Questionable
13th December 2012, 11:36
In light of some recent discussions over a news article I posted regarding North Korea, there's been a lot of discussion as to whether North Korea can be called state-capitalist or some sort of twisted slave society. The discussion reminded me of an analysis written by one of my comrades from another website. I decided to share it here for discussion. I did not write this analysis, I am simply sharing it because I thought it would be of interest.
As a Marxist, I typically detest the idea that an occurrence, especially where a society is concerned, happens as just an anomaly. However, I, and several other comrades, push the discussion on North Korea to the side without much of a thought saying something to the effect of "North Korea is a strange place." Now I do not consider myself an expert on North Korea, nor do I consider myself even an expert in Marxist analysis. I had an idea recently while trying to research a bit of North Korean history that may or may not be of merit.
It is important when concerning a matter dialectically to begin with where a society is coming from. Korea is historically a nation (or two or three) that has ranged from regional empire to victim of imperialism to several centuries of isolation. One would think foreign rulers might be talking about modern North Korea, but the Korean Empire for a good deal of the 15th through 18th centuries was dubbed the "Hermit Kingdom." Korean self-reliance is a cultural trait that extends a long time before the advent of Juche. Now at the beginning of the 20th century Korea was occupied by Japan with brutal conditions forced on the workers who were exploited to create wealth for the Japanese empire. The Japanese empire tried to suppress the Korean language and destroyed many cultural artifacts to combat the independent spirit that had become ingrained in Korean culture. This occupation continued through several uprisings until the end of World War II.
After World War II, Korea was taken from Japan and divided into North and South Korea meant essentially to serve as colonies for the victors. The rather arbitrary division and the former inter-connectedness of the Korean economy exacerbated the contradictions between the newly developing socialist north and the newly developing capitalist south. This began the Korean War in 1950 barely 5 years after the creation of the two states. The end of this war brought with it isolation between the two Koreas which was necessary due to the incompatibility of the two systems.
Kim Il-Sung became a popular figure in North Korea especially due to the idea of self-reliance, which was, to a culture utterly raped (both figuratively and literally) for the past 50+ years, uniting and hopeful. Due to objective factors such as 1950's Moscow style bureaucracy providing the blueprint for political development, and the ever-present existential threat posed by the nearby imperialist nations requiring the massive expansion of the state and military, the North Korean bureaucracy (largely with the support of the population) grew quite large. Over the next few decades, with imports of resources and technology from the USSR and China, the planned economy was able to industrialize North Korea very quickly. It wasn't until the seventies when the South began to receive imports of capital from imperialist nations that it was able to match the North in industrial capacity. It was also around this time that North Korea was having trouble managing its economy with a centrally governed authority, so its development plateaued, though still at a very high level with a decent standard of living.
In the early nineties, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the complete collapse of the economy in North Korea. North Korea relied heavily on oil (as does every industrialized nation) and the sudden embargo from all imperialist countries shut down all manufacturing. Even fertilizer in North Korea was produced by machines requiring oil (just like all industrialized nations) so a famine swept through the country. Immediately following this, Kim Il-Sung died, leaving the North in a crisis of leadership. As happens in every country faced with a deep economic crisis with a state apparatus in crisis, either there is a revolution or the state consolidates even more power. So Kim Jong-Il came to power on top of the now massive state apparatus and decimated third-world economy. An interesting side note here, is that the rates of starvation and malnutrition at the worst point in North Korea were still not as bad as decent years in India and some other capitalist nations.
As much as I personally hate quoting Zizek, I remember him saying something about when an economy stops working is when the state needs to portray leaders as super-heroes. This explains largely the cult of personality developed around the dear leaders (though that did begin before the economic collapse just not in as disgusting of a manifestation).
Now this is nothing new, though I just recently learned most of it, but here is where my analysis is going to differ from typically advanced notions of North Korea. Following the collapse of both the means and modes of production, North Korea had three resources, those being a rather large population/workforce, land that is somewhat fertile, and an immense, well-armed military and state apparatus. The important thing for both the survival of the state and the people was to end the famine and begin production of food on any scale; desperation was a key factor.
Now other areas of the world where unworked land was settled and no technological advancement had begun, what developed tended to be a slave society. Look, for example at annexations of the Roman empire and, most notably the colonies in the southern part of what is now the United States. The southern part of North America was, similar to North Korea, where the three main resources were guns, laborers and land. The development of resources relied on vast amounts of compulsory labor with the minimum advancement of capital. The class system in these instances developed differently, however. It is important to note that there is no slave owning class in North Korea, so the fact that it developed without private property does make it qualitatively different from these past slave societies. I will assert, however, that the modes of production, and most importantly the development of the slave class, mirror those societies closely enough that North Korea can most correctly be identified as a new slave society rather than a socialist, state capitalist, feudalist, or any other description.
