As North Korea adds new markets, people begin starving from high prices

[Questionable]

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/10/166760055/hunger-still-haunts-north-korea-citizens-say


Indeed, an annual report by the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Program issued last month found the food situation to be better than in previous years. An improved harvest means North Korea's food gap stands at 207,000 tons, the lowest figure "in many years."

But all five North Koreans I met in China say that's not the whole story. The markets are full of food, they agree, but most ordinary people can't afford to buy it. State rations aren't being distributed, and even some soldiers are going hungry. One man who gave his name as Mr. Kim described the drastic action one family he knew took.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

People have been starving and will always starve in Juche North Korea

[Questionable]

People have been starving and will always starve in Juche North Korea

I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise. I just wanted to share that economic liberalization isn't performing any miracles for them.

[The Douche]

When the army starts to starve, things happen.

[hetz]

Divisions in Pyongyang are being fed, that's what matters.
I somehow doubt that Juche Korea will leave its soldiers starving, they aren't that stupid. If there had been no army rebellions during the horrible 90s famine, I doubt anything will happen now, especially with the improved food situation.

[ed miliband]

I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise. I just wanted to share that economic liberalization isn't performing any miracles for them.

so would you point out that north koreans were starving were it not for the economic liberalisation? or are there points to score here?

[GoddessCleoLover]

And of course North Koreans were starving prior to this "liberalization", too.

[Let's Get Free]

North Korea has always been thoroughly capitalist, with a viciously anti-working class monarchy. They even boast to their foreign investors (mainly China) about how dirt-cheap their labor is.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Divisions in Pyongyang are being fed, that's what matters.
I somehow doubt that Juche Korea will leave its soldiers starving, they aren't that stupid. If there had been no army rebellions during the horrible 90s famine, I doubt anything will happen now, especially with the improved food situation.

There was some unrest during the 90's famine, which led to the rise of the "military first" policies to assure the stability of the support of the military rule. Where this to continue, it could lead to renewed public and military unrest. Changes in DPRK tend to be slow to spark due to the repression, but it's not a total vacuum.

[Prof. Oblivion]

North Korea has always been thoroughly capitalist, with a viciously anti-working class monarchy. They even boast to their foreign investors (mainly China) about how dirt-cheap their labor is.

The existence of money and wage labor is not indicative of a capitalist economy. It's very strange to claim the DPRK is capitalist.

The OP's account is based on refugees, which are first-hand, unrepresentative accounts that by themselves are not a reliable source of information for obvious reasons.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So can we please stop defending the North Korean bourgeois as "progressive"?

[Os Cangaceiros]

When the army starts to starve, things happen.

Like...the military commandeering whatever food they need, and letting everyone else fend for themselves?

[Questionable]

so would you point out that north koreans were starving were it not for the economic liberalisation? or are there points to score here?

People point out that they're starving all the time, the difference is that markets haven't helped it this time.

Why are you trying to start this fight with me? Would you rather I not post this article?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The existence of money and wage labor is not indicative of a capitalist economy. It's very strange to claim the DPRK is capitalist.

The OP's account is based on refugees, which are first-hand, unrepresentative accounts that by themselves are not a reliable source of information for obvious reasons.

Why is it strange to claim teh DPRK is capitalist?

Does wage labour exist there? Yes.
Does money exist there? Yes.
Is it a state? Yes.
Are there classes? Yes.
Is a surplus produced? Yes.

How can it be anything other than capitalist, in the marxian sense?

[The Douche]

Like...the military commandeering whatever food they need, and letting everyone else fend for themselves?

No, like a coup.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Like...the military commandeering whatever food they need, and letting everyone else fend for themselves?


No, like a coup.
Is there really all that much difference?

[The Douche]

Is there really all that much difference?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I don't know anything about the internal politics and allegiances of the DPRK's armed forces, so I can't speak to it.

But it is wholly possible for there to be some staff level officers in their military who would seize power and call for elections.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't know much about North Korea but judging from what I know(or what I think I know) it's far worse than capitalism. It's outright slavery.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with L'Enferme. ROK is garden variety capitalism. DPRK is a sui generis hellhole. Although the mode of production shares some features with capitalism it seems to be more akin to some type of pre-capitalist Oriental despotism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I agree with L'Enferme. ROK is garden variety capitalism. DPRK is a sui generis hellhole. Although the mode of production shares some features with capitalism it seems to be more akin to some type of pre-capitalist Oriental despotism.

The level of repression is not what determines the capitalist mode of production, is it now? This pre-capitalist "oriental despotism" doesn't sound like an economic system.

