What is the class nature of the North Korean regime? [Archive]

subcp

16th July 2013, 15:29

State capitalist; like all other nation-states. The ideological bent of the regime means little to the operation of capital in North Korea, which is tied to the international bourgeoisie.

ex.

The Rason Special Economic Zone, earlier called the Rajin-Sonbong Economic Special Zone, was established in the early 1990s by the North Korean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean) government (DPRK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPRK)) near Rason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rason) to promote economic growth through foreign investment. It is similar to the Special Economic Zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Economic_Zone) set up by the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) and elsewhere to pilot market economics in a designated controlled area. It is near the border with both China and Russia and is a warm-water port (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm-water_port) for both countries.
Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) and Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) companies have invested in the economic zone, and the use of foreign currency is permitted. Bloomberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweek) reported that ground was broken in June 2011 on a further development stage of the zone. In November 2011, work began on building electricity transmission lines that will provide Chinese electricity supplies in the zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajin-Sonbong_Economic_Special_Zone

"The modern state regardless of its form is... the ideal collective capitalist. The more productive forces it takes into its possession... so many more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers, proletarians. The capitalist relation is not eliminated." - Engels, Anti-Duhring

“…the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies [trusts] and state property show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist are now performed by salaried employees.” op. cit. p. 385 (Moscow 1954)

"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" - Communist Manifesto

Taken by itself, regime's like those in North Korea, which seems more extreme than those in Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and China, may seem different somehow but really is based on the same underlying social relations. Neither state property or a one-party state change the base nature of these regimes and the economic apparatus they manage.

connoros

16th July 2013, 18:44

It is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, that's for sure. Ideologically, it's supposed to be something akin to Mao's "democratic dictatorship" in which the national bourgeoisie is somehow transformed into a socialist force by cooperation with the exploited classes.

Teacher

17th July 2013, 01:59

Hard to give it a name. I would definitely not call it a capitalist state although I suspect it might increasingly become more and more like China.

Homo Songun

17th July 2013, 05:43

The DPRK is Socialist.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

17th July 2013, 06:19

The DPRK is Socialist.

Mao once said that the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is class rule, in what way does the proletariat exersize a dictatorship in North Korea?

Taters

17th July 2013, 06:22

The DPRK is Socialist.

Gotta love one-liners. How is it even vaguely socialist? Is hereditary succession something a "socialist country" does?

celticnachos

17th July 2013, 07:15

How can the DPRK be state capitalist and apply Juche at the same time?

jookyle

17th July 2013, 09:01

The answer is not so simple as to say whether North Korea is socialist or not. The idea that the situation is so black and white is absurd. I think the most simple explanation of what North Korea looks like today(because if one knows their history they know they North Korea had such a boom in economy and living conditions before the fall of the Soviet Union that even liberal economists admitted their awe when looking at the growth) that North Korea is a more a product of one country with limited natural resources trying to remain socialist while 99.9% of the world work against it. The soil is extremely hard to farm is the region is mostly mountainous; not to mention the damage done to the land from the Korean War. Fishing is possible but limited as the space of ocean the DPRK can sail it's ships is limited by political boundaries. The state of North Korea today has more to do with their persistence to not giving into the capitalist world than it stems directly from some preconceived attempt to establish state capitalism.

Ace High

17th July 2013, 09:14

It is absurd to even attempt to make any type of argument putting the Kims in a good light. Every single person with a brain in their skulls can figure out that the Kims' little dynasty is not at all anywhere near any type of socialist model. I agree with Tuwix, calling it a feudal state.

Flying Purple People Eater

17th July 2013, 09:39

The DPRK is Socialist.

I'd just like to let you know that people like you are a part of what makes people want to run into Glenn Beck and Ron Pauls' outstretched arms.

'The DPRK is socialist' not even the most horrible of stalinoid demagogues believe this shit. You must be a real special case.

Forced labour in horrendous conditions (often outsourced to Russia and China at low cost) with little to no pay, and with threats against would-be refugees of what will happen to their family if they escape, obstruction of scientific and historical education for personality/ mysticist cults, strict policing of personalities into empty stereotypes and gender-roles (see 'Socialist hairstyle' or 'Correct names for Korean women'), ultranationalism, complete and utter militarisation of the population and rule by a hereditary monarch and his decadent, affluent, capitalist buddies. These are the characteristics of socialism, yeah?

I'm not going to lie when I say that people like you make me sick. And don't even try that 'US supporter' liberal chain-argument you right-wing pieces of shit are so fond of using to draw attention to the fact that you called that fucking hellhole 'socialism'. Judging from this and older posts of yours, I find it unbelievable that you aren't at the very least restricted for your Kim family ass-kissing.

Ace High

17th July 2013, 09:43

I'd just like to let you know that people like you are a part of what makes people want to run into Glenn Beck and Ron Pauls' outstretched arms.

'The DPRK is socialist' not even the most horrible of stalinoid demagogues believe this shit. You must be a real special case.

Forced labour in horrendous conditions (often outsourced to Russia and China at low cost) with little to no pay, and with threats against would-be refugees of what will happen to their family if they escape, obstruction of scientific and historical education for personality/ mysticist cults, strict policing of personalities into empty stereotypes and gender-roles (see 'Socialist hairstyle' or 'Correct names for Korean women'), ultranationalism, complete and utter militarisation of the population and rule by a hereditary monarch and his decadent, affluent, capitalist buddies. These are the characteristics of socialism, yeah?

I'm not going to lie when I say that people like you make me sick. And don't even try that 'US supporter' liberal chain-argument you right-wing pieces of shit are so fond of using to draw attention to the fact that you called that fucking hellhole 'socialism'. Judging from this and older posts of yours, I find it unbelievable that you aren't at the very least restricted for your Kim family ass-kissing.

THANK YOU. These are the words I have been wanting to say to people who show support for the DPRK. I almost can't even believe he was being serious when he said that. But nevertheless, what you said summed up my feelings perfectly.

Homo Songun

17th July 2013, 16:14

Mao once said that the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is class rule, in what way does the proletariat exersize a dictatorship in North Korea?
Its simple really. The Workers Party and the Peoples Army play the leading role in their society, and they basically represent the interests of the proletariat as a class.

I don't see any other economic class in control: I've read alot of about how "the Kims" are like, really big awful ole meanies and stuff. I've heard people toss around alot of terms like "state capitalist" in a general way. But I've never seen a serious examination of the political economy of DPRK that shows how there is a coherent class of people privately owning the means of production, purchasing labor as a commodity, extracting surplus value from it, M-C-M' etc.

Fred

17th July 2013, 17:28

Its simple really. The Workers Party and the Peoples Army play the leading role in their society, and they basically represent the interests of the proletariat as a class.

I don't see any other economic class in control: I've read alot of about how "the Kims" are like, really big awful ole meanies and stuff. I've heard people toss around alot of terms like "state capitalist" in a general way. But I've never seen a serious examination of the political economy of DPRK that shows how there is a coherent class of people privately owning the means of production, purchasing labor as a commodity, extracting surplus value from it, M-C-M' etc.

Well, socialist it is not. But you are quite correct to point out that the terms being bandied about "feudal" or "state capitalist" are more like epithets than meaningful characterizations. IMO, North Korea is a deformed workers' state -- with a plan collectivized economy, and no bourgeoisie, really. The conditions are pretty bad, and one might say this is a very deformed workers' state. Yeah the Kims suck. But unless you want to argue that they represent a new class phenomenon, which seems highly unlikely you wind up with the idea that they are Stalinist bureaucrats that benefit from the property forms of a workers' state.

Delenda Carthago

17th July 2013, 18:19

Can I ask where everyone is getting the info so that they can analyse the issue? How do you know whether DPRK is whatever you believe it is? Cause as far I checked, I couldnt find info for the majority of its economy and social system in order to make conclusions.

Ace High

17th July 2013, 20:05

Its simple really. The Workers Party and the Peoples Army play the leading role in their society, and they basically represent the interests of the proletariat as a class.

I don't see any other economic class in control: I've read alot of about how "the Kims" are like, really big awful ole meanies and stuff. I've heard people toss around alot of terms like "state capitalist" in a general way. But I've never seen a serious examination of the political economy of DPRK that shows how there is a coherent class of people privately owning the means of production, purchasing labor as a commodity, extracting surplus value from it, M-C-M' etc.

There is NO economy to examine! If you don't have the brain power to recognize a feudal state led by a monarchy masquerading as leftist heroes, then please see a doctor. Oh wait, you can't see a doctor if you're in North Korea though because the Kims refuse medical aid to their people. Oh wait, can't learn about medicine either, because all the books are ramblings of how Kim Il Sung is a god and shoots colorful unicorns out of his asshole.

connoros

17th July 2013, 20:21

KurtFF8

17th July 2013, 20:36

Ace High

17th July 2013, 20:46

In other words, you glanced at MSNBC one night and now you're smarter than anyone asking honest questions about the political economy of north Korea. Got it.

LOL. I know more about North Korea than most people. If you are trying to accuse me of buying into the corporate media, then that is hilarious. In fact, I was trying to get a visa to visit the DPRK before Kim Jong Un's fat ass started to intimidate me.

Anyway, since you are accusing me of being a brainwashed tard with my MSNBC, please do explain to me how the Kims have improved that prosperous (HAHAHAHA) country.

connoros

17th July 2013, 21:22

LOL. I know more about North Korea than most people. If you are trying to accuse me of buying into the corporate media, then that is hilarious. In fact, I was trying to get a visa to visit the DPRK before Kim Jong Un's fat ass started to intimidate me.

Anyway, since you are accusing me of being a brainwashed tard with my MSNBC, please do explain to me how the Kims have improved that prosperous (HAHAHAHA) country.

I totally believe that, which is why your materialist analysis was so nuanced and in depth. You're gonna get yourself banned if you really can't do anything more on these forums that act like a spoiled brat.

Comrade #138672

17th July 2013, 21:44

How is North Korea feudalism?

Also, why couldn't it be state capitalist? Because that's what I believe it is. It doesn't have to be efficient or anything to qualify as state capitalist. The fundamental relationships are more important. Although I wouldn't really know how (in)efficient it is.

It can't be socialism, because of the simple fact that it's limited to one country. Is it ever possible for a country, that is basically cornered by imperialist powers, to be socialist or even moving towards socialism? It's only a matter of time before they fall on their knees without "other" dictatorships of the proletariat backing them up. Just like what happened with the USSR.

Point Blank

18th July 2013, 00:59

Its simple really. The Workers Party and the Peoples Army play the leading role in their society, and they basically represent the interests of the proletariat as a class.

I don't get how the proletariat and its class interests can be genuinely represented by organs of power so detached from the working class itself, so retrograde, repressive and patronising in their methods and so similar to the institutions of the bourgeois society in their internal functioning.

If you're going to pull out a one-liner full of mysticism with zero analysis like 'The Party is most class conscious section of the proletariat' or 'The Party is educating the masses and leading them towards socialism', then don't bother replying.