The most obvious incarnation of the slave class is in the prison camps, where malnutrition and human rights abuses are reported from even the anti-imperialist sources (to be fair, the lack of knowledge of North Korea makes every source unreliable). This is where a steady stream of dissenters, criminals, and people disliked by the regime are sent to labor under horrid conditions for no pay under physical compulsion, that is slave labor. These slaves are watched over by government officials, or people without power themselves, carrying out the interests of those above them. These people and their class interests mirror those of the paid overseers in other slave societies.
Now, the more interesting, and less clear cut, case is that of those in the DPRK incarnations of the iron rice bowl. Under Mao, the iron rice bowl would be a fairly self-contained society, where people would farm and be provided for on the basis of each collective. That is, people would get health care, food, shelter and other necessities through the collective and even be provided for in retirement. In the instance in the DPRK, the rights of the workers in these collectives are suppressed to the extent that their work becomes exploitative and compulsory. And the general lack of food implied the theft of the workers in the iron rice bowl to provide food for those in the government and the model city Pyongyang.
Now, what marked past slave societies as progressive in their time, such as Greece and Rome, was the development of a class freed from the draining requirements of mundane labor. In the past, this led to an explosion in art, literature, philosophy, and science, due to leisure time given to those in positions of privilege. In the case of North Korea, there are many brilliant scientists, military professionals, health care professionals, and other academics. While these people all operate under the control of the state, their academic achievements are possible on the basis of being provided for by the legions of those under compulsory labor. And though it is difficult to gauge the successes of those due to the isolation of the new "hermit kingdom," the fact that many of the missiles used by Iran, and other developed capitalist nations are made by North Korean technology and manufacturers implies a good deal of competency by those granted privilege in the DPRK.
Unlike Rome, Greece, and the 18th century southern United States, the DPRK is under an ever-present existential threat. Consolidation of political power was far less important in other slave societies (especially because the slave owning class had all of the political and economic power already). This is why these classes are manufactured and controlled by the state apparatus. This removes the typical manifestation of class contradictions and renders the oppression due to the bonapartist regime (bonapartist because it is defending the interests of the privileged class, which, without the state wouldn't even be conscious enough of their privilege to maintain it over those in the communes and prison camps).
Thus, North Korea is a neo-slave society kept functioning by a powerful bonapartist regime.
This idea occurred recently while reading about North Korea in an attempt to understand what is going on in that odd country. Clearly this is not a well developed theory, and I would like input from others before attempting to develop it more. Of course, I am completely open to the idea that I am wrong about everything I said. Maybe I'll be on to something, or hopefully, at the very least, I can serve as a catalyst to generate discussion on the path of the new hermit kingdom.
As a Marxist, I typically detest the idea that an occurrence, especially where a society is concerned, happens as just an anomaly. However, I, and several other comrades, push the discussion on North Korea to the side without much of a thought saying something to the effect of "North Korea is a strange place." Now I do not consider myself an expert on North Korea, nor do I consider myself even an expert in Marxist analysis. I had an idea recently while trying to research a bit of North Korean history that may or may not be of merit.
It is important when concerning a matter dialectically to begin with where a society is coming from. Korea is historically a nation (or two or three) that has ranged from regional empire to victim of imperialism to several centuries of isolation. One would think foreign rulers might be talking about modern North Korea, but the Korean Empire for a good deal of the 15th through 18th centuries was dubbed the "Hermit Kingdom." Korean self-reliance is a cultural trait that extends a long time before the advent of Juche. Now at the beginning of the 20th century Korea was occupied by Japan with brutal conditions forced on the workers who were exploited to create wealth for the Japanese empire. The Japanese empire tried to suppress the Korean language and destroyed many cultural artifacts to combat the independent spirit that had become ingrained in Korean culture. This occupation continued through several uprisings until the end of World War II.
After World War II, Korea was taken from Japan and divided into North and South Korea meant essentially to serve as colonies for the victors. The rather arbitrary division and the former inter-connectedness of the Korean economy exacerbated the contradictions between the newly developing socialist north and the newly developing capitalist south. This began the Korean War in 1950 barely 5 years after the creation of the two states. The end of this war brought with it isolation between the two Koreas which was necessary due to the incompatibility of the two systems.
Kim Il-Sung became a popular figure in North Korea especially due to the idea of self-reliance, which was, to a culture utterly raped (both figuratively and literally) for the past 50+ years, uniting and hopeful. Due to objective factors such as 1950's Moscow style bureaucracy providing the blueprint for political development, and the ever-present existential threat posed by the nearby imperialist nations requiring the massive expansion of the state and military, the North Korean bureaucracy (largely with the support of the population) grew quite large. Over the next few decades, with imports of resources and technology from the USSR and China, the planned economy was able to industrialize North Korea very quickly. It wasn't until the seventies when the South began to receive imports of capital from imperialist nations that it was able to match the North in industrial capacity. It was also around this time that North Korea was having trouble managing its economy with a centrally governed authority, so its development plateaued, though still at a very high level with a decent standard of living.
