DPRK facing the worst drought in 30 years

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia-pacific/2012/05/2012530184134744750.html

2012 was supposed to be the year in state propaganda that they became a "modern nation". They seem to be some ways off still. Who needs power plants and irrigation systems when you can have failed ICBM missile tests and the world's 4th largest army?

[Imposter Marxist]

state capitalism will be state capitalism, as tony cliff said.

[Prometeo liberado]

God forbid we forget to mention Tony Cliff, anyway I seem to remember the last years of the Ceausescu regime when he announced that they had reached total Communism. These type of proclamations tend to come about through frustration of being pushed into a corner. Remember Saddam screaming about "the mother of all wars!"? The end for the Kims may be near but Juche will be replaced by it's western cousin Austerity. There is always just one, and only one option for the working class, class war.

[WanderingCactus]

Thanks, imperialism.

[Metacomet]

It's Japan's fault. I'm sure of it.

[Geiseric]

state capitalism will be state capitalism, as tony cliff said.

Was there ever a market in NK? Or literally anything specific that Marx uses to define Capitalism, that can't also be used to define Feudalism?

Solidarity to the oppressed workers of North Korea, they need to overthrow the dictatorship of the military bureaucracy that exists.

[Cheung Mo]

God forbid we forget to mention Tony Cliff, anyway I seem to remember the last years of the Ceausescu regime when he announced that they had reached total Communism. These type of proclamations tend to come about through frustration of being pushed into a corner. Remember Saddam screaming about "the mother of all wars!"? The end for the Kims may be near but Juche will be replaced by it's western cousin Austerity. There is always just one, and only one option for the working class, class war.

Nicolae Ceausescu was about as communist as Stephen Harper. His regime treated women and ethnic minorities like shit, he lived like an king from France's Ancien Regime, and he sucked off Dick Nixon for money and made the common people starve to pay down the debt. He was a traitor to the socialist cause and a puppet of American imperialism. That a lot of things about Romania are shitty today does not contradict this an does not vindicate his crimes or his treachery.

[Prometeo liberado]

Nicolae Ceausescu was about as communist as Stephen Harper. His regime treated women and ethnic minorities like shit, he lived like an king from France's Ancien Regime, and he sucked off Dick Nixon for money and made the common people starve to pay down the debt. He was a traitor to the socialist cause and a puppet of American imperialism. That a lot of things about Romania are shitty today does not contradict this an does not vindicate his crimes or his treachery.

Hey crazy person, did you read what I wrote or just have this take sitting in the back of that reactionary head of yours just waiting to pull the trigger? I was referring to the fact that all these nut jobs, Saddam, Nicolae, the Kims and whom ever, make these boastful yet totally outrageous statements just as the ship is about to sink. Now tell me, brain trust, does that sound like a ringing endorsement of communist Rumania to you?

p.s. How much was it for that Dick Nixon bj anyhow?

[Prairie Fire]

Wow.

I'd like to begin by stating, for the record, that the DPRK is not a socialist state, that it lacks the political (and some of the economic,) relations conforming to that stage of development. The DPRK is in need of dire rectification of their political and economic institutions.

That said, in regards to this thread, seriously,what the fuck.

An environmental and agricultural disaster takes place in the DPRK (no laughing matter; a nation will be thrown into famine because of this, and the ensuing pressure may hasten capitulation and dismantling in favour of neo-liberalism,), and the only reply from Revleft is a chorus of the most easy/simplistic criticisms, and snide one-liners.

So, if the DPRK was not "State capitalist", they would have been able to avoid the Drought? If they had never launched a satellite recently, the Drought could have been averted? Perhaps if the "nut job" Kims were removed, the Gods would be pleased, and would not see fit to send a Drought down upon Korea.

Hell, maybe if the Syngman Rhee forces of the ROK had triumphed in the Korean war, there would never have been a Drought on the northern half of the Korean Peninsula.