I also doubt you know what "socialist" means. North Korea, to my knowledge, isn't a post-commodity economy, still maintains wage labour, etc. (so much for superseding capitalist social relations). You seem to be confusing it with "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Homo Songun

18th July 2013, 04:38

I don't get how the proletariat and its class interests can be genuinely represented by organs of power so detached from the working class itself, so retrograde, repressive and patronising in their methods and so similar to the institutions of the bourgeois society in their internal functioning.

[snip vapid insult]

I also doubt you know what "socialist" means. North Korea, to my knowledge, isn't a post-commodity economy, still maintains wage labour, etc. (so much for superseding capitalist social relations). You seem to be confusing it with "dictatorship of the proletariat".

I'm well aware that there is a certain political line that draws a sharp distinction between "socialist" and "dictatorship of the proletariat". I don't think it makes much sense to do so, and neither did Marx. He noted that labor-as-a-commodity, as well as other features of the capitalist mode of production continue to exist under socialism. Marx wrote about this in Critique of the Gotha Programme, from which is derived one of his most famous quotes:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

Setting that aside, please note that I was directly responding to a poster that specifically posed the question of class dictatorship, not socialism. Said poster was from a tradition (Maoism) that hews to the view (correctly IMO) that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessary condition for socialism. That is why I addressed the question on his own terms.

I will say this: your post illustrates the problem I originally raised perfectly. You bring up several key dogmas of the "left communist" line, which is your right. But you have said nothing concretely about the political economy of the DPRK in light of that line.

Ace High

18th July 2013, 04:43

I totally believe that, which is why your materialist analysis was so nuanced and in depth. You're gonna get yourself banned if you really can't do anything more on these forums that act like a spoiled brat.

I don't understand your hostility to be honest. I'm going to get myself banned because you accused me of watching MSNBC and I responded with a snide comment? Tsk tsk, butthurt much. It's one thing to disagree with me, but personal attacks actually make you seem like a child. You're kind of making a fool of yourself to be honest. So why don't you tone down your aggression for a bit and have a logical conversation? You haven't even refuted any of my points, just accused me of being....well, a different opinion than yours I guess. Anyway, tone down the butthurt a little.

LOLseph Stalin

18th July 2013, 06:18

It's pretty hard to place tbh. Deformed workers' state? I'll go with that I suppose >.>

Ace High

18th July 2013, 06:27

A workers' state does not have a ruling family with a dynastic handover based on bloodline. It does not have such guidelines as the socialist haircut and clear gender stereotypes for women. It does not have severe starvation and lack of even electricity in most of the nation.

But North Korea has all those traits. Therefore, how is it a workers' state at all? Just because they say they are? You all are falling for obvious propaganda.

Forward Union

18th July 2013, 06:39

It's somewhere between the wild state of man an early Feudalism.

Sea

18th July 2013, 07:10

LOL. I know more about North Korea than most people. If you are trying to accuse me of buying into the corporate media, then that is hilarious. In fact, I was trying to get a visa to visit the DPRK before Kim Jong Un's fat ass started to intimidate me. Oh fun, it's story time! Tell us more about how you were intimidated by Kim Jr.'s fat ass, ace!

Anyway, since you are accusing me of being a brainwashed tard with my MSNBC, please do explain to me how the Kims have improved that prosperous (HAHAHAHA) country.The vast majority of the world proletariat are under some sort of false consciousness or another. If you're so impatient as to resort to mockery at the first sign of (what you perceive as) brainwashing, you're not going to get very far as a revolutionary activist. Watch your mouth, too. Your discriminatory and childish insults (tard) are not welcome here.

If you do know a good bit about North Korea, you should seriously consider contributing to this thread. Even I occasionally make a useful post now and then, so it should not be so hard to do. You claim to have knowledge, and yet you keep it to yourself, spewing insults at anyone who asks to know more. If you are not willing to share what you know and help the curious learn, you should not bother posting at all. I, for one, would certainly like to know more about the economic situation in the DPRK.

Don't expect to be taken seriously until you show yourself capable of engaging the questions you provoke.

Ace High

18th July 2013, 07:15

Oh fun, it's story time! Tell us more about how you were intimidated by Kim Jr.'s fat ass, ace!

The vast majority of the world proletariat are under some sort of false consciousness or another. If you're so impatient as to resort to mockery at the first sign of (what you perceive as) brainwashing, you're not going to get very far as a revolutionary activist.

Watch your mouth, too. Your discriminatory and childish insults (tard) are not welcome here.

Story time, ok, well, I do live in America, and his recent tirades have prompted me not to visit. I really just wanted to see the place because it was the last stronghold of a failed feudal state run by a warlord, and the vast array of propaganda and the cult around the Kims is fascinating. But they are monsters.

Ok, if I am being censored, I will not use insults. People are so sensitive these days though. Why the sensitivity? We are posting on an internet forum, calm down, my friend.

Sea

18th July 2013, 07:21

Story time, ok, well, I do live in America, and his recent tirades have prompted me not to visit. I really just wanted to see the place because it was the last stronghold of a failed feudal state run by a warlord, and the vast array of propaganda and the cult around the Kims is fascinating. But they are monsters.We have plenty of propaganda surrounding Washington, Kennedy, Lincoln, and other oppressive ruling-class fiends. I really don't know what makes Kim worthy of the extra fetishism.

Ok, if I am being censored, I will not use insults. People are so sensitive these days though. Why the sensitivity? We are posting on an internet forum, calm down, my friend.If you could only take the time out of your day to think before you type there would be no need for censorship.

Ace High

18th July 2013, 07:34

We have plenty of propaganda surrounding Washington, Kennedy, Lincoln, and other oppressive ruling-class fiends. I really don't know what makes Kim worthy of the extra fetishism.

If you could only take the time out of your day to think before you type there would be no need for censorship.

You think I am unaware of capitalist propaganda? Sure, I could go on for pages long examples of capitalist propaganda. But we are already aware of that on this forum. But what we seem to be unaware of is to be able to tell when a regime is pretending to be leftist when they are actually not at all. That is very strange that you don't see the difference between a successful leftist government such as say, Cuba, and a failed feudal dynasty in the DPRK.

And ok, ok, fair enough with the insult thing. Besides, I was saying HE thought I was a "tard" so it's not like I called him that. But if you are referring to the being offended by the world then fair enough.

Sea

18th July 2013, 20:26

You think I am unaware of capitalist propaganda? Sure, I could go on for pages long examples of capitalist propaganda. But we are already aware of that on this forum. But what we seem to be unaware of is to be able to tell when a regime is pretending to be leftist when they are actually not at all.I'm not arguing in favor of that silly little political leper colony. I never have in this thread, never have on this forum, and I certainly don't plan on starting.

That is very strange that you don't see the difference between a successful leftist government such as say, Cuba, and a failed feudal dynasty in the DPRK.So when the succession is from Fidel Castro to Raul Castro, it's alright, but when the succession is from Jim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un, it's not? Whether it's Castro's cronies or Kim's cronies makes no fucking difference. Both are just as bad. Perhaps you should take your little vacation to the Cuban wonderland instead.

edit: Also, you've yet to demonstrate any knowledge about North Korea that you claim to have. I'm inclined to think that you were talking out of your ass.

Ace High

18th July 2013, 20:32

I'm not arguing in favor of that silly little political leper colony. I never have in this thread, never have on this forum, and I certainly don't plan on starting.
So when the succession is from Fidel Castro to Raul Castro, it's alright, but when the succession is from Jim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un, it's not? Whether it's Castro's cronies or Kim's cronies makes no fucking difference. Both are just as bad. Perhaps you should take your little vacation to the Cuban wonderland instead.

Cuba is not based on a dynastic handover just because Raul took power. Fidel is still alive. Just too weak to really run the country anymore. So he appointed his brother. Yes, he should not have done that, but it isn't really a dynastic handover. Plus, there is no personality cult centered around the Castros, plus they improved Cuba, not impoverished it.

But then again, you said you weren't really arguing for the Kims didn't you?

Ceallach_the_Witch

18th July 2013, 21:16

North Korea (as I see it) has a tightly controlled command economy administered by the elite of the communist party and the supreme leader - and of course, it is heavily influenced by the needs of the enormous army and its generals - who are usually high-ranking party members anyway.

We know that there is some very limited private enterprise, we know that they use money. We also know that what surplus in production there is is confiscated by the state, and we know workers recieve a tiny wage, much smaller than the value of what they are able to produce. Sound familiar? Because I believe that closely mirrors capitalism. The difference here is that production is controlled by the machinery of the state (Kim, the Party and the army) rather than a private class of capitalists. Thus, we are able to term it a "state-capitalist" nation.

To further elaborate: the collective farms, factories, hospitals, schools and prison camps and even the housing complexes are all the property of the state - outside of a few strictly regulated markets there is no private ownership. The citizens of North Korea must work to secure a wage to live (as people work everywhere) They are paid less than the value of goods they produce (we know this because the state regulates what everyone can be paid - GDP per capita is less than 2000 US dollars) The surplus value, of course, goes to the state, ostensibly for the "good of the people". We can take a guess from the opulent palaces of high-ranking party members and the various vanity projects of the leaders that this surplus value largely goes into the pockets of the rulers of North Korea.

This is a relatively simple and pretty obvious analysis that results in the expected answer.

North Korea is a State Capitalist regime with a tightly controlled economy and populace. The rhetoric of the state when it addresses its' people and the rest of the world is very militaristic and nationalistic - and often designed to confuse or frighten. Yes, the workers there haven't just suffered thanks to their leaders - international trade embargoes have more or less forced it into the state of a hermit-state and workers' hell - but regardless of how badly it has been interfered with by the rest of the world it is NOT a socialist or Worker's state.

E:

and on another note I won't defend Cuba either for reasons I outlined in another thread. Yes, Cuba is better off than it was before, but that alone a socialist state does not make.

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2013, 23:08

I'm well aware that there is a certain political line that draws a sharp distinction between "socialist" and "dictatorship of the proletariat". I don't think it makes much sense to do so, and neither did Marx.

Nope, that's not true. Marx didn't think that socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat were synonymous, complementary, etc.

He noted that labor-as-a-commodity, as well as other features of the capitalist mode of production continue to exist under socialism. Marx wrote about this in Critique of the Gotha Programme, from which is derived one of his most famous quotes:

Actually, Marx isn't saying that. Let's look at this quote from Critique of the Gotha Programme closer along with some other quotes from the same work. So, looking at the quote you posted again.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

Nowhere in this does Marx say labor as a commodity, etc. would exist within socialism. Of course any society that transitions from a previous one would have some "birthmarks" from the old society, but that doesn't mean it contains essential and very important aspects from the old society. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the final stage of capitalism (not an intermediate society or a "socialist" society), but it still exists within capitalism.

To quote Marx again, from the same work:

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx seems pretty clear here. While their may be a political transition, economically the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat exists as a capitalist society, albeit one that is dying and one that is reproducing itself less and less, until it is abolished.

While I am not an impossibilist, and while I disagree with the Socialist Party of Great Britain on some things, their line of thought on this is, I think, completely correct. I would urge you to read this article by them on the subject.

