google.ie/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Far chive%2Fmarx%2F+dictator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#q=site:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/+dictator&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=UCm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=iv&ei=5qWoTI6oL5DQjAfV1rjKDA&start=0&sa=N&fp=c5d774b5e10f7e5d)?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I suppose that Marx was being "anti-Marxist" when he repeatedly used the term to describe historical figures (http://www.google.ie/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Far chive%2Fmarx%2F+dictator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#q=site:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/+dictator&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=UCm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=iv&ei=5qWoTI6oL5DQjAfV1rjKDA&start=0&sa=N&fp=c5d774b5e10f7e5d)?No he was being anti-Marxist by calling for the self-emancipation of the working class. He should not have such liberal dillusions of such a perfect system as that:rolleyes:.

[Ke Pauk]

Kim Il doesnt consider himself a marxist, nor does Korea. they're Juche
The DPRK has removed references to Marxist-Leninism due to the fact that Juche is simply a updated form of Marxist-Leninism with Korean aspects to it that fit with Korean Nationalism and classic Marxist-Leninism. By far Juche has deep roots in Marxist-Leninism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The DPRK has removed references to Marxist-Leninism due to the fact that Juche is simply a updated form of Marxist-Leninism with Korean aspects to it that fit with Korean Nationalism and classic Marxist-Leninism. By far Juche has deep roots in Marxist-Leninism.

Are you for real?

So in that sense, given that every country has its own unique circumstances, it'd not be unreasonable for Marxism-Leninism to actually be abandoned in favour of specific nationalist ideologies, right?

That you defend nationalism as fitting in with supposed 'classic Marxist-Leninism' says it all, tbh.

Some people have to learn that there is more to implementing Socialism than a constitution and a red flag.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The concept of a "dictator" or a single "autocrat" is alien to dialectical materialism. There's never a single person who establishes total supremacy over a country or people, and trying to apply the label of "dictator" to any government buys into the anti-Marxist one-man theory of history. Marxist-Leninists believe that every government is supported by and representative of a ruling class, be it the capitalist class or the working class. In that sense, there are no "dictators". Even horrible leaders like Pinochet didn't rule Chile as a single person; he was very popular with a particular class of people!

A dictatorship is a mere totalitarian bourgeois government.

In the case of Stalin, the government became the new aristocracy.

[Charles Xavier]

The working class was the only dictator! It was the dictatorship of the working class!

[Kléber]

The working class was the only dictator! It was the dictatorship of the working class!
That was great. I love not being able to tell when you are serious or joking.

[Charles Xavier]

That was great. I love not being able to tell when you are serious or joking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kruyuAtNXk

[Ke Pauk]

Are you for real?

So in that sense, given that every country has its own unique circumstances, it'd not be unreasonable for Marxism-Leninism to actually be abandoned in favour of specific nationalist ideologies, right?

That you defend nationalism as fitting in with supposed 'classic Marxist-Leninism' says it all, tbh.

Some people have to learn that there is more to implementing Socialism than a constitution and a red flag.
Marxist-Leninism has never been truly abandoned in the DPRK it has simply been updated and changed for the times that have come. The DPRK requires this change in order to attempt to unite the Korean Peninsula under Juche. Nationalism has and will always fit in with Marxist-Leninism in the moments of uniting the people of Korea especially, the DPRK still has close ties in Internationalism too through the KFA. Socialism is constituted by the hard work of the people of whatever nation that they are representing and fighting to transform. Thats what people need to learn.

[Kiev Communard]

Marxist-Leninism has never been truly abandoned in the DPRK it has simply been updated and changed for the times that have come. The DPRK requires this change in order to attempt to unite the Korean Peninsula under Juche. Nationalism has and will always fit in with Marxist-Leninism in the moments of uniting the people of Korea especially, the DPRK still has close ties in Internationalism too through the KFA. Socialism is constituted by the hard work of the people of whatever nation that they are representing and fighting to transform. Thats what people need to learn.