Anti-imperialist internationalism includes:

A. Not adopting/repeating talking-points disseminated in your own predatory country's less-than-impartial media apparatus

B. Not kicking a non-imperialist country when they are down, nor licking your monstrous chops and musing about regime change as soon as an environmental calamity presents an opportunity.

By the way, where the hell is any commentary on this thread on the role of capitalism and imperialism in exacerbating Climate change, which is a much more tangible and undeniably contributing force, to droughts in Korea and globally ( i.e. Across Africa, my home town has had to declare agricultural emergency for the last three years, etc).

Interesting that Trots who rail day and night against "Socialism in one Country" (without even understanding the concept, no less,), don't immediately begin from the point of view of the Global and interconnected roots of this disaster. So far no-one, including avowed Cliffite Trots, has seen fit to mention the role that global deforestation and global carbon emissions play in increasing world temperature, and therefore Droughts! No, instead your first reaction to a story about a critical natural disaster in North Korea is "How do we get the Kims out?"

Revleft has some serious political education that needs to be done, and that includes a decisive break with the dominant narrative that is in vogue within the sphere of the Imperialist countries and their proxies.

You have absolutely no basis to call for revolution within the DPRK until you have made one on your own soil. Until you have done so, your words are empty, even conducive to the military ambitions of your country of residence.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

PrarieFire - people may be overlooking the role that Imperialism plays but the lack of investment in agricultural technology and the failure to maintain the agricultural infrastructure they do have is also going to exacerbate any drought.

Blaming global warming alone is too easy ... is global warming a problem? Yes (a problem which Chinese industry does contribute to and Eastern Bloc industry did while it existed too, and the DPRK for that matter, all of which create CO2 pollution ... the US might be the highest per capita but all states are contributing to this problem) but every other state in the world is suffering from global warming too but it doesn't cause famine. If they had invested more in their agricultural infrastructure they might have been able to cope better with this issue. Instead, they invested in heavy munitions and arms technology. Technology isn't a zero-sum game, but it is true that investing too much investment in one sector is going to reduce the amount of labor and resources to invest in other sectors.

[Prairie Fire]

but every other state in the world is suffering from global warming too but it doesn't cause famine.


"Every other state in the world"= G8 Countries, presumably; Is that the definition that we are using here?

Does the 2011 drought in East Africa not count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_East_Africa_drought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_East_Africa_drought)

Here are a collection of more Drought-related devastations outside of North Korea.
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/02/major-droughts-and-dropping-food.html (http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/02/major-droughts-and-dropping-food.html)

"There's food in my grocery store; what's North Korea's problem?"

Also you pay lip service to the concept of Imperialism, but you leave that out of the equation that you are advancing here. I know in my country for example, most of our produce at least is imported, as is everything from canned goods to rice, sugar, coffee, etc. To point out that agricultural disasters in your own country have not lead to famine is not only relativist, but ridiculously de-contextualized if you reside in an imperialist country, on the receiving end of the fruits of global exploitation*.

You also forget about the Imperialism factor in your "Instead, (the DPRK) invested in heavy munitions and arms technology" rendering of the situation. In the context of the aggression against North Korea, both economic (sanctions) and military (i.e. Joint "Foal Eagle" military exercises of US and ROK troops near border territory, stationing of US nuclear weapons in ROK, recent parachuting of US Commandos onto DPRK soil in violation of terms of Armistice, Satellite espionage, etc, etc), all with explicitly stated regime-change goals, your statement amounts to blaming the victim. ( I say "regime", but really it is the economy that the US and it's allies take issue with, and endeavour to change; the regime is simply an obstacle to that happening, at least at the pace that they want).

Invest in Agricultural technology- with whom? China? The Chinese economic influence in the region ( i.e. building Deng Xiaoping style 'special economic zones') is already undermining not only their sovereignty, but any vestiges of a planned economy.

As far as "failure to maintain the agricultural infrastructure", you leave out of this framing of things the crippling UN economic embargo (and subsequent decimation in trade, and therefore capital), the necessity of military expenditures to keep predatory forces at bay, and not to mention all of the other infrastructure that they are maintaining and building anew. ( Here are some examples, with photos, from 2011:http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2011/D41037.htm The major accomplishment last year was a massive Hydro-electric dam, which can now offset the fossil-fuels shortages endemic everywhere in the country, not just the countryside which the Al Jazeera reporter comments on).