That for Marx the “transition period” was the period after the capture of political power by the working class and before the actual establishment of the common ownership of the means of production is clear both from his early and his later writings.

In 1852 he wrote to his friend Weydemeyer in America that one of the things he had proved was that “the dictatorship of the proletariat” (as he called the period of working class control of state power) “only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society”(emphasis added). Engels summarizes his own and Marx’s view in 1873 as follows:

“The views of German scientific socialism on the necessity of political action by the proletariat and of its dictatorship as the transition to the abolition of classes and with them of the state. . .” (emphasis added).

The transition period, then, is the period up to the establishment of the common ownership of the means of production.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/myth-transitional-society

The Workers Party and the Peoples Army play the leading role in their society, and they basically represent the interests of the proletariat as a class.

Since you're are the one making this claim, please prove it. I'm not really sure how things like the "special economic zones" that another user mentioned represent the historical class interest of the working-class (how they represent the, at least attempt, to end the daily reproduction of capitalist social relations).

I've heard people toss around alot of terms like "state capitalist" in a general way. But I've never seen a serious examination of the political economy of DPRK that shows how there is a coherent class of people privately owning the means of production, purchasing labor as a commodity, extracting surplus value from it, M-C-M' etc.

The state owns the means of production. There is a group of people, who stand in a specific relation to the production process, who do not own the means of production (as they have been monopolized in a general sense by the state) who have to sell their alienated labor to a state bureaucracy, which accumulates the surplus product this group of class of people produce. Capital takes on more and more of an abstract form. Who owns McDonalds? A various number of stock owners. This isn't a "coherent" description of specific people, yet we can agree that McDonalds is a capitalist firm that accumulates the surplus product of it's workers, etc. In this same general sense, the state takes the place of the capitalist, buying alienated labor on the market, accumulating capital, etc. The DPRK is most obviously a capitalist nation state.

G4b3n

19th July 2013, 03:21

It is a degenerated worker's state, like one would expect any "worker's state" to be.

Homo Songun

19th July 2013, 05:56

He noted that labor-as-a-commodity, as well as other features of the capitalist mode of production continue to exist under socialism. Marx wrote about this in Critique of the Gotha Programme, from which is derived one of his most famous quotes: Actually, Marx isn't saying that. Let's look at this quote from Critique of the Gotha Programme closer along with some other quotes from the same work. So, looking at the quote you posted again.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

Nowhere in this does Marx say labor as a commodity, etc. would exist within socialism. Of course any society that transitions from a previous one would have some "birthmarks" from the old society, but that doesn't mean it contains essential and very important aspects from the old society. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the final stage of capitalism (not an intermediate society or a "socialist" society), but it still exists within capitalism.

Your myopia is astonishing. Literally the next sentence in the passage:

Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.et cetera.

At any rate, nowhere does he say that the abolition of wages (in an abstract sense) is a necessary precondition for the dictatorship of the proletariat to somehow give way to socialism proper. Just the opposite:

Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it. Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself.

In other words socialism takes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Full communism takes the form of material abundance and the abolition of bourgeois right ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.")

If that is not clear enough, further on in the same text Marx ridicules the utopian preoccupation with 'distribution' and related questions at the expense of the real issue, that of class dictatorship:

Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?

Marx's position is clear.

The Workers Party and the Peoples Army play the leading role in their society, and they basically represent the interests of the proletariat as a class. Since you're are the one making this claim, please prove it. No, I'm not going to "prove" that the military and the WPK are the dominant institutions in DPRK, sorry. :lol:

baronci

19th July 2013, 06:53

it exists to serve capital in every way, anyone who calls it a "workers state" of any kind is not a communist of any kind

Homo Songun

19th July 2013, 17:24

baronci

19th July 2013, 17:39

KurtFF8

19th July 2013, 18:56

how could it be anything else? The entire world operates under the capitalist mode of production - nothing can exist without catering to the demands of capital, so to say that the North korean regime could possibly be operated under any other kind of 'system' is ridiculous.

Well I'm not sure this really follows. A mode of production, or a dominant mode of production, is not simply defined by the world mode of production. For example as capitalism because the dominant mop in Europe, it didn't automatically transform the rest of the world to become capitalist. This part happened over time, through class/political/nation state/etc. struggle.

Perhaps this is me nitpicking but I'm just not convinced by the argument that "well everyone else is capitalist, therefore country X must be capitalist!"

Just to clarify I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that the DPRK is a true workers state (or degenerated or whatnot) as I simply don't know enough about their economy and how it functions. I'm just not convinced by these arguments about its capitalist character (and even less convinced by the idea that it has a feudal character)

baronci

20th July 2013, 01:12

To exist as a stable and legally recognized society, the State of North Korea needs to abide by the rules of international capital. It could not even be in the shaky position that it's in today if it didn't sell slave labor to China, have relations with other anti-Western nations, and maintain a capitalist society. You might be able to pull a semantics argument over why it's "not capitalist" but you really can't show that it's "moving towards" socialism or whatever.

Ceallach_the_Witch

20th July 2013, 12:40

Homo Songun

20th July 2013, 15:48

Brotto RÃ¼hle

20th July 2013, 16:22

Well, class is determined by relations to the means of production. Are the workers in control/managing the means of production, or a separate entity, I.e. are the workers alienated from what they produce? Is the working class in control of the state apparatus, I.e. is the state apparatus a bourgeois or proletarian form?

To be quite blunt, we should understand, as Marxists, that there exists an exploiting class in North Korea. Although this class, unlike in liberal capitalist society, are A PART OF the state. The workers have no control/do not manage the means of production, and the state apparatus is clearly a bourgeois form. Anyone who suggests that the place is socialist, a workers state, or a degenerated workers state, is kidding themselves. It is a state capitalist society, bar none.

KurtFF8

20th July 2013, 22:38

To be quite blunt, we should understand, as Marxists, that there exists an exploiting class in North Korea. Although this class, unlike in liberal capitalist society, are A PART OF the state. The workers have no control/do not manage the means of production, and the state apparatus is clearly a bourgeois form. Anyone who suggests that the place is socialist, a workers state, or a degenerated workers state, is kidding themselves. It is a state capitalist society, bar none.

Although this would be a non-Marxist definition. To have a bureaucracy itself be the ruling class in the same way that the capitalist class in a Western liberal democracy is not the way Marx analyzes capitalism whatsoever.

I'm not unwilling to hear arguments that the DPRK is capitalist (I have no particular affinity towards the state), although I have just yet to see anyone put forward anything more than a claim rather than an argument.

Ceallach_the_Witch

20th July 2013, 23:10

Thanks, but what I'm asking for is specifically a "state capitalist" analysis of North Korea. That is just the CIA World Factbook. I'm not trying to play a game here, but I'm stunned that such an easily lobbed label by so many people has absolutely nothing to back it up.
Personally I think you've already been well provided with analysies of North Korea that explain why the label of "state-capitalist" is attached to it, but i suppose I can't really fault you for demanding really concrete evidence (irritatingly hard to find as it is.) I'll provide a few links later in this post with (hopefully) the arguments you're looking for, but surely by this point you would have to concede that North Korea is a fundamentally capitalist state regardless of how it practises capitalism.

I suppose there is some confusion too over the terminology - after all, states themselves are part of the structure and functioning of capitalism - in that respect perhaps all states are state capitalist - but in the use of the term here we mean a nation where capital is partially or wholly controlled by the state i.e we find a ruling class of ministers, bureaucrats and civil servants instead of venture capitalists and investors. This definition can be applied at one extreme to states like modern-day Scandinavia or mid-century Britain, and at the other, the former USSR and China.

As I have said several times, the running of the "workers' state" in North Korea has little or nothing to do with the workers - they are there to keep their heads down and work work work for a wage (and i have provided figures for that wage already) The state is administered by the Communist Party and the army, who (in theory) defer to the Leader in a highly centralised government. (http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2006/north-korea?page=22&year=2006&country=6993) These are not features of socialism, nor are they the features of feudalism - thus, we are only left with capitalism.

Ace High

20th July 2013, 23:26

I guess no matter how much evidence there is to show that the DPRK is an oppressive feudal nation (or state capitalism), people will believe anyone who spews out empty leftist rhetoric. I suppose if Hitler did away with the swastika, painted his flag red, then shouted about doing things in the interest of "the people", it would fool some of the posters on here. Regardless of what your actions are, just say you are leftist and leftists will believe you, it seems.

Rural Comrade

21st July 2013, 01:11

North Korea is a monarchy. A right wing monarchy at that with it's blatant racism in policy. For those of you who dont know this If a North Korean Woman comes back from China pregnant she must abort the child to keep the "gene pool clean".

subcp

21st July 2013, 01:43

Enough banalities. Does the state-capitalist camp here have anything analytical at all that uses empirical data from the DPRK? Lets set the bar low, say one table of data or one graph. Since the theory of state capitalism is a defining feature of the political line, and DPRK is fairly prominent in the news and geopolitics, I think its fair to say that there ought to be something out there. OK?You've repeated this request several times; do you deny the information I posted early in the thread that the state (North Korea), following the example of China (who created the archetype of the Special Economic Zone- which would, between the late '70s-today, be replicated in numerous former command economies or developing states), operates an SEZ?

State capitalism isn't an accusation; describing the organization of capital in the DPRK as state capitalist doesn't mean it is unique- state capitalism theory is based on the development of capitalism since the onset of permanent crisis (of overproduction), whose introduction at the turn of the 20th century is linked to the organic phenomenon of growing public sectors, inter-imperialist war (and the total war economy), etc. All states are 'state capitalist', even though the degree of state property varies between nations (especially apparent in the periphery where the Soviet-model command economy was the only means for underdeveloped areas to industrialize rapidly and compete on the same terrain as the capitalist center since the beginning of aforementioned structural crisis).

Unless you want to argue with someone about the various Trotskyist versions of "state capitalism theory" (like Tony Cliff, who, the story goes, woke up one morning, ran to his wife and said, 'Russia is state capitalist!'), which I don't think are worth defending and suffer the same problem as 'degenerated/deformed workers' state' theories.

The SEZ is a good example of the North Korean state managing capital directly, and illustrates clearly that not only is their economy based on capital, it is little different from the basics of every other state or domestic economy (waged labor, exchange, alienation). Though this (i.e. nationalized/state property) is just one feature typical of this stage of capitalism.

To the question earlier about Juche: it's just an ideology. Ideologies follow material reality- the foreign policy and domestic interests of the ruling-class. The 'Socialism' of the Soviet Union, 'Democracy' of the USA, etc. It all comes down to capital regardless of what the bourgeoisie and state functionaries say about their aims, their policies.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

21st July 2013, 03:18

Although this would be a non-Marxist definition. To have a bureaucracy itself be the ruling class in the same way that the capitalist class in a Western liberal democracy is not the way Marx analyzes capitalism whatsoever.

I'm not unwilling to hear arguments that the DPRK is capitalist (I have no particular affinity towards the state), although I have just yet to see anyone put forward anything more than a claim rather than an argument.