ROK is a police-state, a few notches less repressive than the DPRK, and many times less impoverished; but these aspects are not things that define the economic system practised, which is capitalism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The level of repression is not what determines the capitalist mode of production, is it now? This pre-capitalist "oriental despotism" doesn't sound like an economic system.

ROK is a police-state, a few notches less repressive than the DPRK, and many times less impoverished; but these aspects are not things that define the economic system practised, which is capitalism.

If the DPRK is capitalistic it is a hideous statist variant of capitalism that ruthlessly exploits its workers in order to maintain a military apparatus that allows the Kim dynasty to remain in a position of absolute power.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If the DPRK is capitalistic it is a hideous statist variant of capitalism that ruthlessly exploits its workers in order to maintain a military apparatus that allows the Kim dynasty to remain in a position of absolute power.

"Statist" is a meaningless buzzword. Similar is "dynasty" (subtle hints of orientalism weaved into it, too), and "absolute power". The extent of the Kim's personal power is debatable, there is a great complexity even to the hierarchical system in DPRK, with competing power structures and so on; the rise of the Military First policy, was to assure the militarys allegiance to the Kim's. Should this become too difficult, it could very well happen that there is a coup. A reform failing badly could have similar result. So far, they've been moving cautiously, because the very chance of this instability is problematic in and of itself. Thus was launched a populist project of providing 100,000 new flats in Pyongyang, rehousing many people who previously lived in old traditional houses into newer more modern flats. Similar projects occasionally target some segments of the population to win their allegiance, or at least make them less likely to out-rightly rebel against the current order.

Some of the DPRK's explicit repression is more brisk and harsh, but is it meaningful to compare repressive governance? Is it a competition who is least repressive? I understand this is quite a common stance here, that the West is relatively free & the best possible option in the end, and so on so forth, but is that useful? Can repression felt by one people and another be compared in that way? I don't think it's worthwhile to do so. What it needs is an uncompromising rejection of the lot. Apart from the harsh direct repression, what makes you think the workers in the DPRK are exploited more than in some other half-impoverished capitalist nation? In terms of their output stolen, I'm sure the argument could easily be made that the workers in the South are far more exploited; but this, too, is not a meaningful argument.

[hetz]

Similar is "dynasty" (subtle hints of orientalism weaved into it, too), and "absolute power".Well absolutist monarchs ( Louis XIV etc... ) didn't, of course, have "absolute" power either. But there's some meaning to the term.
Also what does orientalism have to do with a dynastic-like succession of power in North Korea?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well absolutist monarchs ( Louis XIV etc... ) didn't, of course, have "absolute" power either. But there's some meaning to the term.
Also what does orientalism have to do with a dynastic-like succession of power in North Korea?

Because dynasty is most commonly applied to past east-Asian empires; thus the implication that the DPRK political system is a product of some "oriental" mentality, rather than the conditions under which it was formed and shaped. Save for hereditary rule, the similarities are few.

Who actually has real power in the DPRK is harder to known for sure. It's not impossible the army leadership has more real influence than the Kim's.

[hetz]

Because dynasty is most commonly applied to past east-Asian empires; From my experience at least it's most commonly applied to past European and Egyptian/Middle-east empires and states.


thus the implication that the DPRK political system is a product of some "oriental" mentality, rather than the conditions under which it was formed and shaped.I think Juche explicitely says that it's based on Korean national traditions and so on.


It's not impossible the army leadership has more real influence than the Kim's. It's likely, but perhaps there a some Richelieues in the Korean army...

[Prof. Oblivion]

Why is it strange to claim teh DPRK is capitalist?

Does wage labour exist there? Yes.
Does money exist there? Yes.
Is it a state? Yes.
Are there classes? Yes.
Is a surplus produced? Yes.

How can it be anything other than capitalist, in the marxian sense?

In every society, there is a state, with classes, where surplus labor is extracted. Wage labor is just a form of the extraction of surplus labor, and one that is not exclusive to capitalist societies.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In every society, there is a state, with classes, where surplus labor is extracted. Wage labor is just a form of the extraction of surplus labor, and one that is not exclusive to capitalist societies.

Didn't feudalism and the ancient slave mode of production share those characteristics?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I don't know anything about the internal politics and allegiances of the DPRK's armed forces, so I can't speak to it.

But it is wholly possible for there to be some staff level officers in their military who would seize power and call for elections.

I doubt it. They'd probably just revert back to the military first system they used before the economic changes.

[The Douche]

I doubt it. They'd probably just revert back to the military first system they used before the economic changes.