By no means is the DPRK perfect, and it is possible that a rectification of the Korean revolution could mean a more equitable distribution and more creative solutions and more productive allocation of resources to problems. It could mean these things. Or, a broad peoples revolution could simply be a foot in the door for a foreign backed neo-liberal clique to seize power, give the socialist statesmen a Ceausescu-style "trial" (with subsequent execution,), declare "Democracy", invite McDonalds and Coca Cola in for some photo-ops, invite the IMF in for "shock doctrine" restructuring and privatization of all state assets to the highest bidder, and basically subject North Korea to the same fate as all of the other nominally-socialist states in Europe and Asia. One has to consider the real implications of every possible outcome in a given situation.

Anyways, as I said, until you have made revolution on your own soil, your words are empty. Concern yourself less with the Foreign-policy-adversaries of NATO, and more with the practical implementation of politics and organization of your local working class ( special emphasis on working class first, "Activists" second,). To the persyn quoting Tony Cliff, you're doing it wrong.

(*Note: I'm not advancing that workers in imperialist countries are accomplices to imperialism, but as Marx said, "The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, moving from its home, where it assumes respectable form, to the colonies, where it goes naked." At "home", in the citadels of Imperialism, there are certain concessions, a certain standard of living that the exploiters must maintain among the general population in order to strengthen their own position, and reduce the chances of general uprising where they are most vulnerable. I know that the workers of these countries had no say in this process, nor does it negate their own exploitation and trials and tribulations, but as a worker in an imperialist country, you are less likely to see the most savage and lethal expressions of capitalism; in the "Colonies", where there are no repercussions to destabilizing the entire country or refusing to provide even the most pedestrian social programs, this has become the standard operating procedure, and hence the contradictions are heightened.)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That's a long reply ...


Does the 2011 drought in East Africa not count?Niger, which saw a famine recently, and Ethiopia during the 80s, as well as the numerous other African famines, did not come with the benefit of having some industrial and agricultural base built up by the 60s. If DPRK propaganda does get one thing right, it's that Kim Il-Sung did manage to build up some industry, which has gone to waste in the years of utter stagnation since. However, the DPRK's armed forces have continued to modernize. Of course, this is unsustainable because economic and social modernity is a precondition for military modernity in the long term. The Kim regime will need to come to terms with this contradiction some day.


Also you pay lip service to the concept of Imperialism, but you leave that out of the equation that you are advancing here. I know in my country for example, most of our produce at least is imported, as is everything from canned goods to rice, sugar, coffee, etc. To point out that agricultural disasters in your own country have not lead to famine is not only relativist, but ridiculously de-contextualized if you reside in an imperialist country, on the receiving end of the fruits of global exploitation*.


That's not what I said at all, this is a straw man. This has to do with technology and infrastructure used to farm basic staples, how is the lack of coffee and bananas in the 1st world relevant to what I was saying? This is about the failure of a country to ensure that the infrastructure which farms the basic staples are maintained. Other third world countries lack luxuries too, but they are able to produce staple foods. You don't need sugar and coffee to stop a famine, all you need is access to basic staples.


Invest in Agricultural technology- with whom? China? The Chinese economic influence in the region ( i.e. building Deng Xiaoping style 'special economic zones') is already undermining not only their sovereignty, but any vestiges of a planned economy.How about with their own workers? North Korean labor recently constructed a number of ICBMs, which are technologically complex entities. None of them worked, which means that it was a wasted investment. Those man-hours and material resources could have just as easily gone to maintaining or improving the public infrastructure. Insofar as it goes into building up the armed forces and not the general welfare of the people, this has more to do with the defense of the ruling class than with defense against American aggression. Cuba, which is adjacent to the USA and would be a more tempting target than North Korea by all accounts, is able to discourage imperialist intervention there with a much lower spending of GDP on defense.