Marx was dead when this happened in Russia, North Korea, etc. As I said, we have to determine what each group in society is, by their relation to the means of production. We know there were workers, and an exploiting class. We know that the mode of production is that of capitalism, and that the state apparatus is bourgeois.

What more do you need?

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

21st July 2013, 04:24

I post this here as I would like a thorough discussion and not the usual "Kim is evil!!" etc type discussion.

What is this strange country? Is it a deformed workers state? A deformed bourgeois state?

Neither. It is a peasant State with a peculiar history. Not much differentiates the DPRK or other Third World Socialist countries from a feudal state, except its/their history of siding with socialist ideology and the Soviet Union by peasant strong man leaders (Kim Il Sung) who sought to make progressive change in their countries in light of decades of Imperialism that hindered the development of national industry, welfare, global state standing etc.

If forced to take sides, certainly would fall under the category of a "deformed bourgeois state".

Homo Songun

21st July 2013, 08:17

You've repeated this request several times; do you deny the information I posted early in the thread that the state (North Korea), following the example of China (who created the archetype of the Special Economic Zone- which would, between the late '70s-today, be replicated in numerous former command economies or developing states), operates an SEZ?

I don't deny the fact that Rason Special Economic Zone exists, nor the ROK-only Kaesong zone for that matter. It doesn't especially help argue the case for "state capitalism" though, because as you well know the state-capitalists don't claim those zones are what makes the DPRK capitalist. Rather, they (or the more level-headed amongst them at any rate) argue that it is the centralized economic planning and disbursement of wages that make it so, and both of those schemes far precede the establishment of the SEZs. Even if this were not the case, but rather the existence of the SEZs were the reason that the "state capitalist" theoreticians believe the DPRK is capitalist, it still remains for them prove (1) that a class of DPRK capitalists exist and (2) that they are in control of the state.

As for Marx, I already showed how the Critique of the Gotha Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/) demolishes the arguments of the Lassalleans that "distribution", the continued existence of commodified labor, or wages would be the determining factor under socialism as such. For Marx, the critical thing for socialism to exist is that the working class dominates the state. Nobody has shown any economic evidence that some other class is running things in the DPRK as a whole.

Additionally, I think we should consider the following practical points about the SEZs:

The UN was heavily involved in establishing the Rason SEZ during the environmental disasters back in the 1990s, implying that it was negotiated on behalf of the imperialists as a condition for receiving aid shipments at the time.
The DPRK regularly expels and then re-admits the South Koreans from Kaesong depending on current events. As of 2013 they are on the outs once again, strongly suggesting that its true function is more to as a tool of diplomacy for intra-Korean politics than anything else.
Total foreign capital investment in Rason is in the low tens of millions. This must represent a tiny fraction of the total DPRK economy. Even Bloomberg chafes that the Korean leadership is attitude is too "experimental" with regards to the Rason SEZ. And lets be honest, in comparison to what the Chinese, Vietnamese or even the Cubans are doing, these zones are pretty pathetic.

Unanswered questions:

If the DPRK is capitalist, where are the cyclical booms and busts? Where is the systemic unemployment that accompanies them? Where is the creative destruction of existing capital, endemic to every other capitalist society? Where is the mandatory expansion of capital into neighbouring territories? And so on...

Karlorax

21st July 2013, 09:34

There is a book called _The Cleanest Race_ that traces the regime in the DPRK back to its origins in Japanese fascism. People should check it out. There are several online reviews worth reading.

Ismail

21st July 2013, 19:28

There is an interesting article which does claim that a lot of the "planned economy" in the DPRK is completely undermined in practice by de facto private ownership, with the state enterprises themselves fostering such ownership: http://sinonk.com/2013/06/14/marketization-and-its-limits-state-private-enterprises-in-north-korea/

It is quite impossible to argue that the DPRK is a dictatorship of the proletariat for the simple fact that the party lacks a proletarian line, therefore it could not even claim to be operating in the interests of the proletariat. And unlike the case of Soviet revisionism, Marxism-Leninism is not merely bastardized but replaced by Juche and Songun, the latter which posits the army as the leading and most revolutionary force in society.

Also for Marxists feudalism is a definite economic system. It's not kings and queens; the practice of a son succeeding his father based on the latter's wishes is considered nepotism in the modern world.

Teacher

21st July 2013, 21:01

There is a book called _The Cleanest Race_ that traces the regime in the DPRK back to its origins in Japanese fascism. People should check it out. There are several online reviews worth reading.

I think that guy is wrong in his interpretation though. He neglects the influences of the Soviet Union and Maoism in North Korea. He launches numerous attacks on Bruce Cumings that come off as a political vendetta.

Teacher

21st July 2013, 21:04

Thanks for that link Ismail. That author has written a new book about the history of North Korea that people have spoken positively about to me.

LuÃs Henrique

21st July 2013, 21:46

There is NO economy to examine! If you don't have the brain power to recognize a feudal state led by a monarchy masquerading as leftist heroes, then please see a doctor. Oh wait, you can't see a doctor if you're in North Korea though because the Kims refuse medical aid to their people. Oh wait, can't learn about medicine either, because all the books are ramblings of how Kim Il Sung is a god and shoots colorful unicorns out of his asshole.

So the relations of production are based on extra-economic extraction of excedents from direct producers, with the market playing just an accessory role in the distribution of the products? Wage labour is the exception, rather than the rule? The positions within all the productive system are hereditary, but dependent upon a chain of loyalty relations? I mean, the director of each factory in North Korea is the son or daughter of the former, deceased director?

It is easy to see that nothing of this is the case. The economy of North Korea is something else, not feudal at all.

Nor is the North Korean State a remnant of feudalism ruling over a capitalist economy, like the Saudi State, for instance. The hereditary nature of this republic is an obvious degeneration of something that can only be characterised as very post-feudal - it is reminiscent of some kind of Bonapartism, not of Orleanism or, even less, legitimism. Nowhere it is written in the Bible, or in the stars, that a bourgeois rule must be by definition republican.

The class nature of the Korean State, and of the Korean economy, must be found through a quite different kind of analysis - an analysis of the mode of production, of the relations of production, of the structure of property and exchange, etc., and can only be correctly understood through a historic comprehension of North Korea.

Saying that disagreeing with your amateurish analysis implies some kind of mental disease is really embarrassing, man.

Luís Henrique

Rafiq

21st July 2013, 22:55

Barbarism? A non mode of production?

Sotionov

21st July 2013, 23:28

Trap Queen Voxxy

22nd July 2013, 00:50

Prole as fuck.

Homo Songun

22nd July 2013, 01:10

What is the class nature of NK?

The important thing is that it is a class society.

The first sentances of the General rules of IWMA say:

- The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, and the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule.

- The economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor — that is, the source of life — lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence.

Now:

Is there subjugation of the workers to monopolizers of the means of labor in NK or are the laborers themselves in possession and in control of the means of production?

Obviosly, the subjugation to monopolizers exist, making it a class society. Whether one calls it state capitalism or bureaucratic collectivism is of somewhat less importance.

The General Rules of the IWMA is one thing. Marxism is another.

When Marx talks of "equal rights and duties" under Socialism he only means that the standard, which is the right of ones labor, is henceforth equally applied across the board. But the material basis for communism cannot be decreed. Until full communism, Marx says that "this equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor"; because the division between mental and manual labor has not been abolished. Nor has society reached the level of material abundance and technological advancement that is necessary to make "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" come to life. So what do you do until then? Marx says that "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby." In other words, central economic planning.

Sorry, you can't just translate those "monopolizers of the means of labor" that the IWMA was talking about to whatever central planning is going on in the DPRK without showing your work. Corruption or whatever notwithstanding.

By the way, if you think class divisions don't persist under socialism...:laugh:

Prof. Oblivion

22nd July 2013, 01:39

The General Rules of the IWMA is one thing. Marxism is another.

When Marx talks of "equal rights and duties" under Socialism he only means that the standard, which is the right of ones labor, is henceforth equally applied across the board. But the material basis for communism cannot be decreed. Until full communism, Marx says that "this equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor"; because the division between mental and manual labor has not been abolished. Nor has society reached the level of material abundance and technological advancement that is necessary to make "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" come to life. So what do you do until then? Marx says that "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby." In other words, central economic planning.

Sorry, you can't just translate those "monopolizers of the means of labor" that the IWMA was talking about to whatever central planning is going on in the DPRK without showing your work. Corruption or whatever notwithstanding.

By the way, if you think class divisions don't persist under socialism...:laugh:

Your entire method of applying a pre-conceived framework to a situation and attempting to fit reality into your framework while trying to justify such an analysis by quoting someone who vehemently attacked such methods borders on comical.

subcp

22nd July 2013, 02:27

I don't deny the fact that Rason Special Economic Zone exists, nor the ROK-only Kaesong zone for that matter. It doesn't especially help argue the case for "state capitalism" though, because as you well know the state-capitalists don't claim those zones are what makes the DPRK capitalist. Rather, they (or the more level-headed amongst them at any rate) argue that it is the centralized economic planning and disbursement of wages that make it so, and both of those schemes far precede the establishment of the SEZs. Even if this were not the case, but rather the existence of the SEZs were the reason that the "state capitalist" theoreticians believe the DPRK is capitalist, it still remains for them prove (1) that a class of DPRK capitalists exist and (2) that they are in control of the state.

As for Marx, I already showed how the Critique of the Gotha Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/) demolishes the arguments of the Lassalleans that "distribution", the continued existence of commodified labor, or wages would be the determining factor under socialism as such. For Marx, the critical thing for socialism to exist is that the working class dominates the state. Nobody has shown any economic evidence that some other class is running things in the DPRK as a whole.

The SEZ is a succinct example; it is one that is verifiable (despite the limited information known about the specifics of the DPRK domestic economy) and shows that, even in one minute instance, capital is in operation and global trends for other developing/third world nations apply (an example which is helpful given the one-liners and requests of 'prove capitalism in DPRK'). The SEZ is not the linchpin of state capitalism (an analysis that is older than the North Korean regime and far older than the first SEZ). As I said in the last post, you seem to be identifying state capitalism with versions that originate from Trotskyism, which define state capitalism as a sort of 'choice', due to the ideology of a particular regime, based on property forms, for individual nations (and thus argue that the USSR was state capitalist while present day Russia is not). I do not recognize that methodology as valid (for the same reason I don't think Deg./Def. worker's state theories are valid). Capitalism is international; its tendencies take place on a global level. State capitalism is rooted in the methodology of Marxists like Bukharin, who outlined the basis of state capitalism in his work on imperialism ('Toward a Theory of the Imperialist State' for example).

Property is still private despite being in the hands of the state; this is true for public sector workers in the US or France as it for employees of state owned and managed industries in North Korea. There is one ruling-class; the bourgeoisie, an international class in the same way the proletariat is an international class (there is no 'new class'). Individual ownership, joint-stock companies and state property are mere forms. Are American CEO's part of the bourgeoisie? Not all are directly owners of an enterprise; decision making authority also varies by enterprise. Can you explain what the difference is then between a CEO who answers to a board of directors and is paid a salary far above the workers of the enterprise, is directly involved in the day to day management and direction of a firm, to a salaried state functionary, who is paid far above the average workers wages, is involved in the day to day management and operation of a state enterprise, and is answerable to a higher division of the state?