Are you serious? You sound very much like National Bolshevik - unsurprising, given the history of CPK, if you are even a member thereof.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marxist-Leninism has never been truly abandoned in the DPRK it has simply been updated and changed for the times that have come. The DPRK requires this change in order to attempt to unite the Korean Peninsula under Juche. Nationalism has and will always fit in with Marxist-Leninism in the moments of uniting the people of Korea especially, the DPRK still has close ties in Internationalism too through the KFA. Socialism is constituted by the hard work of the people of whatever nation that they are representing and fighting to transform. Thats what people need to learn.

Firstly, please don't preach. I don't 'need to learn' this.

Secondly, if I have this correct, the DPRK (correctly, according to you) practices both Nationalism and Internationalism and removes Marxism-Leninism from its constitution yet still practises it (together with the cult of personality of the leader and raving nepotism). Right.

I'm sure Big Brother would be proud of such doublethink.:cool:

[Ke Pauk]

Firstly, please don't preach. I don't 'need to learn' this.

Secondly, if I have this correct, the DPRK (correctly, according to you) practices both Nationalism and Internationalism and removes Marxism-Leninism from its constitution yet still practises it (together with the cult of personality of the leader and raving nepotism). Right.

I'm sure Big Brother would be proud of such doublethink.:cool:
Firstly, you're attempting to class the DPRK as a non-Workers State when it obviously still continues to be such even though it has remained in isolation from the Western World in order to protect itself and secure its status as such. There are several misconceptions about the party structure within the DPRK and you're showing such... The WPK is indeed the leading party within the DPRK and it is the one which Kim is a member of however, there are three main parties within the DPRK that make important decisions domestically. Which are Fatherland Front, KSDP, and the Chondoist Chongu Party.
Yes, the DPRK does practice both Internationalism and Nationalism. Nationalism at the level of domestic rule and Internationalism through the KFA which is a Korean Friendship Association. Previously before the dissolution of the USSR, Internationalism was more of a basis then the DPRK had more friends than it had now and was easily more able to work with other partners, where as now it has to be in complete isolation in order to ensure the future of the DPRK from both South Korea and the United States who are bent on its very destruction.
As far as a cult of personality accusation of Kim would go-- Kim Il Sung was the founder of the DPRK and he had defended it with his very life. He was also a man that fought against Japanese Imperialism in the Korean Peninsula. He's highly worthy of being worshiped as the founder of the DPRK and the defender of its status as an independent Worker's State. In fact-- Why should the DPRK be criticized for holding its founder to a high priority? The term Eternal Leader is more of a patriotic term in the DPRK than an actual term meaning that he is 'eternal and is that of God', its meant to mean that he will forever be remembered for his contributions and after his death-- There will be no one that can replace him. Kim Jong- Il though however is much more of an Administrator of International and Internal affairs of the DPRK. He simply watches over what is happening in the DPRK and speaks for the DPRK internationally. On a domestic scale though, the lesser known members of the main 3 parties make the majority of the decisions inside the DPRK. As far as his 'Personality Cult' goes-- He is by far worthy of being held to a high degree since he has held the DPRK in a protected state since his fathers death and has made sure that the DPRK will have a future in an independent form.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Firstly, you're attempting to class the DPRK as a non-Workers State when it obviously still continues to be such even though it has remained in isolation from the Western World in order to protect itself and secure its status as such. There are several misconceptions about the party structure within the DPRK and you're showing such... The WPK is indeed the leading party within the DPRK and it is the one which Kim is a member of however, there are three main parties within the DPRK that make important decisions domestically. Which are Fatherland Front, KSDP, and the Chondoist Chongu Party.
Yes, the DPRK does practice both Internationalism and Nationalism. Nationalism at the level of domestic rule and Internationalism through the KFA which is a Korean Friendship Association. Previously before the dissolution of the USSR, Internationalism was more of a basis then the DPRK had more friends than it had now and was easily more able to work with other partners, where as now it has to be in complete isolation in order to ensure the future of the DPRK from both South Korea and the United States who are bent on its very destruction.
As far as a cult of personality accusation of Kim would go-- Kim Il Sung was the founder of the DPRK and he had defended it with his very life. He was also a man that fought against Japanese Imperialism in the Korean Peninsula. He's highly worthy of being worshiped as the founder of the DPRK and the defender of its status as an independent Worker's State. In fact-- Why should the DPRK be criticized for holding its founder to a high priority? The term Eternal Leader is more of a patriotic term in the DPRK than an actual term meaning that he is 'eternal and is that of God', its meant to mean that he will forever be remembered for his contributions and after his death-- There will be no one that can replace him. Kim Jong- Il though however is much more of an Administrator of International and Internal affairs of the DPRK. He simply watches over what is happening in the DPRK and speaks for the DPRK internationally. On a domestic scale though, the lesser known members of the main 3 parties make the majority of the decisions inside the DPRK. As far as his 'Personality Cult' goes-- He is by far worthy of being held to a high degree since he has held the DPRK in a protected state since his fathers death and has made sure that the DPRK will have a future in an independent form.

