Police in North Korea

[electro_fan]

On another thread recently there's been a kind of "flame war" between the Sparts and the CWI, partially because of the CWI's position that some (not all!) sections of the police can be "won over" in a revolutionary situation.

I would like to ask the people who are in or support the Sparts, or anyone else who supports the North Korean government and thinks it is a good model of socialism as a lot of people on here do, what they think about the police there, are they as repressive as the ones in bourgeois regimes in the west? Do the North Korean government need the police to defend the state? Should they try to get rid of them, because as police they're not really defending workers' rights, but then if they were disbanded the North Korean government would find it hard to defend law and order, from for example the lumpen proletariat, or foreign capitalists.

So if you support the North Korean government what is your answer? Do you support them having a police force, and do you support their police's work? And if you don't, why not, and what should the North Korean government put in their place? (bear in mind I'm not asking you if you don't support the north korean government, so if you don't, don't answer) :D

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand this was an issue-whether or not to support a police strike in Brazil, behind a split within the Sparts in the 90s. Jan Norden, the editor of Worker's Vanguard, took most of their best writers with him in the split. Fredbergen, a banned Revlefter, is a member of this faction. Of course this is vastly different from the issue of North Korea.

One of the Sparts slogans is "Defend North Korea's right to have nukes!" They take the "deformed worker's state" idea so far they are tankie Stalinists.

[electro_fan]

thanks Lenina, but i wasnt thinking about strikes (although that's another topic, if there was a strike in North Korea, would you support it?) I was thinking more about the police's day to day activities, lol.

[SpineyNorman]

The police in North Korea are all in the pay of the CIA - FACT!

[electro_fan]

So come on, anyone up for answering this? I'd like an answer to my question :D

[scarletghoul]

The National Lawyers' Guild made an interesting observation regarding police in north korea

Another surprise was the absence of a police presence throughout the country. We never saw a single policeman with a gun or even a club. The only police we saw were police officers, mainly women, directing traffic at certain intersections. There were occasional guard stations along the road down south as we approached the DMZ. We saw soldiers in many places, usually helping harvest crops or working in the fields or helping on a construction site. But we rarely saw a soldier armed. The contrast between North Korea and its lack of policemen and North America in which armed police in bulletproof vests are commonplace was more than striking - it was startling. If the presence or absence of armed policemen is a criterion for a free society then this speaks volumes about the nature of the two societies.
http://www.nlg.org/korea/2003delegation_report.html (http://www.nlg.org/korea/2003delegation_report.html)

[scarletghoul]

anyone else who supports the North Korean government and thinks it is a good model of socialism as a lot of people on here do
There is a big difference between these two things. I support the DPRK but don't think its a good model for socialism. Same is true of any country with a socialist base but revisionism-infested superstructure.

Anyway to answer the question imo there would be a qualitative difference between a state force in a socialist country compared to in a capitalist country. The nature of this force also changes as the country becomes more revisionist, and in that case the police can be reactionary. Having never been to north korea i really cant say what the police are like there. but i would say that theyre good to the extent that they defend the collective centrally planned economy and any workers control that exists, but bad to the extent that they enforce the implementation of revisionist policies that benefit the bourgeois elements in the state instead of the masses.

[SpineyNorman]

The National Lawyers' Guild made an interesting observation regarding police in north korea

http://www.nlg.org/korea/2003delegation_report.html (http://www.nlg.org/korea/2003delegation_report.html)


You don't need guns and batons when the thought police are always watching and the threat of room 101 hangs over your head :D

[SpineyNorman]

There is a big difference between these two things. I support the DPRK but don't think its a good model for socialism. Same is true of any country with a socialist base but revisionism-infested superstructure.

Anyway to answer the question imo there would be a qualitative difference between a state force in a socialist country compared to in a capitalist country. The nature of this force also changes as the country becomes more revisionist, and in that case the police can be reactionary. Having never been to north korea i really cant say what the police are like there. but i would say that theyre good to the extent that they defend the collective centrally planned economy and any workers control that exists, but bad to the extent that they enforce the implementation of revisionist policies that benefit the bourgeois elements in the state instead of the masses.