As for Marx, I already showed how the Critique of the Gotha Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/) demolishes the arguments of the Lassalleans that "distribution", the continued existence of commodified labor, or wages would be the determining factor under socialism as such. For Marx, the critical thing for socialism to exist is that the working class dominates the state. Nobody has shown any economic evidence that some other class is running things in the DPRK as a whole.

Additionally, I think we should consider the following practical points about the SEZs:

The UN was heavily involved in establishing the Rason SEZ during the environmental disasters back in the 1990s, implying that it was negotiated on behalf of the imperialists as a condition for receiving aid shipments at the time.
The DPRK regularly expels and then re-admits the South Koreans from Kaesong depending on current events. As of 2013 they are on the outs once again, strongly suggesting that its true function is more to as a tool of diplomacy for intra-Korean politics than anything else.
Total foreign capital investment in Rason is in the low tens of millions. This must represent a tiny fraction of the total DPRK economy. Even Bloomberg chafes that the Korean leadership is attitude is too "experimental" with regards to the Rason SEZ. And lets be honest, in comparison to what the Chinese, Vietnamese or even the Cubans are doing, these zones are pretty pathetic.

Unanswered questions:

If the DPRK is capitalist, where are the cyclical booms and busts? Where is the systemic unemployment that accompanies them? Where is the creative destruction of existing capital, endemic to every other capitalist society? Where is the mandatory expansion of capital into neighbouring territories? And so on...

Value that creates new value; value in process, are specific definitions Marx gives of capital; the operation of which, despite a heavily statified domestic economy, continued in the USSR, the PRC, SRV,etc. Engels described quite clearly in the Anti-Duhring what capitalism has since developed into and the role the state plays. I quoted him and Marx briefly in my initial post; though I'm confused as to what specifically you want to address- interpretation of Marxism, Trotskyist state capitalism theory, the role of the SEZ in post-crisis (1968-1973) former command economies, the specifics of North Korean industrial development, how important juridical forms are, crisis theory, etc.?

In its formal subsumption of labor, capital was accommodating to slave, peasant, serf, artisan based production (and in some pockets of the world, still is). Capital has proven highly adaptive; its transition to real subsumption saw the entire productive process (and property forms) altered dramatically. It didn't stop in its 'free competition' or 'liberal' period; monopoly, trusts, etc developed, capital continued to be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, "division of labor leads to exponentially greater division of labor," etc. To imagine a capitalist class solely comprised of robber baron-types is outmoded at the very least.

Sotionov

22nd July 2013, 04:07

When Marx talks of "equal rights and duties"
The bigger point was the words "The economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor — that is, the source of life — lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence."

Nor has society reached the level of material abundance and technological advancement that is necessary to make "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" come to life.
"We can't have a society without oppression and exploitation until we come to a Trekkie level of technology that would ensure utopian post-scarcity and the abolition of all labor". One of the reasons I'm not a marxist (-leninist) is precisely this technological utopianism. It's delusional and tries to justify the very things we detest about the current system, because of the supposed impossiblity of their destruction.

So what do you do until then?
We listen to Kropotkin instead of Marx. Even if don't have Star Trek level of technology, we still establish a society functioning on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", but we don't assume that 'replicators' are going to make everything people need, and that people would only need to do hobbies, but we go ahead and organize democratic planning of production for the needs of people, and institute mechanisms that make sure that people do their share in production process (e.g. if you consume, you're able to contribute, but don't- you will be denied [full] access to consumption).

Homo Songun

22nd July 2013, 05:05

"We can't have a society without oppression and exploitation until we come to a Trekkie level of technology that would ensure utopian post-scarcity and the abolition of all labor". One of the reasons I'm not a marxist (-leninist) is precisely this technological utopianism. It's delusional and tries to justify the very things we detest about the current system, because of the supposed impossiblity of their destruction.

"A fake quote that makes me look silly"
-- A. Strawman

We listen to Kropotkin instead of Marx. Even if don't have Star Trek level of technology, we still establish a society functioning on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", but we don't assume that 'replicators' are going to make everything people need, and that people would only need to do hobbies, but we go ahead and organize democratic planning of production for the needs of people, and institute mechanisms that make sure that people do their share in production process (e.g. if you consume, you're able to contribute, but don't- you will be denied [full] access to consumption).Eh, I suppose you are to be commended on your honesty re Kropotkin. You are definitely contradicting yourself though, any society that has truly achieved the level of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" can NOT deny access to consumption. I leave you with the fully space-age passage you've plucked the maxim from:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Beam me up, Scotty!

Homo Songun

22nd July 2013, 05:07

The SEZ is a succinct example; it is one that is verifiable (despite the limited information known about the specifics of the DPRK domestic economy) and shows that, even in one minute instance, capital is in operation and global trends for other developing/third world nations apply (an example which is helpful given the one-liners and requests of 'prove capitalism in DPRK'). The SEZ is not the linchpin of state capitalism (an analysis that is older than the North Korean regime and far older than the first SEZ).

We are agreed then on the secondary aspect of the SEZs to the political economy of the DPRK. So all that remains then is to simply explain the "state capitalist" verdict on that country in light of the evidence!

Are American CEO's part of the bourgeoisie? Not all are directly owners of an enterprise; decision making authority also varies by enterprise. Can you explain what the difference is then between a CEO who answers to a board of directors and is paid a salary far above the workers of the enterprise, is directly involved in the day to day management and direction of a firm, to a salaried state functionary, who is paid far above the average workers wages, is involved in the day to day management and operation of a state enterprise, and is answerable to a higher division of the state?Yes, it is not complicated at all. Any CEO that is bourgeois is a member of the bourgeoisie. Likewise, any state functionary that is bourgeois is a member of the bourgeoisie. Again, Marx: all societies heretofore have been dictatorships of one class or another. What we are discussing is, what kind of dictatorship exists in the DPRK?

Value that creates new value; value in process, are specific definitions Marx gives of capital; the operation of which, despite a heavily statified domestic economy, continued in the USSR, the PRC, SRV,etc. Engels described quite clearly in the Anti-Duhring what capitalism has since developed into and the role the state plays. I quoted him and Marx briefly in my initial post; though I'm confused as to what specifically you want to address- interpretation of Marxism, Trotskyist state capitalism theory, the role of the SEZ in post-crisis (1968-1973) former command economies, the specifics of North Korean industrial development, how important juridical forms are, crisis theory, etc.?I'm having a hard time following you here. I feel like you are jumping around a bunch of concepts but in a shorthand way. Lets try writing it out in longhand:

How can the DPRK be capitalist and also be immune from the cyclical booms and busts that plague every other capitalist country?

How can the DPRK be capitalist and also not be subject to systemic unemployment that plagues every other capitalist country?

How can the DPRK be capitalist and not undergo periodic creative destruction as well as the compulsion to export its capital beyond its own borders?

Sotionov

22nd July 2013, 05:30

You are definitely contradicting yourself though, any society that has truly achieved the level of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" can NOT deny access to consumption.
You seem to forget that the principle has in it "from each according to their ability" and not "from each according to their mood, or not at all", or "all needs of people will be provided for by the prole-fairy".

I leave you with the fully space-age passage you've plucked the maxim from:
Actually the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according his need" was used by Blanc and Dejaque decades before Marx, and by the same principles was espoused by all earlier communists, which Marx ,ironically, called 'utopian'.

Beam me up, Scotty!
And portraing you as a trekkie technological utopian was a strawman? Yeah right.

LuÃs Henrique

22nd July 2013, 10:59

Nobody has shown any economic evidence that some other class is running things in the DPRK as a whole.

Indeed, which is a big problem... since there is overwhelming evidence that the working class is not ruling things in North Korea either.

Whatever the ruling class is, it is not a class that wastes half of its vigil time in toiling for its subsistence. Or when does the North Korean proletariat meet to organise and "rule things"?

So we have only two possibilities: either we are not looking to the situation in NK with the necessary attention, and it is our fault that the evidence on the existence of an exploitative class in NK hasn't been shown; or, the DPRK is a paradox: a society with no ruling class, but yet where the majority of the population is exploited.

I bet the first, but really without in-depth analysis (which is absent in this thread, from all sides of the debate) we won't be able to decide.

And, oh, whatever the DPRK is, it is a member of a species, that includes the former Soviet Union, China and Vietnam before they chose their present path, Eastern Europe under Soviet protetorate, Yugoslavia, and Cuba. Certainly, it is the worst specimen of such group, but it is not a whole different critter.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

22nd July 2013, 11:08

How can the DPRK be capitalist and also be immune from the cyclical booms and busts that plague every other capitalist country?

How can the DPRK be capitalist and also not be subject to systemic unemployment that plagues every other capitalist country?

How can the DPRK be capitalist and not undergo periodic creative destruction as well as the compulsion to export its capital beyond its own borders?

I don't think that it is immune from the capitalist cycle, at all. Its cycle is probably not yet in synch with the worldwide cycle, but that is different.

NK is subject to systemic unemployment; it choosed to repress it, which is different. The repression of unemployment is due to historical reasons, linked to its socialists ambitions, but this is a different issue. The lack of unemployment also implies, in NK, as it would in any capitalist economy, a brutal level of economic inefficiency.

And it doesn't have periodic creative destruction surges because it displays constant "destructive destruction": the destructive tendencies of capitalism work there free from any compulsion to tie them to the expansion of demand, as they would in a "normal" capitalist economy. But it pays its human sacrifices to the economic god just as every other capitalist country in the world.

Luís Henrique

KurtFF8

22nd July 2013, 17:07

Also for Marxists feudalism is a definite economic system. It's not kings and queens; the practice of a son succeeding his father based on the latter's wishes is considered nepotism in the modern world.

Indeed, it seems like most people claim that the DPRK is feudal because of the succession line that we've witnessed over the decades there, but it's not clear how that means that the country has a feudal character.

Homo Songun

23rd July 2013, 07:17

I thank Luis for his posts. They are amongst some of the most honest in this thread, and I commend him for it. That said:

Indeed, which is a big problem... since there is overwhelming evidence that the working class is not ruling things in North Korea either.
Overwhelming? No. Actually, 99.99% of the world agrees with the DPRK's self -assessment of it being a socialist state, for one reason or another. This is not an argumentum ad populum: but it does mean that an extraordinary claim still requires extraordinary evidence. Surely you agree that the claim of the DPRK being not socialist is extraordinary? So where is the body of work that you (and your co-thinkers) have leaned on, in order to have come to this conclusion? Why the bashfulness heretofore?

And, oh, whatever the DPRK is, it is a member of a species, that includes the former Soviet Union, China and Vietnam before they chose their present path, Eastern Europe under Soviet protetorate, Yugoslavia, and Cuba.Repaying your honesty with same on my part, I cannot even begin to fathom the sheer hubris required to undergird this statement. Really? In the first place, the DPRK is but one member of a genus, maybe even one amongst several genera. I can't see the category 'species' properly applied here, without rank opportunist blinders at any rate.