Anyways, as I said, until you have made revolution on your own soil, your words are empty. Concern yourself less with the Foreign-policy-adversaries of NATO, and more with the practical implementation of politics and organization of your local working class ( special emphasis on working class first, "Activists" second,). To the persyn quoting Tony Cliff, you're doing it wrong.What a bunch of rubbish ... organizing on the home front is not mutually exclusive with criticizing other movements around the world. (1) I am concerned as a human with the fate of workers who are dis-empowered and impoverished thanks to the poor decisions of a regime ... that is kind of a precondition of internationalism (2) it is important to critique other movements around the world both to differentiate from the dysfunctional governments in places like the DPRK (and learn from any mistakes too)

[Sir Comradical]

I'm sick of all the philistines on the left making it seem as though the DPRK's insistence on defending itself from imperialist aggression - which is a real and credible threat for them considering that their peninsula is still occupied by thirty thousand imperialist troops - is what's leading to starvation. Ffs it's a mountainous country that has far less agricultural land than the ROK and is therefore heavily reliant on chemicals to grow food and just as at the mercy of nature as any other crop in the world. I shouldn't have to remind people that it's the most sanctioned country on earth. But the fact that it's capable of providing a better standard of living for its people than much of the third-world kleptocracies under extremely testing conditions is a testament to what socialism would actually be able to achieve should it ever be implemented in an advanced industrial nation by the working class themselves.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm sick of all the philistines on the left making it seem as though the DPRK's insistence on defending itself from imperialist aggression - which is a real and credible threat for them considering that their peninsula is still occupied by thirty thousand imperialist troops - is what's leading to starvation.Philistines? Really? You didn't even answer my very reasonable point about Cuba, which manages to defend itself from Imperialism without spending 25% of its GDP on defense and mobilizing the world's 4th-5th largest armed forces. You don't need an army that big to act as a deterrent from US intervention, especially in a country without tons of oil and which is both adjacent to and allied with America's primary Imperialist competitor, which means that the DPRK is far from an appealing target.

*Their* peninsula? Who made it the peninsula of the DPRK government, and not the people who live there? That reveals your nationalistic perspective. The Korean peninsula is for the workers and farmers of that land, not their governments.

The US soldiers in Korea are not preventing the North Koreans from farming. The US presence in the RoK has nothing to do with the failure of the DPRK to properly maintain or improve even the basic agricultural infrastructure within their borders. Imperialism might have an impact on food sovereignty but the DPRK should still be able to produce basic staples. Nobody is saying that the DPRK should become some agricultural powerhouse, merely that it invest to properly maintain that production at a level necessary to provide all of its people with the minimal caloric intake.


Ffs it's a mountainous country that has far less agricultural land than the ROK and is therefore heavily reliant on chemicals to grow food and just as at the mercy of nature as any other crop in the world. I shouldn't have to remind people that it's the most sanctioned country on earthOf course it is true that North Korea does not exactly have the best agricultural land, that is PRECISELY why their government needs to actually invest what is necessary to maintain and expand irrigation, etc before building ICBMs that don't work. It's nuts that anybody would think that a poor country with bad land failing to invest properly in agriculture is excusable. As I made it very clear, the fact that their government has been able to produce a number of ICBMs proves for a fact that despite sanctions, there is vast industrial capability in that country. However, that industrial capability is not going to where the people need it, but to failed science projects by the government.

The more staples they produce at home, the fewer they have to import, so even if it is not agriculturally such a good area, then investing more in agriculture is still useful. That should be obvious.


But the fact that it's capable of providing a better standard of living for its people than much of the third-world kleptocracies under extremely testing conditions is a testament to what socialism would actually be able to achieve should it ever be implemented in an advanced industrial nation by the working class themselves. What does the DPRK have to do with socialism, other than the fact that they pretend to be socialists? Its regime lacks transparency, is deeply kleptocratic itself, and has a dynastic political system. It is not "socialist" in any sense of the word which I understand it.