How can there be bourgeois elements if there's a socialist base? (Genuine question)

[electro_fan]

There is a big difference between these two things. I support the DPRK but don't think its a good model for socialism. Same is true of any country with a socialist base but revisionism-infested superstructure.

Anyway to answer the question imo there would be a qualitative difference between a state force in a socialist country compared to in a capitalist country. The nature of this force also changes as the country becomes more revisionist, and in that case the police can be reactionary. Having never been to north korea i really cant say what the police are like there. but i would say that theyre good to the extent that they defend the collective centrally planned economy and any workers control that exists, but bad to the extent that they enforce the implementation of revisionist policies that benefit the bourgeois elements in the state instead of the masses.


Thanks for the answer :)

Can you give an example of what you mean by revisionism in this context and what revisionism north korea has, in your opinion? Like I have heard that for example, recently some privatisation has taken place there. Would that be an example of the type of thing you mean?

[electro_fan]

There is a big difference between these two things. I support the DPRK but don't think its a good model for socialism. Same is true of any country with a socialist base but revisionism-infested superstructure.

Anyway to answer the question imo there would be a qualitative difference between a state force in a socialist country compared to in a capitalist country. The nature of this force also changes as the country becomes more revisionist, and in that case the police can be reactionary. Having never been to north korea i really cant say what the police are like there. but i would say that theyre good to the extent that they defend the collective centrally planned economy and any workers control that exists, but bad to the extent that they enforce the implementation of revisionist policies that benefit the bourgeois elements in the state instead of the masses.

By the bourgeois elements, do you mean Kim Jong Il etc? Because that doesn't really make sense, because surely if that's the case, then the government (ie the bourgeois elements) are planning the centrally planned economy, no? So the police are good cos they defend the basis on which North Korea is run but they're also not good because they're defending the people who are running it? Unless Kim Jong Il has the same lifestyle and takes roughly the same salary as the rest of the population (does he, btw?)

[SpineyNorman]

Good point electrofan - so the economy of NK is being run by these bourgeois elements - production is controlled by the bourgeoisie, so it's state capitalist!

(Does that make me a swappy? lol)

[scarletghoul]

You don't need guns and batons when the thought police are always watching and the threat of room 101 hangs over your head :D
lolll that would be a valid point if it wasnt based entirely on a fictional novel

How can there be bourgeois elements if there's a socialist base? (Genuine question)
Revionism comes about because although the economy is socialised there are still remnants of bourgeois ideology and culture, which find room to blossom where the party/state gets detatched from the people (this is what happened in the USSR, what happened in China under Deng which mao managed to hold off by encouraging the people to rebel, and what is happening currently in North Korea and Cuba. Class struggle must continue under socialism, and the party/state must stay under control of the masses, otherwise revisionism will triumph leading to capitalist restoration.

Thanks for the answer :)

Can you give an example of what you mean by revisionism in this context and what revisionism north korea has, in your opinion? Like I have heard that for example, recently some privatisation has taken place there. Would that be an example of the type of thing you mean?Well for example the top leadership of the party are somewhat detached from the masses and appear to enjoy a better standard of living. Also the idea that the military is the vanguard is plainly revisionist. And I dont know much about privatisation, but certainly they are opening up more and more to Chinese markets. Like the privatisation going on in Cuba right now, this results from the fact that a socialised economy cant be fully successful unless its under complete control of the masses. While there is some workers control in korea via workplace meetings and elections, this control is not total so this means theres a contradiction between the socialised economic base and the revisionist elements in the leadership. This contradiction can either be resolved by reaffirming the power of the masses (cultural revolution) or by handing the whole economy over to capitalism (perestroika). this is my maoism-based view of things anyway (i reject the idea that the ussr, north korea and cuba are just plain 'state capitalist', thats too simplistic and doesnt really look at the contradictions taking place)


By the bourgeois elements, do you mean Kim Jong Il etc? Because that doesn't really make sense, because surely if that's the case, then the government (ie the bourgeois elements) are planning the centrally planned economy, no? So the police are good cos they defend the basis on which North Korea is run but they're also not good because they're defending the people who are running it? Unless Kim Jong Il has the same lifestyle and takes roughly the same salary as the rest of the population (does he, btw?) An element is not necessarily a person. A bourgeois element can be a lingering idea, a cultural practice, or something like that. These can effect the economic planning etc which in turn causes a contradiction to appear between the superstructure and the base. This is why the cultural revolution was a better way at dealing with bourgeois elements than the stalinist purges were- the cultural revolution was aimed at wiping out bourgeois ideology and replacing it with proletarian ideas, unlike the purges which blamed it on individual people being traitors. I don't know what Kim Jong-il is like tbh,, its hard to tell where he is a politician and where he is a figurehead. Certainly he doesnt have full control, as he himself has said that he opposes his son becoming his heir because thats not properly socialist. So who knows what he's like..