Of the "socialist camp", states like the DDR were openly originated as spoils of the conquering USSR; but China, Yugoslavia, Albania, and others were liberated from within. On the other hand, Czechoslovakia's socialism was actually voted into power under bourgeois norms.

Of the post-WW2 period, most of the Warsaw Pact implemented Khrushchev-friendly economic planning, whereas Albania stuck to orthodox 'Stalinism', China implemented New Democracy, and Yugoslavia implemented a sort of market-based, NATO friendly political economy. I'll pass just over Romania in silence.

Prior to WW2, Germany was straight-ahead imperialist. Various eastern European countries were second-rate powers. China, Indochina, and Korea were semi-feudal nations colonized by their respective imperialist powers.

Politically speaking, some states were governed by autochthonously communist parties; some were governed by de jure alliances between parties of the 2nd and 3rd internationals; some were governed by alliances bearing no allegiance to pre-war European configurations; and some were governed by national-democratic alliances.

Do you actually think the DPRK is so puny, so insignificant as to require no grounds for analysis in it's own right? Why or why not?

I don't think that [the DPRK] is immune from the capitalist cycle, at all. Its cycle is probably not yet in synch with the worldwide cycle, but that is different.

NK is subject to systemic unemployment; it choosed to repress it, which is different. The repression of unemployment is due to historical reasons, linked to its socialists ambitions, but this is a different issue. The lack of unemployment also implies, in NK, as it would in any capitalist economy, a brutal level of economic inefficiency.This is mental. So the capitalist-capitalist countries choose not to repress unemployment? The capitalist-capitalist countries don't have 'historical' reasoning for their various actions?

At any rate, all this talk of invisible cycles frankly reminds me of pre-Copernican astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycle):

http://www.decodingtheheavens.com/blog/image.axd?picture=2010%2f11%2f609px-Cassini_apparent.jpg

Economics is a bourgeois science, but it takes empirical observations as its starting point. How many epicyclical calculations for the DPRK will it take until we discard the model that you are using now as inappropriate?

Bottom line: where is the economic data? Speaking for myself, I don't ever take any strongly held theoretical opinions without at least some basis in empirical reality.

Ismail

23rd July 2013, 15:31

I'll pass just over Romania in silence.Romania went along with the Khrushchevite reforms as well. In fact the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country was especially weak; in his memoirs Hoxha flat-out says that it would never have survived had the Red Army not been present there. Dej was an opportunist; he had no problem with restoring relations with the Titoites once Khrushchev rehabilitated Yugoslavia's standing. He also sought out ties with the Chinese for nationalist reasons.

Under Ceaușescu the USA granted "most favored" status to Romanian trade in 1975, the PCR established fraternal relations with Mobutu's MPR, he became close to Tito (and to Tito's ally Kim Il Sung), and pretty much demonstrated himself to have been a pseudo-communist in every way. The economic deprivations of the 80's were due to massive austerity measures designed to pay back IMF loans. In 1987 Ceaușescu also declared that the dictatorship of the proletariat was an outdated concept.

So yeah, nothing to emulate there.

subcp

23rd July 2013, 21:03

We are agreed then on the secondary aspect of the SEZs to the political economy of the DPRK. So all that remains then is to simply explain the "state capitalist" verdict on that country in light of the evidence!

That sounds like a verbal maneuver to downplay exactly what the SEZ example demonstrates; would you agree that the SEZ, as pioneered in China and taken up by other former command economies or states with traditionally high levels of state intervention/involvement in domestic economy in the periphery (India, Laos, etc.), is rooted in real economic needs? And that these needs are themselves conditioned by the up and down swings of international capitalism?

State capitalism is described concisely here:

http://en.internationalism.org/icc/200412/609/4-state-capitalism

These exchanges between Damen and Bordiga from the 1950's covers much of this ground:

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-05-15/bordiga-beyond-the-myth-five-letters-and-an-outline-of-disagreement

Yes, it is not complicated at all. Any CEO that is bourgeois is a member of the bourgeoisie. Likewise, any state functionary that is bourgeois is a member of the bourgeoisie. Again, Marx: all societies heretofore have been dictatorships of one class or another. What we are discussing is, what kind of dictatorship exists in the DPRK?

The same as the rest of the world; the international dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The same class that directs and runs all other nation-states. Nominal "workers parties" are currently at the head of numerous states- either alone or in coalition. That doesn't make France or South Africa 'workers states'.

How can the DPRK be capitalist and also be immune from the cyclical booms and busts that plague every other capitalist country?

How can the DPRK be capitalist and also not be subject to systemic unemployment that plagues every other capitalist country?

How can the DPRK be capitalist and not undergo periodic creative destruction as well as the compulsion to export its capital beyond its own borders?

1) What evidence is there that North Korea does not suffer from the same international crisis that has recently manifested itself in the 2007-08 debt crunch? That its infrastructure and industry has been so badly managed and that it does not release a level of documentation equal to other nations on their domestic economy masks these effects. But is it a coincidence that the DPRK's progress in industrialization peters off in the 1970's; the same time that the structural crisis of overproduction reasserted itself following the post-war boom in both the NATO and Warsaw Pact blocs (leading to stagflation in its benefactors in Eastern Europe)?

2) What evidence is there that it doesn't (other than the word of the regime)?

3) The sorry state of internal industry and its aggressive foreign policy to extort investments and aid suggest that it is just a terribly mismanaged national capital.

LuÃs Henrique

26th July 2013, 00:14

I thank Luis for his posts. They are amongst some of the most honest in this thread, and I commend him for it.

Thank you.

Overwhelming? No. Actually, 99.99% of the world agrees with the DPRK's self -assessment of it being a socialist state, for one reason or another. This is not an argumentum ad populum: but it does mean that an extraordinary claim still requires extraordinary evidence. Surely you agree that the claim of the DPRK being not socialist is extraordinary? So where is the body of work that you (and your co-thinkers) have leaned on, in order to have come to this conclusion? Why the bashfulness heretofore?

I think this is an argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of mankind may well be wrong, and it frequently is. As for denying that the DPRK is socialist being an extraordinary claim, I don't think so. "Socialism" means either the same as "Communism" or a transitional period toward communism, in which the proletariat is the ruling class and works for the abolition of classes. That NK is not a communist society seems pretty evident (even though possibly 99% of people believe it is, based on their own ignorance of what communism is). That it is not a dictatorship of the proletariat seems pretty obvious too: nowhere in that country workers exert any kind of visible power over society, production, or even workplaces. The Party is completely autonomous and not controlled by workers. The Army is totally beyond any control of organised workers. So it is difficult to understand how it could be a socialist society.

Repaying your honesty with same on my part, I cannot even begin to fathom the sheer hubris required to undergird this statement. Really? In the first place, the DPRK is but one member of a genus, maybe even one amongst several genera. I can't see the category 'species' properly applied here, without rank opportunist blinders at any rate.

Of the "socialist camp", states like the DDR were openly originated as spoils of the conquering USSR; but China, Yugoslavia, Albania, and others were liberated from within. On the other hand, Czechoslovakia's socialism was actually voted into power under bourgeois norms.

Of the post-WW2 period, most of the Warsaw Pact implemented Khrushchev-friendly economic planning, whereas Albania stuck to orthodox 'Stalinism', China implemented New Democracy, and Yugoslavia implemented a sort of market-based, NATO friendly political economy. I'll pass just over Romania in silence.

Prior to WW2, Germany was straight-ahead imperialist. Various eastern European countries were second-rate powers. China, Indochina, and Korea were semi-feudal nations colonized by their respective imperialist powers.

Politically speaking, some states were governed by autochthonously communist parties; some were governed by de jure alliances between parties of the 2nd and 3rd internationals; some were governed by alliances bearing no allegiance to pre-war European configurations; and some were governed by national-democratic alliances.

Do you actually think the DPRK is so puny, so insignificant as to require no grounds for analysis in it's own right? Why or why not?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand me.

A chihuahua and a pit-bull terrier are both members of the same species, but they are also very different from each other. What I mean by "member of the same species" is this, and only this: if North Korea is a degenerate workers State, so are (or were, of course) Romania, Cuba, Eastern Germany or Vietnam. If North Korea is State capitalist, so are or were Vietnam, East Germany, Cuba and Romania.

For my part, I don't think any of these analysis is satisfactory. "Degenerate workers State" fails to address the nature of the "economy" of those societies. "State capitalism", in the way the proponents of the thesis conceive it, is either contradictory (no capitalist society can have only one capitalist, for capital only exists in diversity) or evidently false, conflating very belated societies struggling to superate pre-capitalist productive relations with post-liberal monopolist advanced capitalist societies.

Understanding those societies requires extensive study, which I haven't done, and am not likely to do in what life I have still to live.

This is mental. So the capitalist-capitalist countries choose not to repress unemployment? The capitalist-capitalist countries don't have 'historical' reasoning for their various actions?

Of course they have historical reasons for their various actions. They don't feel compelled to suppress unemployment, because, from their point of view, unemployment is a perfectly natural and even healthy phenomenon in a capitalist society - too little unemployment being indeed a problem, in that it increases wages, depresses profits, harms productivity, and generally makes economic decisions difficult or impossible. What is your doubt regarding this?

At any rate, all this talk of invisible cycles frankly reminds me of pre-Copernican astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycle):

http://www.decodingtheheavens.com/blog/image.axd?picture=2010%2f11%2f609px-Cassini_apparent.jpg

I don't think the cycles are invisible at all. If we just look at North Korea, we can see a floundering economy, in constant depression for years and years. Overtaking the "capitalist-capitalist" economies it is not.

Economics is a bourgeois science, but it takes empirical observations as its starting point. How many epicyclical calculations for the DPRK will it take until we discard the model that you are using now as inappropriate?

I am using no model. I am arguing that all the models in discussion are inappropriate (and that the model you, individually, use, is the most inappropriate of them all).

Bottom line: where is the economic data? Speaking for myself, I don't ever take any strongly held theoretical opinions without at least some basis in empirical reality.

So what are the data that show that North Korea is a "socialist economy"?

Luís Henrique

Karlorax

26th July 2013, 01:20

Just because the regime is a monarchy does not mean its mode of production is feudal. There are plenty of capitalist monarchies, for example.

Homo Songun

29th July 2013, 03:04

would you agree that the SEZ, as pioneered in China and taken up by other former command economies or states with traditionally high levels of state intervention/involvement in domestic economy in the periphery (India, Laos, etc.), is rooted in real economic needs? And that these needs are themselves conditioned by the up and down swings of international capitalism?

[snip]

1) What evidence is there that North Korea does not suffer from the same international crisis that has recently manifested itself in the 2007-08 debt crunch? That its infrastructure and industry has been so badly managed and that it does not release a level of documentation equal to other nations on their domestic economy masks these effects. But is it a coincidence that the DPRK's progress in industrialization peters off in the 1970's; the same time that the structural crisis of overproduction reasserted itself following the post-war boom in both the NATO and Warsaw Pact blocs (leading to stagflation in its benefactors in Eastern Europe)?