Nor is it a nice place to live. Famine has been common in the past two decades and the government has not been able to grow the economy. Pyongyang has nice services because it is the capital where the elites live and where foreigners go to, but much of the rest of the country is in decay. Instead of looking at the DPRK as some great place to live, the RoK is instead admired by many as a place where breakneck growth is possible. The DPRK actually had a higher level of development in the 60s, but it was their policies which let this slide. Of course, the growth in the RoK was based on large-scale exploitation of the working class, but the workers of the DPRK are being manipulated and exploited by their government too, merely for different ends. The dynamic between the RoK and the DPRK has cause a great deal of damage to the standing of socialism internationally by (1) changing it from a struggle between Imperialism/Capital and workers to a struggle between Imperialism and despotic autarky, then (2) showing how third world countries which agree with the Anglo-American model are capable of rapid economic growth in the short term. The success of countries like the RoK has been a bit of a paragon for the neoliberals - even if it is an imperialist proxy, it is seen as a model for how capitalist societies can develop when a part of the international liberal order. On the other hand, the DPRK has stagnated and failed to provide real sovereignty or social benefits to many of its workers. This is because the workers do not control the means of production in the DPRK, but the bureaucracy and armed forces. That's not socialism, that's just despotism. We should be encouraging people in the third world and the first world alike, as well as the Korean peninsula itself, to look for a real socialist model which not utilized in either the DPRK or in the RoK.

[Khalid]

KCNA reports that "a brisk anti-drought campaign is going on across the country to tap water resources and make an effective use of them." So it's not like the DPRK people and government are just sitting around doing nothing.


On the other hand, the DPRK has stagnated and failed to provide real sovereignty or social benefits to many of its workers. This is because the workers do not control the means of production in the DPRK, but the bureaucracy and armed forces.

Have you ever heard of the Taean Work System? I'd say there's more workers control in the DPRK than anywhere else in the world at the moment. It might be far from perfect but so is your statement.

[Sir Comradical]

Philistines? Really? You didn't even answer my very reasonable point about Cuba, which manages to defend itself from Imperialism without spending 25% of its GDP on defense and mobilizing the world's 4th-5th largest armed forces. You don't need an army that big to act as a deterrent from US intervention, especially in a country without tons of oil and which is both adjacent to and allied with America's primary Imperialist competitor, which means that the DPRK is far from an appealing target.

Cuba "defends" itself from imperialism by privatising beaches and smashing its public sector much to the satisfaction of imperialists and foreign corporations who are just waiting to get their hands on the economy once the bureaucracy pulls the plug and gives it all away. Immediately after the counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR, Cuba began allowing foreign investment however the militarism of the DPRK can be explained by their unwillingness to give anything away.


*Their* peninsula? Who made it the peninsula of the DPRK government, and not the people who live there? That reveals your nationalistic perspective. The Korean peninsula is for the workers and farmers of that land, not their governments.

There is the small fact that the line that separates the DPRK and ROK is completely artificial and was imposed on the Korean people by the American imperialists who STILL have 30,000 troops on the Korean peninsula. So it's nationalist to reject the imperialist partitioning and occupation of Korea? Okay cool.


The US soldiers in Korea are not preventing the North Koreans from farming. The US presence in the RoK has nothing to do with the failure of the DPRK to properly maintain or improve even the basic agricultural infrastructure within their borders. Imperialism might have an impact on food sovereignty but the DPRK should still be able to produce basic staples. Nobody is saying that the DPRK should become some agricultural powerhouse, merely that it invest to properly maintain that production at a level necessary to provide all of its people with the minimal caloric intake.

Yeah, aside from the DPRK being the most sanctioned country on earth.


Of course it is true that North Korea does not exactly have the best agricultural land, that is PRECISELY why their government needs to actually invest what is necessary to maintain and expand irrigation, etc before building ICBMs that don't work. It's nuts that anybody would think that a poor country with bad land failing to invest properly in agriculture is excusable. As I made it very clear, the fact that their government has been able to produce a number of ICBMs proves for a fact that despite sanctions, there is vast industrial capability in that country. However, that industrial capability is not going to where the people need it, but to failed science projects by the government.

The more staples they produce at home, the fewer they have to import, so even if it is not agriculturally such a good area, then investing more in agriculture is still useful. That should be obvious.

What does the DPRK have to do with socialism, other than the fact that they pretend to be socialists? Its regime lacks transparency, is deeply kleptocratic itself, and has a dynastic political system. It is not "socialist" in any sense of the word which I understand it.

Even if they directed all the money they spend on weapons towards agriculture there's no guarantee that agricultural output will increase in direct proportion to increased investment because ultimately there are natural barriers and diminishing returns on such investment. The reason they're able to grow as much as they do currently is because they rely heavily on chemical fertilisers which can be difficult to produce because of the sanctions. Look I take your point but it's more complicated than feed-the-people vs. ICBMs.


Nor is it a nice place to live. Famine has been common in the past two decades and the government has not been able to grow the economy. Pyongyang has nice services because it is the capital where the elites live and where foreigners go to, but much of the rest of the country is in decay. Instead of looking at the DPRK as some great place to live, the RoK is instead admired by many as a place where breakneck growth is possible. The DPRK actually had a higher level of development in the 60s, but it was their policies which let this slide. Of course, the growth in the RoK was based on large-scale exploitation of the working class, but the workers of the DPRK are being manipulated and exploited by their government too, merely for different ends. The dynamic between the RoK and the DPRK has cause a great deal of damage to the standing of socialism internationally by (1) changing it from a struggle between Imperialism/Capital and workers to a struggle between Imperialism and despotic autarky, then (2) showing how third world countries which agree with the Anglo-American model are capable of rapid economic growth in the short term. The success of countries like the RoK has been a bit of a paragon for the neoliberals - even if it is an imperialist proxy, it is seen as a model for how capitalist societies can develop when a part of the international liberal order. On the other hand, the DPRK has stagnated and failed to provide real sovereignty or social benefits to many of its workers. This is because the workers do not control the means of production in the DPRK, but the bureaucracy and armed forces. That's not socialism, that's just despotism. We should be encouraging people in the third world and the first world alike, as well as the Korean peninsula itself, to look for a real socialist model which not utilized in either the DPRK or in the RoK.

I don't defend everything about the DPRK. Despite it's bureaucratically deformed character, the DPRK's economy is still based on collectivised property relations and its relative ruin compared to the RoK can, and should be explained, by pointing to the material conditions that have produced such divergent results in both countries since the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the USSR. I have heard that Pyongyang is reserved for the elites and if this is the case then it should be condemned. All I'm saying is that the DPRK's food problem has more to do with objective conditions than the vile character of the regime.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Cuba "defends" itself from imperialism by privatising beaches and smashing its public sector much to the satisfaction of imperialists and foreign corporations who are just waiting to get their hands on the economy once the bureaucracy pulls the plug and gives it all away. Immediately after the counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR, Cuba began allowing foreign investment however the militarism of the DPRK can be explained by their unwillingness to give anything away.


Cuba is certainly not open to American investment, and the Cubans for all their flaws have managed to maintain higher living standards across the board. Also, have you heard of the DPRK's labor scheme whereby they rent workers to businesses in Russia, China and Mongolia at cut rates? The DPRK has very worrying issues regarding privatization.

The main point is that a smaller portion of their GDP could be invested and an effective deterrent would still exist, and their military would be more sustainable anyways.



There is the small fact that the line that separates the DPRK and ROK is completely artificial and was imposed on the Korean people by the American imperialists who STILL have 30,000 troops on the Korean peninsula. So it's nationalist to reject the imperialist partitioning and occupation of Korea? Okay cool.
What's nationalist is in assuming that Korea is a "natural" nation, and that the DPRK somehow deserves to manage the whole peninsula. The DPRK State and the RoK State are both equally impositions on the Korean people, as all states are artificial institutions. The borders of all States around the world are equally arbitrary. However, since most people around the world share your view of the nation-state, so we can take it for granted ... in that case, the DPRK still has a short-term need to make the territory which it does control more efficient. In that case, it really should work to improve efficiency regardless of whether the RoK has better agricultural terrain, simply because there is no guarantee of when the two countries would be reunited.

I don't know how many workers in the RoK would actually want the DPRK to be their government either, and I'm unsure how the DPRK would go about convincing them otherwise.



Yeah, aside from the DPRK being the most sanctioned country on earth.
They can still farm, farming is just about one of the few industries where most of the means of production come domestically. That which cannot be made domestically can certainly be made in China, which is actually a trading partner of the DPRK.



Even if they directed all the money they spend on weapons towards agriculture there's no guarantee that agricultural output will increase in direct proportion to increased investment because ultimately there are natural barriers and diminishing returns on such investment. The reason they're able to grow as much as they do currently is because they rely heavily on chemical fertilisers which can be difficult to produce because of the sanctions. Look I take your point but it's more complicated than feed-the-people vs. ICBMs.
Well, of course Marx explains the diminishing returns of investment on technology in production. However, food production is so basic and necessary that it is worth great investment, even in terrain with more limitations like the DPRK. Nobody is saying they should become an agricultural superpower, but a more reliable level of food production is certainly possible. As I said, producing staple foods is really the main issue, and they don't need to become a major exporter or anything.

The issue here isn't just fertilizer, but irrigation. A better and more reliable irrigation system can reduce the effect of drought through a number of efficiencies. You can make the pipes and irrigation canals less leaky, for instance. If they can produce ICBMs, they can certainly make their irrigation system larger and more resource efficient.



I don't defend everything about the DPRK. Despite it's bureaucratically deformed character, the DPRK's economy is still based on collectivised property relations and its relative ruin compared to the RoK can, and should be explained, by pointing to the material conditions that have produced such divergent results in both countries since the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the USSR. I have heard that Pyongyang is reserved for the elites and if this is the case then it should be condemned. All I'm saying is that the DPRK's food problem has more to do with objective conditions than the vile character of the regime.The problem is that all historical evidence points to bureaucratic deformation causing a protection of kleptocracy, violence and nepotism by the regime, which then causes it to lose credibility and eventually collapse.


KCNA reports that "a brisk anti-drought campaign is going on across the country to tap water resources and make an effective use of them." So it's not like the DPRK people and government are just sitting around doing nothing.


Nobody said they were doing nothing, so much as that a more proactive approach regarding agricultural production would have caused less suffering among the people of the country. Responding after the drought is less efficient than improving infrastructure beforehand.



Have you ever heard of the Taean Work System? I'd say there's more workers control in the DPRK than anywhere else in the world at the moment. It might be far from perfect but so is your statement.Libya used to have regional "direct democracy" which was widely reviled in that country as a top-down institution, so I'm skeptical of such institutions. I'd need to know more about it but the DPRK is hardly transparent and it has a Despotic political order at the apex which all of these other institutions are ultimately accountable to. The effectiveness and independence of "grassroots democracy" in a despotic political system is highly questionable.

[The Machine]

well here in america when we have a drought people just make passing remarks about it sometimes and gucci mane might reference it in a song

[X5N]

Of course, what little food and water there is will go to the Dear Leader and his inner circle so they can stay fat, while millions of North Koreans starve.

Obviously a sign of a successful leftist nation that deserves the support of RevLefters.

EDIT: Of course, my sympathies go out to the people of North Korea. Hopefully they haven't been so beaten into obedience that they can rebel. But with their quasi-fascist military first policy and such, that seems unlikely.

[Towarzysz Leninski]

Everyone interested should check out the American Party of Labor's article on Korean revisionism in their journal Revolutionary Spirit. It's an excellent analysis.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Was there ever a market in NK? Or literally anything specific that Marx uses to define Capitalism, that can't also be used to define Feudalism?

The profit mode, generalized commodity production, and the market all exist in the DPRK.