[electro_fan]

lolll that would be a valid point if it wasnt based entirely on a fictional novel

Revionism comes about because although the economy is socialised there are still remnants of bourgeois ideology and culture, which find room to blossom where the party/state gets detatched from the people (this is what happened in the USSR, what happened in China under Deng which mao managed to hold off by encouraging the people to rebel, and what is happening currently in North Korea and Cuba. Class struggle must continue under socialism, and the party/state must stay under control of the masses, otherwise revisionism will triumph leading to capitalist restoration.

I agree, but North Korea's not under the control of the masses is it except if themasses jsut consist of Kim Jong Il and his family/clique, so how would it be "staying" under their control when its not in their control in the first place? Remind me, when was the last time they had elections there, and are any dissenting views allowed there in the papers and other media?

Given this, how are the police fulfilling a role much different to their role in capitalism? And how is their role different from a bourgeois state, if they are just doing what the government tells them to do in both cases?


Well for example the top leadership of the party are somewhat detached from the masses and appear to enjoy a better standard of living. Also the idea that the military is the vanguard is plainly revisionist. And I dont know much about privatisation, but certainly they are opening up more and more to Chinese markets. Like the privatisation going on in Cuba right now, this results from the fact that a socialised economy cant be fully successful unless its under complete control of the masses. While there is some workers control in korea via workplace meetings and elections, this control is not total so this means theres a contradiction between the socialised economic base and the revisionist elements in the leadership. This contradiction can either be resolved by reaffirming the power of the masses (cultural revolution) or by handing the whole economy over to capitalism (perestroika). this is my maoism-based view of things anyway (i reject the idea that the ussr, north korea and cuba are just plain 'state capitalist', thats too simplistic and doesnt really look at the contradictions taking place)yeah i can't disagree with much of that, lol, except how is stuff like the "cultural revolution" reafrirming the power of the masses, and doesn't there need to be a political revolution as well as an economic one, to prevent people like Kim Jong Il from having too much power, which plainly hasn't happened :D


An element is not necessarily a person. A bourgeois element can be a lingering idea, a cultural practice, or something like that. These can effect the economic planning etc which in turn causes a contradiction to appear between the superstructure and the base. This is why the cultural revolution was a better way at dealing with bourgeois elements than the stalinist purges were- the cultural revolution was aimed at wiping out bourgeois ideology and replacing it with proletarian ideas, unlike the purges which blamed it on individual people being traitors. I don't know what Kim Jong-il is like tbh,, its hard to tell where he is a politician and where he is a figurehead. Certainly he doesnt have full control, as he himself has said that he opposes his son becoming his heir because thats not properly socialist. So who knows what he's like..erm yeah, thanks for that.

So what kind of "ideas" are you thinking about lol? And how does that affect the police's role, which would surely still be to enforce law and order (whatever that means)
but if he's so opposed to his son becoming the president, his dad was the president, so when the time came for him to take over why didn't he just refuse?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The real police in American (and practically every other modern) society aren't the guys with the bullet-proof vests and guns, the real police are your proverbial friends and neighbors. Without cooperation from civilians the power of the police would be impotent. Go to some stable European social democracy; chances are there won't be militarized police units on every corner either.

[electro_fan]

Do you think its the same in north korea?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know enough about North Korea to comment. All I'm saying is that a lack of stern looking dudes with guns and flak jackets doesn't mean that a system of control every bit as strong and refined does not exist. A controlled populace isn't always that way because of raw coercion; tradition and custom can bring about the same result, and that's not indicative IMO of a better society. Look at Japan, where a culture of "social harmony" has been perpetuated for centuries, often at the expense of the working class.