Wow. Just wow.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Firstly, you're attempting to class the DPRK as a non-Workers State when it obviously still continues to be such even though it has remained in isolation from the Western World in order to protect itself and secure its status as such. There are several misconceptions about the party structure within the DPRK and you're showing such... The WPK is indeed the leading party within the DPRK and it is the one which Kim is a member of however, there are three main parties within the DPRK that make important decisions domestically. Which are Fatherland Front, KSDP, and the Chondoist Chongu Party.
Yes, the DPRK does practice both Internationalism and Nationalism. Nationalism at the level of domestic rule and Internationalism through the KFA which is a Korean Friendship Association. Previously before the dissolution of the USSR, Internationalism was more of a basis then the DPRK had more friends than it had now and was easily more able to work with other partners, where as now it has to be in complete isolation in order to ensure the future of the DPRK from both South Korea and the United States who are bent on its very destruction.
As far as a cult of personality accusation of Kim would go-- Kim Il Sung was the founder of the DPRK and he had defended it with his very life. He was also a man that fought against Japanese Imperialism in the Korean Peninsula. He's highly worthy of being worshiped as the founder of the DPRK and the defender of its status as an independent Worker's State. In fact-- Why should the DPRK be criticized for holding its founder to a high priority? The term Eternal Leader is more of a patriotic term in the DPRK than an actual term meaning that he is 'eternal and is that of God', its meant to mean that he will forever be remembered for his contributions and after his death-- There will be no one that can replace him. Kim Jong- Il though however is much more of an Administrator of International and Internal affairs of the DPRK. He simply watches over what is happening in the DPRK and speaks for the DPRK internationally. On a domestic scale though, the lesser known members of the main 3 parties make the majority of the decisions inside the DPRK. As far as his 'Personality Cult' goes-- He is by far worthy of being held to a high degree since he has held the DPRK in a protected state since his fathers death and has made sure that the DPRK will have a future in an independent form.

Ah, so we have patriotism to add to the nationalism and internationalism. What an eclectic mix.

Also, could you please provide me some evidence of the DPRK being a workers' state. By this, I mean could you please provide evidence of the means of production being democratically controlled by the working class and not the WPK or the state. Please don't use the constitution as 'evidence', as it is not.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would add, as an aside, that if you wish to worship someone, there are plenty of religions out there, but Socialism isn't one of them. There are great men, but the day we start fetishising an individual we lose sight of the importance of the hegemony of class, rather than individuals.

[Dimentio]

There has never been and never will be such a thing as a "dictator." The very idea is anti-Marxist nonsense. There are only dictatorships of classes.

Most of the bullshit in this thread that tries to pass itself off as analysis is just racist, jingoistic, Western propaganda.

Oh yes, there are dictators, in the sense that there have existed individuals who have acquired a certain independence within the system which they are set as leaders of, often through extra-judicial means. In some systems, personal dictatorships was even the very foundation of the system itself.

Medieval European kings were not often dictators, and I would neither define Musharraf as a dictator (even though he led a coup). But I would define the Byzantine Emperors and Mao Zedong - for example - as dictators. Adolf Hitler too.