In point of fact it does not appear that the DPRK economy was seriously affected by the recent downturn. The GDP metric, for whatever that is worth has been expanding over the last years. Furthermore, most graphs of GDP data, for example those collected by the Bank of (south) Korea, show a steady increase to the 1980s, a long flat line through that decade, and then a sharp drop after the disappearance of the USSR and the environmental catastrophes in the 1990s, and then a long gently upward slope from there until the present day. But please note that the phrase you've employed, "progress in industrialization", is not the same thing as the intrinsic cycle of capitalist boom and bust. It would be a mistake to confuse them.

However, I think the larger point is that Socialism is not required to be a clean room experiment. The DPRK is indeed affected by things outside of its self. But what does this even prove? It illustrates the Marxist theory of history, which claims that change proceeds via the contradiction of opposing forces. It would be bizarre to expect Socialism to be decreed into existence full blown outside of capitalism, and only then contend for power with it. Rather, according to Marx, capitalism's own inner contradictions have engendered socialism. Its only natural then for there to be an ongoing dialectic between the two social systems.

How can the DPRK be capitalist and also not be subject to systemic unemployment that plagues every other capitalist country?2) What evidence is there that it doesn't (other than the word of the regime)?The DPRK guarantees full employment. That is impossible under capitalist property relations. Recall that systemic unemployment is not a malfunction of capitalism, but is an essential feature of it:

Das Kapital[/I]"]capitalistic accumulation itself... constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of workers, i.e., a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the valorisation of capital, and therefore a surplus-population... It is the absolute interest of every capitalist to press a given quantity of labour out of a smaller, rather than a greater number of labourers, if the cost is about the same... The more extended the scale of production, the stronger this motive. Its force increases with the accumulation of capital.

as well as:

Wages[/I]"]
Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation [in relation to the needs of capital --SM] is the greatest. Overpopulation is therefore in the interest of the bourgeoisie[...]

Axiomatically simplified:

- Capitalists compete for market share.
- Market share is obtained by increasing surplus value relative to competitors.
- Surplus value is is maximized by increasing worker productivity.
- Worker productivity is increased by making more stuff with less workers.
- More stuff with less workers engenders the reserve army of labor
- The reserve army of labor is the source of systemic unemployment.

And similar forces are at play in creative destruction of capital too.

3) The sorry state of internal industry and its aggressive foreign policy to extort investments and aid suggest that it is just a terribly mismanaged national capital.The DPRK's "aggressive foreign policy" does not exist outside of capitalist propaganda outlets. While it is sad when ostensible leftists repeat such nonsense, I don't always feel required to address it. So I won't :cool:

Sinister Cultural Marxist

29th July 2013, 04:35

Homo Songun

29th July 2013, 05:26

The DPRK is a sort of despotism the way Romania was during the Cold War. Despotism as an economic system was something which Marx recognized in China and other part of East Asia. It had only recently been dismantled in China and Japan when the DPRK gained independence, and the early RoK did not build a real republic either but relied on a sort of despotic militarism for quite some time.

Since despotism can't possibly be a mode of production, I presume you are talking about the "Asiatic mode of production" of the early-mid Marx. It's conceptual rubbish. Marx and Engels backed away from it as their understanding deepened. I'll just quote the MIA entry here:

Before 1857, Marx and Engels occasionally used this term to refer to a distinct social formation lying between Tribal Society (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/t/r.htm#tribal-society) and Antiquity. Marx and Engels had believed that the great Asian nations were the first we could speak of as civilization (an understanding partly based on Hegel, see: The Oriental Realm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prstate.htm#PR355)). The last time they used this word was in the Grundisse (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch09.htm), having dropped the idea of a distinct Asiatic mode of production, and kept four basic forms of societal evolution: tribal, ancient, feudal, and capitalist.
Engels explained their learning curve in a second footnote to the Communist Manifesto in 1888:
In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organization existing previous to recorded history, [was] all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen (1792-1866) discovered common ownership of land in Russia, Georg Ludwig von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all Teutonic races started in history, and, by and by, village communities were found to be, or to have been, the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland. The inner organization of this primitive communistic society was laid bare, in its typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818-1861) crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of the primeval communities, society begins to be differentiated into separate and finally antagonistic classes. I have attempted to retrace this dissolution in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm), second edition, Stuttgart, 1886.

Of course since it was a hypothetical MOP based on false premises, it can't possibly have existed in pre-capitalist China let along 20th century Romania or current DPRK. The "asiatic mode of production" postulated a static society of undifferentiated village life combined with massive public works (the example being aqueducts IIRC) built with involuntary labor. It's not much more than an orientalist misreading of non-European feudalism. And in the original schema, it predates feudalism so it is certainly more absurd than calling the DPRK feudal.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

29th July 2013, 05:55

While I think it's useful to do away with the orientalist aspects of Marx's reading of that time and place in history, there's a clear distinction between feudal and more authoritarian, oligarchical economies.

In Romania and North Korea, as well as a number of incredibly hierarchical authoritarian societies in the medieval and ancient worlds, a particular clique determines the general economic policies pursued and are largely only accountable to one another. This is distinct from feudalism, where the local elites and nobles had much more significant control. Whether or not Marx's description of ancient China is accurate, it is a fact that the DPRK's economy is driven by state directed use or sale of labor. As an example, look at the way that the DPRK sends workers to labor under private Russian logging companies to get the State cash at the directive of the ruling elites. Whether we call it the "asiatic mode of production" or "oriental despotism" some kind of modern "despotic capitalism", it seems like the dominant class is a particular political and military elite around the top of the ruling party. They do participate in the international market in some respects, and they use the rhetoric of social egalitarianism in others, but that tight control seems to be the distinctive feature of their government

As for the development from tribal to ancient to feudal to capitalist to socialist, I don't buy the strongly linear development of the economy which some Marxists adopt, even if it is clear that most feudal countries developed into Capitalist ones. Feudalism is obsolete because it had a particular relationship to the land which is no longer relevant with modern levels of production and technology, not because there is some absolute, single course of historical economic development.

VILemon

29th July 2013, 07:18

You know that revleft is in a bad way when encyclopedia dramatica has a more nuanced and well-informed picture of the DPRK.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Evildoer_Korea

See the yankee-genocide section and the links to WHO etc. They did more homework than half of you. I'm no supporter of the DPRK, but this kind of shallow "it's feudalism" nonsense is horrendous.

VILemon

29th July 2013, 07:23

Also, there's no excuse for saying we have no idea how workers relate to their own production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea

See the section on the Taeaon work system, as well as a detailed explanation of how planning is directed (at least in principle).

LuÃs Henrique

29th July 2013, 21:19

How many epicyclical calculations for the DPRK will it take until we discard the model that you are using now as inappropriate?

On a more methodological note, I don't think the analogy with epicycles can help you. Epycicles are anything but invisible; indeed, if you systematically look at the skies, you will very clearly seem them.

Here is an explanation of the phenomenon (http://www.oarval.org/Loopsen.htm). And, within the spoilers, a relevant picture of it, in this case of the apparent movement of Mercury:

http://www.oarval.org/MercuryLoop.gif

If we are to give any credence to Marx's theories about modes of production, they foster the development of the productive forces to a certain extent, after which they become fetters for such development. Particularly, capitalism would become, with time, a force limiting the development of productive forces; freeing such productive forces would be the task of a socialist revolution. Looking at North Korea, it seems clear that whatever the mode of production that prevails there, it has fostered significantly less development of productive forces than the mode of production that prevails in capitalist countries in similar conditions (for instance, South Korea), and has put more obstacles to such development than those posed by capitalism elsewhere.

And if this is true, it is quite evident that North Korea cannot be a socialist society: for the liberation of the productive forces from their capitalist fetters in North Korea is by far more invisible than its economic cycles. Or than planetary epicycles for what is worth.

Luís Henrique

Homo Songun

30th July 2013, 16:04

Epycicles are anything but invisible

Indeed. We seem to be having difficulty seeing in the DPRK the capitalist boom and bust cycle, the export of capital, and the reserve army of labor though.

If we are to give any credence to Marx's theories about modes of production, they foster the development of the productive forces to a certain extent, after which they become fetters for such development. Particularly, capitalism would become, with time, a force limiting the development of productive forces; freeing such productive forces would be the task of a socialist revolution. Looking at North Korea, it seems clear that whatever the mode of production that prevails there, it has fostered significantly less development of productive forces than the mode of production that prevails in capitalist countries in similar conditions (for instance, South Korea), and has put more obstacles to such development than those posed by capitalism elsewhere.

"productive forces" as a yardstick of socialism has always been a dead end. I understand the DDR and Yugoslavia had high standards of living in the 1980s, and of course they were destroyed anyways. On the other hand, full communism requires a certain level of satisfaction of material needs, but that is a separate issue.

No, with Marx, we have to look at what class is ultimately in command. Since there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class running the show in DPRK, I think it must mean the workers and farmers (more or less) are.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th July 2013, 16:10

Hasn't the DPRK completely supplanted Marxism in favour of Songun?

Homo Songun

30th July 2013, 16:16

No, actually.

But anyways, if socialism is a historical necessity, then it certainly isn't predicated on an idea called "Marxism" existing.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th July 2013, 16:29

[QUOTE=Shmuel Katz;2645509]Indeed. We seem to be having difficulty seeing in the DPRK the capitalist boom and bust cycle, the export of capital, and the reserve army of labor though.

Really? Did the famines of the mid-1990s not happen? I know North Korea is isolated, but there is still a large predication of the famine (itself a marker for economic failure, i.e. 'bust') on the loss of trade with a fellow capitalist trading partner, the USSR and the economic impacts that had from the early 1990s; natural disaster merely provided the 'trigger' for total economic and social meltdown in the mid-1990s in North Korea.

"productive forces" as a yardstick of socialism has always been a dead end. I understand the DDR and Yugoslavia had high standards of living in the 1980s, and of course they were destroyed anyways. On the other hand, full communism requires a certain level of satisfaction of material needs, but that is a separate issue.

This is a tricky one to really untangle. Depending on your definition of 'full communism', you may be correct, but then you must also demonstrate a satisfactory definition of what a 'need' is, as opposed to a 'want', which is something that has so far eluded theoreticians, marxist and un-marxist alike.

No, with Marx, we have to look at what class is ultimately in command. Since there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class running the show in DPRK, I think it must mean the workers and farmers (more or less) are.

This is a logical fallacy. That there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class in North Korea does not mean there is no coherent capitalist class in North Korea, it means we don't know enough about the country to identify who the capitalist class is. Further, one could say the same of any country, since the capitalist class is not a coherent unit, nor a troupe of actors all singing from the same hymn sheet, but rather a set of individuals, or individual blocs of capital, who work together only in the most theoretical of senses; often, there is significant disagreement, disharmony and competition (of varying kinds) within the capitalist class. What we DO know about North Korea, however, is that on their official website, the following can be quoted:

Business in DPR Korea:
The DPR of Korea (North Korea) will become in the next years the most important hub for trading in North-East Asia.
Lowest labour cost in Asia.
Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.
Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.
No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies.
Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.
Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.
New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).
Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.

Now, in what region supposedly "controlled" by workers and farmers do you suppose that there would exist:

the lowest wages on the continent;
tax subsidies for new technology businesses and generally low taxes across the board, despite the guarantee of free education, housing and healthcare;
diplomatic relations with capitalist trading blocs;
various methods that provide for the protection of private property;

Now, I don't know about you, but I would be extremely hesitant to call a country that advertises itself as having the lowest wages on the continent, low taxes, relationships with capitalist trading blocs AND the protection of private property as a society controlled by the workers and farmers.

Homo Songun

31st July 2013, 08:41

Really? Did the famines of the mid-1990s not happen? I know North Korea is isolated, but there is still a large predication of the famine (itself a marker for economic failure, i.e. 'bust') on the loss of trade with a fellow capitalist trading partner, the USSR and the economic impacts that had from the early 1990s; natural disaster merely provided the 'trigger' for total economic and social meltdown in the mid-1990s in North Korea.

Huh? Is this a weak attempt at being disingenuous? Economic activity existed prior to capitalism, and it will surely exist afterwards. Strictly sticking to crises that were caused by human economic activity having nothing to do with capitalism:

- The desertification of the Sahara
- The collapse of Easter Island
- The end of Mayan cities
- The major extinction events in the western hemisphere before European colonization, but after the Bering land bridge was crossed.

I'm sure there are endless other examples. Although, I can't help but point out that, in automatically placing an equals sign between "economic activity" and "capitalism" here, you are flatly acquiescing to the fundamental capitalist lie that things have always been the way they are, and they can't change. Which is interesting.

No, the cycle of boom and bust I'm talking about is a characteristic symptom of the capitalist mode of production, more of which you can read about oh, here (http://www.marxists.org/) perhaps?

No, with Marx, we have to look at what class is ultimately in command. Since there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class running the show in DPRK, I think it must mean the workers and farmers (more or less) are. This is a logical fallacy.No, it's not.

That there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class in North Korea does not mean there is no coherent capitalist class in North Korea, it means we don't know enough about the country to identify who the capitalist class is. Further, one could say the same of any country, since the capitalist class is not a coherent unit, nor a troupe of actors all singing from the same hymn sheet, but rather a set of individuals, or individual blocs of capital, who work together only in the most theoretical of senses; often, there is significant disagreement, disharmony and competition (of varying kinds) within the capitalist class. You begin by simply restating the original premise that there simply must be a capitalist class in the DPRK, but you conveniently gloss over the fact that there is a difference between a capitalist class and a capitalist state. There was a capitalist class for hundreds of years in countries like Holland or England before they were able to definitively seize power. There was a capitalist class in December 1917 Russia. But the distinction is moot since you haven't proved either thing. So all your talking about blocs and whatnot is quite irrelevant. I'll only note that, if there were competing blocs, the proving would be all that much easier, since the pressure on wages and export of capital would be that much more fierce.

If any capitalism was at all responsible for the DPRK downturn in the 1990s, it would be across the border, in the collapsing Soviet Union.

What we DO know about North Korea, however, is that on their official website, the following can be quoted:

Business in DPR Korea:
The DPR of Korea (North Korea) will become in the next years the most important hub for trading in North-East Asia.
Lowest labour cost in Asia.
Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.
Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.
No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies.
Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.
Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.
New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).
Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.Now, in what region supposedly "controlled" by workers and farmers do you suppose that there would exist:

the lowest wages on the continent;
tax subsidies for new technology businesses and generally low taxes across the board, despite the guarantee of free education, housing and healthcare;
diplomatic relations with capitalist trading blocs;
various methods that provide for the protection of private property;

Now, I don't know about you, but I would be extremely hesitant to call a country that advertises itself as having the lowest wages on the continent, low taxes, relationships with capitalist trading blocs AND the protection of private property as a society controlled by the workers and farmers.I shudder to think of the level of naivete required to take generic PR statements such as this at face value, either here in the capitalist west or over there in the DPRK.

At any rate, that statement is not proof of a capitalist class existing in the DPRK. It's not like its hard to prove the existence of capitalists over the border in southern Korea or in China!

LuÃs Henrique

31st July 2013, 14:27

Indeed. We seem to be having difficulty seeing in the DPRK the capitalist boom and bust cycle, the export of capital, and the reserve army of labor though.

Here is a picture of the North Korean boom and bust cycle. It seems quite visible to me:

http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/files/2012/08/New-Picture-10.jpg

That's from a "Peterson Institute for International Economics (http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=7072)".

North Korea certainly does not export capital. It imports it (and is so badly dependent on such imports, that it actively tries and blackmails imperialist countries to get them...) But exporting capital makes a country imperialist, not capitalist. Brazil, for instance, is a capital importer (though it does not need, at the moment, to make nuclear threats in order to convince US/Europe/Japan to invest capital here). But it is a very capitalist country, not a socialist or feudal one.

So the only real point here is the lack of a reserve army of labour. This is indeed a fact - at least at the level that epicycles are fact: it is quite visible. So what does actually happen? They keep the surplus population "artificially" employed, so that they are in "jobs" even if they haven't anything useful to do. This makes very difficult to actually measure productivity, and leads to strong inefficiency in production - which in turn requires systematical resource to ideology in order to motivate people into labour, which explains the quasi-religious nature of the State ideology. So, the appearance of unemployment is suppressed, but not its reality, which is given by the fact that the labour of a significant part of the population is redundant.

"productive forces" as a yardstick of socialism has always been a dead end. I understand the DDR and Yugoslavia had high standards of living in the 1980s, and of course they were destroyed anyways. On the other hand, full communism requires a certain level of satisfaction of material needs, but that is a separate issue.

No, with Marx, we have to look at what class is ultimately in command. Since there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class running the show in DPRK, I think it must mean the workers and farmers (more or less) are.

Or the landed oligarchy, or something else. But you are right, there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class running the show. This however is only part of the picture; there is also absolutely no sign of workers or farmers running the show at all. Much on the contrary, North Korean workers seem even more powerless than their Western counterparts. If we are to remain at the level of external appearances, what we see (which by no means is necessarily what is going on) is an economy directly ruled by the State, a State in which the Army and the only-party (and perhaps the police) have a very predominant role. Working class organisms of power (soviets, assemblies, even factory commissions) are completely absent.

Luís Henrique

NeonTrotski

1st August 2013, 00:12

Shouldn't the question be: Do we defend North Korea against Capitalist (US) imperialism?
It would seem that calling anything state capitalism means to support or at least tolerate US aggression against it. Saying it's a feudal would be the same as state capitalism.

Fakeblock

1st August 2013, 00:22

I don't think we should defend the DPRK against imperialism. I think we should acknowledge imperialism as an inevitable part of contemporary capitalism and urge the workers of both the US and DPRK to unite against it.

Marxists don't base their analyses on what political conclusions are drawn from them. If you, through careful analysis, conclude that the DPRK is state capitalist you shouldn't call it socialist in order to assure yourself and others that you really are a true anti-imperialist.

One can easily acknowledge the imperialist, reactionary nature of the American regime without supporting the equally reactionary North Korean one.

Ace High

1st August 2013, 00:22

No, actually.

But anyways, if socialism is a historical necessity, then it certainly isn't predicated on an idea called "Marxism" existing.

No? So, in 2009, the DPRK didn't remove any traces of Marxism/leftism from their constitution. Oh, do enlighten me then. Actually, they gave up Marxism in the 70s, but it was still listed in their constitution.

Now I'm not claiming the DPRK is state-capitalist. But you REALLY think the workers are in control? Are every single one of the workers' names Kim? I didn't think so. I honestly feel like you are trolling, you have yet to make an argument even close to coherent.

Homo Songun

1st August 2013, 07:04

Here is a picture of the North Korean boom and bust cycle. It seems quite visible to me:

http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/files/2012/08/New-Picture-10.jpg

That's from a "Peterson Institute for International Economics (http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=7072)".

We already discussed this graph further up in thread. It is an estimate of the DPRK's GDP since the 1990s until the present day. Basically the Bank of (southern) Korea thinks that the DPRK economy shrunk by a little less than a third after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then recovered about half that loss in the years since. Given the embargo of their economy by the west, doesn't that seem like about what you'd expect would happen in just such an eventuality?

You suggest that this estimate, presuming it matches the actual GDP, is because it has a capitalist economy. Personally, I think that showing rates of profit, accumulation, mergers, etc., directly would much be easier. Nobody's done it so far. Probably because they don't exist.

So the only real point here is the lack of a reserve army of labour. This is indeed a fact - at least at the level that epicycles are fact: it is quite visible. So what does actually happen? They keep the surplus population "artificially" employed, so that they are in "jobs" even if they haven't anything useful to do. This makes very difficult to actually measure productivity, and leads to strong inefficiency in production - which in turn requires systematical resource to ideology in order to motivate people into labour, which explains the quasi-religious nature of the State ideology. So, the appearance of unemployment is suppressed, but not its reality, which is given by the fact that the labour of a significant part of the population is redundant.In the long run, where "long run" is some value of time smaller than the age of the DPRK, it would be quite impossible for a capitalist DPRK to pull off what you are suggesting. Marx showed that capitalism requires unemployment:

capitalistic accumulation itself... constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of workers, i.e., a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the valorisation of capital, and therefore a surplus-population... It is the absolute interest of every capitalist to press a given quantity of labour out of a smaller, rather than a greater number of labourers, if the cost is about the same... The more extended the scale of production, the stronger this motive. Its force increases with the accumulation of capital.

Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation [in relation to the needs of capital --SM] is the greatest. Overpopulation is therefore in the interest of the bourgeoisie[...]

----

Or the landed oligarchy, or something else. But you are right, there is no sign of a coherent capitalist class running the show. This however is only part of the picture; there is also absolutely no sign of workers or farmers running the show at all. Much on the contrary, North Korean workers seem even more powerless than their Western counterparts. If we are to remain at the level of external appearances, what we see (which by no means is necessarily what is going on) is an economy directly ruled by the State, a State in which the Army and the only-party (and perhaps the police) have a very predominant role. Working class organisms of power (soviets, assemblies, even factory commissions) are completely absent.
If, as you suggest, we go by "external appearances", it is plainly not true that "Working class organisms of power" are "absent". As the poster VILemon says above:

Also, there's no excuse for saying we have no idea how workers relate to their own production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea

See the section on the Taeaon work system, as well as a detailed explanation of how planning is directed (at least in principle). The alternative is that this all an elaborate facade. But there are a lot simpler ways to create a facade of workplace democracy than all that. All you have to do is look at is the typical bullshit that goes on in the workplace in the advanced capitalist countries in the west. Ockham's Razor would suggest that the simplest possible explanation is correct, that the system outline above really is a part of the planning process.