In the early nineties, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the complete collapse of the economy in North Korea. North Korea relied heavily on oil (as does every industrialized nation) and the sudden embargo from all imperialist countries shut down all manufacturing. Even fertilizer in North Korea was produced by machines requiring oil (just like all industrialized nations) so a famine swept through the country. Immediately following this, Kim Il-Sung died, leaving the North in a crisis of leadership. As happens in every country faced with a deep economic crisis with a state apparatus in crisis, either there is a revolution or the state consolidates even more power. So Kim Jong-Il came to power on top of the now massive state apparatus and decimated third-world economy. An interesting side note here, is that the rates of starvation and malnutrition at the worst point in North Korea were still not as bad as decent years in India and some other capitalist nations.
As much as I personally hate quoting Zizek, I remember him saying something about when an economy stops working is when the state needs to portray leaders as super-heroes. This explains largely the cult of personality developed around the dear leaders (though that did begin before the economic collapse just not in as disgusting of a manifestation).
Now this is nothing new, though I just recently learned most of it, but here is where my analysis is going to differ from typically advanced notions of North Korea. Following the collapse of both the means and modes of production, North Korea had three resources, those being a rather large population/workforce, land that is somewhat fertile, and an immense, well-armed military and state apparatus. The important thing for both the survival of the state and the people was to end the famine and begin production of food on any scale; desperation was a key factor.
Now other areas of the world where unworked land was settled and no technological advancement had begun, what developed tended to be a slave society. Look, for example at annexations of the Roman empire and, most notably the colonies in the southern part of what is now the United States. The southern part of North America was, similar to North Korea, where the three main resources were guns, laborers and land. The development of resources relied on vast amounts of compulsory labor with the minimum advancement of capital. The class system in these instances developed differently, however. It is important to note that there is no slave owning class in North Korea, so the fact that it developed without private property does make it qualitatively different from these past slave societies. I will assert, however, that the modes of production, and most importantly the development of the slave class, mirror those societies closely enough that North Korea can most correctly be identified as a new slave society rather than a socialist, state capitalist, feudalist, or any other description.
The most obvious incarnation of the slave class is in the prison camps, where malnutrition and human rights abuses are reported from even the anti-imperialist sources (to be fair, the lack of knowledge of North Korea makes every source unreliable). This is where a steady stream of dissenters, criminals, and people disliked by the regime are sent to labor under horrid conditions for no pay under physical compulsion, that is slave labor. These slaves are watched over by government officials, or people without power themselves, carrying out the interests of those above them. These people and their class interests mirror those of the paid overseers in other slave societies.
Now, the more interesting, and less clear cut, case is that of those in the DPRK incarnations of the iron rice bowl. Under Mao, the iron rice bowl would be a fairly self-contained society, where people would farm and be provided for on the basis of each collective. That is, people would get health care, food, shelter and other necessities through the collective and even be provided for in retirement. In the instance in the DPRK, the rights of the workers in these collectives are suppressed to the extent that their work becomes exploitative and compulsory. And the general lack of food implied the theft of the workers in the iron rice bowl to provide food for those in the government and the model city Pyongyang.
Now, what marked past slave societies as progressive in their time, such as Greece and Rome, was the development of a class freed from the draining requirements of mundane labor. In the past, this led to an explosion in art, literature, philosophy, and science, due to leisure time given to those in positions of privilege. In the case of North Korea, there are many brilliant scientists, military professionals, health care professionals, and other academics. While these people all operate under the control of the state, their academic achievements are possible on the basis of being provided for by the legions of those under compulsory labor. And though it is difficult to gauge the successes of those due to the isolation of the new "hermit kingdom," the fact that many of the missiles used by Iran, and other developed capitalist nations are made by North Korean technology and manufacturers implies a good deal of competency by those granted privilege in the DPRK.
Unlike Rome, Greece, and the 18th century southern United States, the DPRK is under an ever-present existential threat. Consolidation of political power was far less important in other slave societies (especially because the slave owning class had all of the political and economic power already). This is why these classes are manufactured and controlled by the state apparatus. This removes the typical manifestation of class contradictions and renders the oppression due to the bonapartist regime (bonapartist because it is defending the interests of the privileged class, which, without the state wouldn't even be conscious enough of their privilege to maintain it over those in the communes and prison camps).
Thus, North Korea is a neo-slave society kept functioning by a powerful bonapartist regime.
This idea occurred recently while reading about North Korea in an attempt to understand what is going on in that odd country. Clearly this is not a well developed theory, and I would like input from others before attempting to develop it more. Of course, I am completely open to the idea that I am wrong about everything I said. Maybe I'll be on to something, or hopefully, at the very least, I can serve as a catalyst to generate discussion on the path of the new hermit kingdom.