Well due to the nature of the DPRK its impossible to say one way or the other. But a coup would provide opportunities for the people of the country to act. (see the Egyptian military's assumption of power after the ousting of Mubarak)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Didn't feudalism and the ancient slave mode of production share those characteristics?

The 'class' and labour extraction components of Feudalism were vastly different to those under capitalism.

Under Feudalism, money rent and wage labour didn't really exist. Labour was largely forced to some extent (by situation of birth, by financial situation forcing not wage labour but serfdom or bondage) and the exploited peasants, whilst not owning the MoP (in Feudal society the land), did have control of it to some extent. Rent for this land was extracted not in money terms but 'in kind' - the performing of extra labour services and so on.

Naturally, this led to a social structure that was qualitatively different to what we see today in any Capitalist country, as diverse as the UK, South Africa, China and yes, North Korea). In Feudal society, social structure was based around the village, around the exploitative relationship between the lord and the peasant based on the extraction of rent - not labour - based on the land.

Indeed, we can surmise from this that, under feudalism, the most valuable MoP was the land and labour was exploited unfreely, not sold. Under capitalism it is, logically, capital, and the exploited labour is sold, not exploited in legal bondage/serfdom. North Korea arguably falls into the latter mode of production evidenced by its social structure - capitalism. Capitalism is not a 'national' system - the world is capitalist now. Feudal countries cannot survive in a capitalist world. Why would they?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wage labor is just a form of the extraction of surplus labor, and one that is not exclusive to capitalist societies.

No, wage labour is exactly the realisation of the social (class) relations that are unique to capitalism. History 101, comrade.

[Prof. Oblivion]

No, wage labour is exactly the realisation of the social (class) relations that are unique to capitalism. History 101, comrade.

"In England, serfdom had practically disappeared in the last part of the 14th century. The immense majority of the population consisted then, and to a still larger extent, in the 15th century, of free peasant proprietors, whatever was the feudal title under which their right of property was hidden. In the larger seignorial domains, the old bailiff, himself a serf, was displaced by the free farmer. The wage labourers of agriculture consisted partly of peasants, who utilised their leisure time by working on the large estates, partly of an independent special class of wage labourers, relatively and absolutely few in numbers"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm#n1

Also, peasants were able to pay rent, taxes, tithes, etc. either in cash or in kind.

The reality is that the simple existence of money as a means of payment - and therefore payment of wages - does not constitute capitalist social/property relations. Nor does the extraction of surplus labor in money terms - profit - imply capitalist society. Profit is just a word that defines the money expression of the extraction of surplus labor. All of these things, in themselves, do not necessitate capitalism as a system.

It's clear, for example, that private property does not exist in the DPRK, at least not in the same way as it exists under capitalism. When you universalize ownership, when you have a single owner of everything, then the character of private property necessarily changes, because the social relations that characterize private property change.

In other words, this "single owner" economy has completely different laws because of how it is structured. There is no competition. There is no accumulation or overproduction, and therefore no crisis of overproduction. There is no tendency of the rate of profit to fall. And so on.

So the system has, very blatantly obviously, fundamentally changed how it works, because of the new relation of various groups to the means of production. The social relations changed, and therefore so also did the property relations. It is no longer capitalist.

And when there is only one producer, production, distribution and consumption laws change fundamentally as well. Production is no longer determined based on market demand, because the market doesn't exist anymore.

Yes, there's money, and there is the extraction of surplus labor (surplus value is an inappropriate term in this instance as it only exists in capitalist society). But this does not somehow "prove" the existence of capitalism.

EDIT: I'm not claiming that the DPRK is socialist either. That's an equally silly assertion. Nor would I call it a "deformed workers' state" because that's just as dumb, there is nothing "worker" about the state. Nor is it "bureaucratic collectivist" because the bureaucracy isn't a ruling class.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Bill Cosby;2547937]"In England, serfdom had practically disappeared in the last part of the 14th century. The immense majority of the population consisted then, and to a still larger extent, in the 15th century, of free peasant proprietors, whatever was the feudal title under which their right of property was hidden. In the larger seignorial domains, the old bailiff, himself a serf, was displaced by the free farmer. The wage labourers of agriculture consisted partly of peasants, who utilised their leisure time by working on the large estates, partly of an independent special class of wage labourers, relatively and absolutely few in numbers"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm#n1

Marx isn't fully correct here. More up-to-date research, using better sources, has shown that actually serfdom did start to disappear in the 14th century, but in the latter part. The Statute of Labourers of 1351 is good anecdotal evidence for how the ruling classes viewed the 'problem' of the new-found migratory ability of the newly-landless labourers (the 'wage' labourers).


Also, peasants were able to pay rent, taxes, tithes, etc. either in cash or in kind.

You're mis-characterising feudal social relations. There wasn't a 'choice' to pay rents, taxes or tithes in cash or in kind. At its peak, feudalism was a system where rents were paid in kind (through labour services performed and so on) due to the unfree nature of much of the peasantry's tenure. With the decline of feudalism, combined with the rise of the mobile landless labourers and town (the labourers moved into towns), rents in kind became money rents as a reaction by the Lords to the revolting peasants; in the nadir of feudalism, the Lords, faced with a loss of income from labourers deserting the land and being generally emboldened in their fight for freedom, were forced to take money rent as a consequence of these evolving social relations.


The reality is that the simple existence of money as a means of payment - and therefore payment of wages - does not constitute capitalist social/property relations. Nor does the extraction of surplus labor in money terms - profit - imply capitalist society. Profit is just a word that defines the money expression of the extraction of surplus labor. All of these things, in themselves, do not necessitate capitalism as a system.

The existence of a state, a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, of capital, of wage labour and of profit/surplus imply the existence of capitalism. North Korea has all of these things. It even interacts with the global capitalist system, competing with other Far Eastern countries on cheap labour supply.


It's clear, for example, that private property does not exist in the DPRK, at least not in the same way as it exists under capitalism. When you universalize ownership, when you have a single owner of everything, then the character of private property necessarily changes, because the social relations that characterize private property change.

Universal ownership =/= singular ownership. Singular ownership is more a reflection of the degree of monopoly under capitalism. Whilst I agree that the North Korean model doesn't sit easily with an economic philosophical explanation of capitalism that Marxism often relies upon, the fact is that the relationships of capital and labour in North Korea do not distinguish it, on a base level, from capitalism in other areas of the world, it would seem.

[Prof. Oblivion]

The existence of a state, a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, of capital, of wage labour and of profit/surplus imply the existence of capitalism. North Korea has all of these things. It even interacts with the global capitalist system, competing with other Far Eastern countries on cheap labour supply.It doesn't have a bourgeoisie (which would also imply to some that it doesn't have a proletariat).


Universal ownership =/= singular ownership.I was saying that ownership is universalized in the sense that everything is owned by one group, not in the sense that it is "owned" by everyone. Anyways, just a miscommunication.


Singular ownership is more a reflection of the degree of monopoly under capitalism.There will never be a situation in which a sector is controlled by a single person/group in a capitalist society, much less anything larger.


Whilst I agree that the North Korean model doesn't sit easily with an economic philosophical explanation of capitalism that Marxism often relies upon, the fact is that the relationships of capital and labour in North Korea do not distinguish itCapital does not exist in North Korea if you are interested in adhering to a Marxian understanding of it. This is also another reason why capitalists, those who command capital, do not either.

It's not that it "doesn't sit easy". It doesn't mesh at all, because it's a completely different system with laws of its own.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It doesn't have a bourgeoisie (which would also imply to some that it doesn't have a proletariat).

That's ridiculous, of course it has a bourgeoisie. The quasi-monarchical form it takes is merely the chosen form of the national bourgeoisie in North Korea.


I was saying that ownership is universalized in the sense that everything is owned by one group, not in the sense that it is "owned" by everyone. Anyways, just a miscommunication.

It's vital. Common/universal ownership and monopoly ownership have very strong connotations for the sort of economic system in place.


There will never be a situation in which a sector is controlled by a single person/group in a capitalist society, much less anything larger.

The economy, it would seem, is controlled not by one man, nor by a small cabal, but by a group: the bourgeoisie. Those at the top of politics and, peculiar to North Korea, those at the top of the army, seem to wield social and economic power.


Capital does not exist in North Korea if you are interested in adhering to a Marxian understanding of it. This is also another reason why capitalists, those who command capital, do not either.

Presumably Kim Jong Il paid for his hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of Hennessey each year with gold or something, then? He, along with the rest of the North Korean bourgeoisie, must have commanded capital/command capital in order to maintain their position in society, and in order to be able to whore out North Korean workers regionally, competing based on labour cost.
[/QUOTE]

[black magick hustla]

"orientalism" is the favorite magic word of the self appointed internet PR officers of the dprk in stalinist/marcyte circles. the bizarre qualities of the dprk state, including a "dynasty" like structure where the children of the children follow as "great leaders" , and the strange supernatural qualities given to the kims, is attributed as some sort of cultural quirk. how convenient