[electro_fan]

I agree. However i get the feeling that being an anarchist you're probably not fond of north korea anyway ;) I'm more interested in what tankies and sparts etc have to say on this, because i pretty much know i'll agree with whatever an anarchist or a CWI member or even a SWP member has to say on it :D

[RedSquare]

Seriously though, some people are going to come back and say that's because they risk being brought off to a re-education through labour camp, and that the oppressive machinery was simply kept out of site of the NLG visitors.

I think a police force is necessary but it must be revolutionary and firmly rooted in the communities which it must interact with. Modern policing is too distance from the people it's supposed to serve (in theory). For instance, looking at the US in places like Los Angeles, where a majority white officers are expected to relate to a large African-American community.

Something like that just breeds division and the whole impersonal nature of their interactions in which everything is a shouting match is what makes it dangerous and detrimental.

[electro_fan]

Do you think that the North Korean police force is revolutionary?

[RedSquare]

Do you think that the North Korean police force is revolutionary?
I'm sure they'd declare themselves "revolutionary".

It really depends on your views on North Korea and whether it as a whole is a revolutionary state. My personal views on North Korea aren't well formed yet other than knowledge about the cult of personality and alleged prosecution of anyone who disagrees with the State.

It's difficult to obtain impartial information about the country, but some facts do show that labour camps for opponents do exist and can be located on satellite maps, but are conditions as bad as opponents who've escaped really allege? Are the people in them without guilt?

[electro_fan]

I'm sure they'd declare themselves "revolutionary".

It really depends on your views on North Korea and whether it as a whole is a revolutionary state. My personal views on North Korea aren't well formed yet other than knowledge about the cult of personality and alleged prosecution of anyone who disagrees with the State.

It's difficult to obtain impartial information about the country, but some facts do show that labour camps for opponents do exist and can be located on satellite maps, but are conditions as bad as opponents who've escaped really allege? Are the people in them without guilt?

So do you think that the cult of personality/people allegedly being locked up for disagreeing is a good thing, like if they're for example spreading counterrevolutionary propaganda, or being typical slovenly members of the lumpenproletariat who show disrespect to the great leader and undermine the unity of the revolution? I suppose from your avatar that it might be, since you have got Stalin and Mao there.

That's a very good point, I wonder if they're all without guilt. Probably some of them are guilty, yes, and you could well be right about conditions being better than we're led to believe. What's your gut instinct tho, if you were sent to prison would you prefer it to be in North Korea or some other country?

[RedSquare]

So do you think that the cult of personality/people allegedly being locked up for disagreeing is a good thing, like if they're for example spreading counterrevolutionary propaganda, or being typical slovenly members of the lumpenproletariat who show disrespect to the great leader and undermine the unity of the revolution? I suppose from your avatar that it might be, since you have got Stalin and Mao there.

That's a very good point, I wonder if they're all without guilt. Probably some of them are guilty, yes, and you could well be right about conditions being better than we're led to believe. What's your gut instinct tho, if you were sent to prison would you prefer it to be in North Korea or some other country?

There will always been enemies of the people who any revolution will have no choice but to imprison or exile. So, I think it's justified and is a social and political reality which faces any revolution. To borrow from Che, the time after any revolution takes power is a life and death struggle against attempts to destroy it.

I think I'd prefer it to be Norway, since they seem to have a relatively easy system with open prisons for many low level offenders. But assuming that the media stories and imperialist reports (based on the testimony of about 2 alleged eyewitnesses)are untrue, then I'd have no problems with imprisonment in North Korea and would be happy to labour for the nations prosperity.

[electro_fan]

Thanks for the reply. Do you think there's a revolution in North Korea going on at the moment led by its government, do you think the people are taking the gains of the revolution forward at all? Other posters have pointed out how there are "bourgeois elements" in the North Korean regime, do you think this is incorrect, and if not, do you think that the police are still a completely revolutionary force, or are they only revolutionary when they're arresting "the enemies of the people"?

So what if it turned out that the imperialist reports about the labour camps were all completely true, and you were in the country and committed a crime, would you still be happy to be imprisoned there for the good of the country? After all, North Korea probably has a lot more enemies than Norway does, and would need to be harder on its prisoners, as a revolutionary state. And don't you have to make sacrifices for the good of the revolution :cool: