What is North Korea

[Orcris]

What is the mode of production in North Korea? I don't see how it could be considered socialist or a "deformed worker's state," even under the most liberal definitions of those. There is no workers' power in the DPRK. Cuba is no beacon of democracy, but I would argue that it's at least as democratic as the US, since almost anyone in Cuba can join the Communist Party (and therefore have some sort of voice in matters). In North Korea, on the other hand, there is no opportunity for advancement. Unless you happen to have been born into the ruling class, there is no opportunity for advancement.

I don't see how it could be state capitalist either. It doesn't have the property relations of a capitalist country. There isn't a system in which proletariat sell their labor to bourgeoisie for profit. As I understand the situation, North Korea is actually more similar to feudal property relations. It has a peasant class that is tied to the land that they are born in, and they have no opportunity for advancement. Could North Korea be considered feudal? What mode of production would you consider North Korea to be?

[La Guaneña]

What is the mode of production in North Korea? I don't see how it could be considered socialist or a "deformed worker's state," even under the most liberal definitions of those. There is no workers' power in the DPRK. Cuba is no beacon of democracy, but I would argue that it's at least as democratic as the US, since almost anyone in Cuba can join the Communist Party (and therefore have some sort of voice in matters). In North Korea, on the other hand, there is no opportunity for advancement. Unless you happen to have been born into the ruling class, there is no opportunity for advancement.

I don't see how it could be state capitalist either. It doesn't have the property relations of a capitalist country. There isn't a system in which proletariat sell their labor to bourgeoisie for profit. As I understand the situation, North Korea is actually more similar to feudal property relations. It has a peasant class that is tied to the land that they are born in, and they have no opportunity for advancement. Could North Korea be considered feudal? What mode of production would you consider North Korea to be?

What if I tell you that in Cuba parties can't nominate people for the ellections, only community councils can?

[Hrafn]

Having visited North Korea, I'll go with state capitalism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

A glorious utopia, a shining example for the rest of the world, last bastion of Socialism, true heart of the NBA, etc. Best Korea is many things.

[Hrafn]

A glorious utopia, a shining example for the rest of the world, last bastion of Socialism, true heart of the NBA, etc. Best Korea is many things.

They also make great beer.

[Remus Bleys]

huh. A revleft thread on North Korea.
How original.

Seriously, does anyone use the search function?

[reb]

It is capitalist. The proletariat in North Korea do sell their labor to a bourgeoisie, they create value, the bourgeoisie makes profits and they all compete on the world market. Did you not know that North Korea advertises the fact that it has a docile working class that can be exploited? That it has special economic zones around it's borders? That it sells its labor off to other countries? It also tries to attract investors to help them out internally. There is no other way you can describe North Korea as being anything other than capitalist.

[NGNM85]

In brief; a fucking disaster.

[WilliamGreen]

Having visited North Korea, I'll go with state capitalism.

Having known some friends from the region I'd say your right on the ball.

[Marshal of the People]

I have always thought of North Korea as an absolute monarchy.

[reb]

I have always thought of North Korea as an absolute monarchy.

So what do you think the mode of production is in North Korea?

[Comrade Jacob]

The DPRK is the sad result of isolation for the most part. (Also what ever you think about it their is not one party in the DPRK, just saying).

I am sure that if Korea became united or if NK had all the sanctions lifted the cult of personalty would die down since the need for it to keep stability wouldn't be necessary.

But then again I am a fascistic-pseudo-Marxist, degenerate-apologist, Kim-loving-Monarchist-opportunist. :laugh:

[Per Levy]

But then again I am a fascistic-pseudo-Marxist, degenerate-apologist, Kim-loving-Monarchist-opportunist. :laugh:

its good that you're honest about yourself, i guess.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is capitalist. The proletariat in North Korea do sell their labor to a bourgeoisie, they create value, the bourgeoisie makes profits and they all compete on the world market. Did you not know that North Korea advertises the fact that it has a docile working class that can be exploited? That it has special economic zones around its* borders? That it sells its labor off to other countries? It also tries to attract investors to help them out internally. There is no other way you can describe North Korea as being anything other than capitalist.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether North Korea qualifies as capitalism proper. Initially I believed this on the basis of the USSR and so forth being capitalist. However, apparently workers -- I don't know how many -- are being rationed rather than paid. And perhaps, then, if workers do not sell their labour-power but are compelled into labour, we can't speak of wage-labour either. Perhaps North Korea is a horrid deformity, a non-durable mutated class society branched off from capitalism (to repeat Q's analogy).

It's not feudalism either, because feudalism is a decentralised system, while North Korea is highly centralised. I don't know if the Asiatic mode of production can be characterised as a cenralised version of feudalism, if it is, then North Korea may be a modern approximation or reincarnation of this mode of production -- although this is apparently an ahistorical mode of production.

[Bala Perdida]

North Korea seems kind of like a fascist-monarchy. They do have the ultra nationalist thing going on. Their highly centralized dictatorship seems to also correlate with fascism, maybe you could call their attempts at reuniting with South Korea their expansion. The monarchy part is basically self explanatory, the family basically owns the leadership positions. Also, I find it weird how they drop "communist" from their constitution, but they keep "Democratic" in their name.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

They certainly aren't socialist or any proximation of it. I'd probably call them state capitalist with a bunch of elements from all kinds of political and economical theories mixed in. I can definitely see why someone would call it feudalism but that wouldn't be the most suitable name (it doesn't adhere to the main principle of feudalism). It's basically an extremely authoritarian version of state capitalism were individual rights are shunned.

[reb]

Anyway, I'm not sure whether North Korea qualifies as capitalism proper. Initially I believed this on the basis of the USSR and so forth being capitalist. However, apparently workers -- I don't know how many -- are being rationed rather than paid. And perhaps, then, if workers do not sell their labour-power but are compelled into labour, we can't speak of wage-labour either. Perhaps North Korea is a horrid deformity, a non-durable mutated class society branched off from capitalism (to repeat Q's analogy).

It's not feudalism either, because feudalism is a decentralised system, while North Korea is highly centralised. I don't know if the Asiatic mode of production can be characterised as a cenralised version of feudalism, if it is, then North Korea may be a modern approximation or reincarnation of this mode of production -- although this is apparently an ahistorical mode of production.

Rationing does not mean that there is no capitalism or that labor-power is not a commodity. Unless you think war time and post-war Britain to not have been capitalist. Feudalism is not a mode of production, it is a loose description of a political formation. The fact is, even if it was operating under a monarchy then it would still be capitalist because it is producing value and commodities.

[Sea]

But then again I am a fascistic-pseudo-Marxist, degenerate-apologist, Kim-loving-Monarchist-opportunist. :laugh:Actually, you're a Maoist.

NK is capitalist through and through. Juche cannot be reconciled with Marxism of any flavor.

[Comrade Jacob]

Actually, you're a Maoist.

I see what you did there comrade. :grin:

[Tim Cornelis]

Rationing does not mean that there is no capitalism or that labor-power is not a commodity. Unless you think war time and post-war Britain to not have been capitalist. Feudalism is not a mode of production, it is a loose description of a political formation. The fact is, even if it was operating under a monarchy then it would still be capitalist because it is producing value and commodities.

Surely feudalism is a mode of production, with specific relations of production, property-relations, and methods of distribution?

If they're rationing then they are hardly commodities. Feudalism was also producing value and commodities.


Defectors reported to Human Rights Watch that they were required to work at an assigned workplace after completing school. The effective collapse of much of the North Korean economy means that many of these jobs are either unpaid or provide minimal substitute compensation in the form of food or other rations. Failure to report to an assigned job for those who try to earn money in other ways can result in being sent to a forced labor camp for six months to as long as two years.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/13/north-korea-economic-system-built-forced-labor

So many workers are not wage-labourers and do not produce commodities because much of the consumer goods (both foodstuffs and durable goods, while luxury goods like refrigerators are sold, but these luxury goods are not attained by the vast majority of the population) are rationed.

There is, however, also a black market which seems to carry North Korea.

Perhaps North Korea is a hybrid mutated merchant capitalism (black market) + state-capitalism (formal sale of commodities) + Asiatic mode of production (centralised monarchy, rationing and forced labour on communal land)


Actually, you're a Maoist.

NK is capitalist through and through. Juche cannot be reconciled with Marxism of any flavor.

It does not follow that when it is not Marxism that therefore it is capitalist.

[Sea]

It does not follow that when it is not Marxism that therefore it is capitalist.It does, however, follow that beacuse their ideology is a class-collaborationist one, it cannot be Marxist.

[Sabot Cat]

North Korea is a fascist nation with a planned economy and no market, but nonetheless it's State Capitalist. When the ruling class (the bourgeois) extract profits from those who don't own the means of production (the proletariat), it's a system of stratification and exploitation the clearly betrays any allegiance to socialist ideals.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

North Korea is a fascist nation with a planned economy and no market, but nonetheless it's State Capitalist. When the ruling class (the bourgeois) extract profits from those who don't own the means of production (the proletariat), it's a system of stratification and exploitation the clearly betrays any allegiance to socialist ideals.

It's not fascist. Stop abusing that word now.

As to the economic planning... it's not actually being done in earnest. There's not much economic activity going on (major industry is usually mothballed due to lack of resources, extraction industries are operating at low rates due to unreliable electricity and labour supply, etc), and what is going on, is not very coördianted. It is a haphazard ramshackle construction of improvisations constantly cracking here and there, a patch-work construction. There is a market, a significant one, 'black' and otherwise, which dominates real economic activity, as tends to happen in extreme scarcity and poverty. Popular cynicism is very high.

The DPRK is essentially a capitalist military government, a junta if you will.

[Sabot Cat]

It's not fascist. Stop abusing that word now.

I strongly contest that I incorrectly used the word 'fascist'. The government of North Korea is a totalitarian, xenophobic nationalist dictatorship which espouses an economic philosophy oriented towards extreme self-reliance that is neither traditionally socialist or capitalist, while possessing a nearly omnipresent military presence in the lives of its people. Aside from not being either Italy or Germany in the interwar period and World War II, I fail to see how North Korea doesn't qualify for most of the criteria that defines a fascist state in any substantive way.


As to the economic planning... it's not actually being done in earnest. There's not much economic activity going on (major industry is usually mothballed due to lack of resources, extraction industries are operating at low rates due to unreliable electricity and labour supply, etc), and what is going on, is not very coördianted. It is a haphazard ramshackle construction of improvisations constantly cracking here and there, a patch-work construction. There is a market, a significant one, 'black' and otherwise, which dominates real economic activity, as tends to happen in extreme scarcity and poverty. Popular cynicism is very high.


It might not be planned or implemented very well, and there may be extralegal economic activity, but it's nonetheless planned.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I strongly contest that I incorrectly used the word 'fascist'. The government of North Korea is a totalitarian, xenophobic nationalist dictatorship which espouses an economic philosophy oriented towards extreme self-reliance that is neither traditionally socialist or capitalist, while possessing a nearly omnipresent military presence in the lives of its people. Aside from not being either Italy or Germany in the interwar period and World War II, I fail to see how North Korea doesn't qualify for most of the criteria that defines a fascist state in any substantive way.

Fascism is a specific political movement, and a fascist state is a state that adheres thereto. I.e. Italy and to some degree Nazism since it drew heavily thereon. Your absurd reductionism of "lol totalitarian fascism" is wholly useless (apart from that 'totalitarian' is ridiculous), as it is important to see how it emerged and transformed from a Soviet-oriented state to its current severely deformed military government by way of its own twists and turns as reflecting its political and economic realities, the debt crisis with regards to loans from the SSSR in the 1970's and the growing desire to enact self-reliance as means to overcome this á la Ceaucescu. It is essential to understand the severe deformities of the DPRK state to disregard abstract rubbish like "lol fascism" and other daft proclamations.



It might not be planned or implemented very well, and there may be extralegal economic activity, but it's nonetheless planned.

How the fuck is that relevant? How is it planned?

[Sabot Cat]

Fascism is a specific political movement, and a fascist state is a state that adheres thereto. I.e. Italy and to some degree Nazism since it drew heavily thereon.

I'll explicate specific criteria for a fascist state, in that a nation has to have all of these to qualify:


Despotic, authoritarian governance
A cult of personality
Xenophobic nationalism
Massive militarization of culture
Consistent belligerence towards most nations
Tightly regulated private sphere for its citizens
Huge propagandist machine and suppression of free expression

These criterion derive from the conditions of Italy and Germany under Mussolini and Hitler. The term fascist derives from a conscious political effort to establish a type of society with that name in Italy, but it needn't be shackled to its etymology. The meaning of fascism given by most dictionaries provide something like what I described, which would certainly include North Korea. If we are to go to the source of the self-titled fascist movement, Benito Mussolini provides succinct descriptions of what he considered fascism to be:

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."

Or more succinctly:

"...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."

I fail to see how North Korea isn't fascist.


Your absurd reductionism of "lol totalitarian fascism" is wholly useless (apart from that 'totalitarian' is ridiculous), as it is important to see how it emerged and transformed from a Soviet-oriented state to its current severely deformed military government by way of its own twists and turns as reflecting its political and economic realities, the debt crisis with regards to loans from the SSSR in the 1970's and the growing desire to enact self-reliance as means to overcome this á la Ceaucescu. It is essential to understand the severe deformities of the DPRK state to disregard abstract rubbish like "lol fascism" and other daft proclamations.

I don't deny that the specific historical circumstances of North Korea are important in evaluating the nature of its government. However, I didn't proclaim that it was fascist with the frivolity that you're alleging, and I believe that historical parallels to nations that exhibit the same characteristics can also be useful in evaluating the conditions of the North Korean society.


How the fuck is that relevant? How is it planned?

As far as I'm aware, North Korea doesn't have any official market for goods and services.

[Remus Bleys]

I'll explicate specific criteria for a fascist state, in that a nation has to have all of these to qualify:


Despotic, authoritarian governance
A cult of personality
Xenophobic nationalism
Massive militarization of culture
Consistent belligerence towards most nations
Tightly regulated private sphere for its citizens
Huge propagandist machine and suppression of free expression

Then everything that ever was was fascist. Stop abusing that word. Fascism is not a buzzword, its a specific ideology that was created in the context of fucking europe in the early 1930s.


These criterion derive from the conditions of Italy and Germany under Mussolini and Hitler. The term fascist derives from a conscious political effort to establish a type of society with that name in Italy, but it needn't be shackled to its etymology. The meaning of fascism given by most dictionaries provide something like what I described, which would certainly include North Korea. If we are to go to the source of the self-titled fascist movement, Benito Mussolini provides succinct descriptions of what he considered fascism to be:
OHHH A DICTIONARY!
Most dictionaries would define communism as what the USSR had and anarchism as just chaos.

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."

Or more succinctly:

"...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state." Except that isnt true. Mussolini didnt grasp the whole of what he was doing. Fascism arouse out of European culture started by the petty-boourgeoisie to combat both failing capitalism and the rise of Communists.


I fail to see how North Korea isn't fascist.

You have yet to demonstrate this.


I don't deny that the specific historical circumstances of North Korea are important in evaluating the nature of its government. However, I didn't proclaim that it was fascist with the frivolity that you're alleging, and I believe that historical parallels to nations that exhibit the same characteristics can also be useful in evaluating the conditions of the North Korean society.

Wait... wait... so, you admit that north korea isn't fascist, yet insist on calling it something its not? You recognize that fascism was the result of 1930s europe, yet you think you can just extrapolate the ideals and place it onto something clearly different?


As far as I'm aware, North Korea doesn't have any official market for goods and services. uh.... North Koreans have farmers trade their product, and as Tim probably pointed out somewhere in this thread, North Korea has a huge black market.

[Marshal of the People]

So what do you think the mode of production is in North Korea?

I think that the mode of production in North Korea is state capitalism.

Definition of absolute monarchy: Absolute monarchy is a monarchial form of government in which the monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government; his or her powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law.

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=cr&ei=vuMmUqDPMoqdkgWQ_IDQBg#q=define+absolute+monarc hy

[Sabot Cat]

Then everything that ever was was fascist. Stop abusing that word. Fascism is not a buzzword, its a specific ideology that was created in the context of fucking europe in the early 1930s.


Perhaps I should append to those criteria, "in a superlative manner when compared to other nations within the contemporary period". I'm not abusing the word, and it's yet to be demonstrated what this "specific ideology" entails that I didn't indicate.



OHHH A DICTIONARY!
Most dictionaries would define communism as what the USSR had and anarchism as just chaos.

Yes, words can mean different things in different contexts depending on how they're used by different people. Meaning is primarily derived from use, and I concede that the word has been thrown around lightly from time to time, as Orwell once noted it became synonymous with 'bully'. However, using fascist to mean a government that relies on authoritarian ultranationalism (among other things) is accordant to how it's typically used by people as diverse as Mussolini, FDR, or Umberto Eco.



Except that isnt true. Mussolini didnt grasp the whole of what he was doing. Fascism arouse out of European culture started by the petty-boourgeoisie to combat both failing capitalism and the rise of Communists.


So the front-man of fascist thought, dictionaries and the way the word is typically used in a academic setting aren't what it should mean?


You have yet to demonstrate this.


You are the one who must provide proof for your claims, because I'm not the one arguing for this novel definition of a fascist government.


Wait... wait... so, you admit that north korea isn't fascist, yet insist on calling it something its not? You recognize that fascism was the result of 1930s europe, yet you think you can just extrapolate the ideals and place it onto something clearly different?


Socialism is an idea first articulated and advanced under that name by a French man named Saint-Simon in the early 19th Century. Yet socialism is a way of organizing a community that can be extrapolated anywhere even without clear references to Saint-Simon, because the criteria for what a socialist society is can be unrelated to where socialism itself came from or whether or not that socialist society describes itself as 'socialist'.


uh.... North Koreans have farmers trade their product, and as Tim probably pointed out somewhere in this thread, North Korea has a huge black market.

Some parts of the U.S. economy are regulated, worker-owner or government-owned. This doesn't make it a 'planned economy', so your counterexamples of a black market and small scale trading don't effectively refute the fact that much of the economic activity is planned.

[Remus Bleys]

Perhaps I should append to those criteria, "in a superlative manner when compared to other nations within the contemporary period". I'm not abusing the word, and it's yet to be demonstrated what this "specific ideology" entails that I didn't indicate.
So how much nationalism is required for it to be fascist? Plus ten percent more than normal?
How do we measure this?
You are so abusing the word. I am cringing when I read your posts.




Yes, words can mean different things in different contexts depending on how they're used by different people. Meaning is primarily derived from use, and I concede that the word has been thrown around lightly from time to time, as Orwell once noted it became synonymous with 'bully'. However, using fascist to mean a government that relies on authoritarian ultranationalism (among other things) is accordant to how it's typically used by people as diverse as Mussolini, FDR, or Umberto Eco.
Well, your on a marxist website, and you are supposedly a marxist, so use the actual meaning please.




So the front-man of fascist thought, dictionaries and the way the word is typically used in a academic setting aren't what it should mean?

Actually, yes. It does not mean what bourgeois idealist think it should mean - it should be what it actually was. Fascism did not exist in an ideological vacuum like these fools think it did. Fascism had very specific goal: maintain capitalism against all threats. The fools did not understand this, and did not admit this for obvious reasons. The marxists analysis, which takes the world for how it is, not for how philosophers conceptualize it, is the definition we should use. It may not be accepted in academic settings everywhere, but how many so called "academicians" think Communism isn't utopian?




You are the one who must provide proof for your claims, because I'm not the one arguing for this novel definition of a fascist government. I asked you for proof of North Korea being fascist.




Socialism is an idea first articulated and advanced under that name by a French man named Saint-Simon in the early 19th Century. Yet socialism is a way of organizing a community that can be extrapolated anywhere even without clear references to Saint-Simon, because the criteria for what a socialist society is can be unrelated to where socialism itself came from or whether or not that socialist society describes itself as 'socialist'. Uhh what? How does that discount anything I said? How?
I said that you are taking a very specific ideology with very specific material roots that only Europe had and extrapolated it onto North Korea when that clearly is neither a) possible or b) make sense. You are using fascism and "authoritarianism" (which is really a liberal concept - a revolution is a highly authoritarian act). Juche is a specific ideology that is class collaborationist, nationalist, and spiritualist, but is not fascism. Just because something is nationalist, spiritualist and class collaborationists does not mean that it is fucking fascism.


Some parts of the U.S. economy are regulated, worker-owner or government-owned. This doesn't make it a 'planned economy', so your counterexamples of a black market and small scale trading don't effectively refute the fact that much of the economic activity is planned.
A heavily regulated market economy is an obscenely important part of fascism. In fact, that is the main reason it formed. This alone shows the DPRK isn't fascist.
also:

How is it planned?

As far as I'm aware, North Korea doesn't have any official market for goods and services. That was your proof to DPRK being planned, yet I explained why you were wrong.
also: planned v market is a false liberal dichotomy.

[Sabot Cat]

I want to say that if you believe I used the word 'fascism' incorrectly, I will concede that I might have. However, I will reiterate that "fascism" is notoriously broad in meaning even in political science contexts, and that to accuse me of 'abusing' it for using one of the more rigid interpretations of the word as opposed to the most rigid isn't especially just.


So how much nationalism is required for it to be fascist? Plus ten percent more than normal?
How do we measure this? You are so abusing the word. I am cringing when I read your posts.

Just because you can't quantify a quality doesn't mean that isn't comparable. North Korea is distinctively extreme in its nationalism, as compared to its neighbor, South Korea, or most nations.


Well, your on a marxist website, and you are supposedly a marxist, so use the actual meaning please.


What is this even supposed to mean?


Actually, yes. It does not mean what bourgeois idealist think it should mean - it should be what it actually was. Fascism did not exist in an ideological vacuum like these fools think it did. Fascism had very specific goal: maintain capitalism against all threats.

Fascism had the goal of enriching the lives of its leaders and making all of the people an accessory to furthering that cause. Which is pretty much the goal of capitalism, yes, but they didn't seek to do that solely through the exploitation of the proletariat's labor; they use the entire vehicle of the state as a throne.


The fools did not understand this, and did not admit this for obvious reasons. The marxists analysis, which takes the world for how it is, not for how philosophers conceptualize it, is the definition we should use. It may not be accepted in academic settings everywhere, but how many so called "academicians" think Communism isn't utopian?


The world as represented by Marxist analysis is a conceptualization from a philosophy. Your last statement is also a poisoning the well fallacy.


I asked you for proof of North Korea being fascist.


Yes. I gave you a set of criteria that North Korea fulfilled, you asserted that there is another set and never elaborated which North Korea didn't fulfill, and now we're here.


Uhh what? How does that discount anything I said? How?


I was demonstrating that you can have a way of describing things that emerges from a specific set of circumstances and then apply it to something like it.


I said that you are taking a very specific ideology with very specific material roots that only Europe had and extrapolated it onto North Korea when that clearly is neither a) possible or b) make sense. You are using fascism and "authoritarianism" (which is really a liberal concept - a revolution is a highly authoritarian act).

A revolution is, and shouldn't be, an authoritarian act. The General Strike(s) and mass protest(s) which will usher in the new era of worker ownership of the means of production will be extremely democratic in nature if they come to pass.


Juche is a specific ideology that is class collaborationist, nationalist, and spiritualist, but is not fascism. Just because something is nationalist, spiritualist and class collaborationists does not mean that it is fucking fascism.


Nazism is also a specific ideology that is similar but different in name and goals from Italian Fascism. Is it not perfectly adherent to the principles of fascism as enumerated by its founders, or the conditions of the nation during which fascism was the prevailing mode of governance? And furthermore, wouldn't North Korea fulfill the same criteria?



A heavily regulated market economy is an obscenely important part of fascism. In fact, that is the main reason it formed. This alone shows the DPRK isn't fascist.

That was your proof to DPRK being planned, yet I explained why you were wrong.
also: planned v market is a false liberal dichotomy.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that the portions of North Korea's economy that are planned are aberrations.

[Remus Bleys]

I want to say that if you believe I used the word 'fascism' incorrectly, I will concede that I might have. However, I will reiterate that "fascism" is notoriously broad in meaning even in political science contexts, and that to accuse me of 'abusing' it for using one of the more rigid interpretations of the word as opposed to the most rigid isn't especially just.
And the reason its so damn broad is fools like you misuse it.




Just because you can't quantify a quality doesn't mean that isn't comparable. North Korea is distinctively extreme in its nationalism, as compared to its neighbor, South Korea, or most nations.
That's a piss poor example.
My point was that it was asinine to look at the type of nationalism alone as some great identifier.

What is this even supposed to mean?
Do not look at fascism as some abstract ideology. Fascism is an ideology, and like all ideologies are derived from the specific material conditions. Fascism could not develop in North Korea because North Korea did not go through WW1, it did not have the European background, the failure of capitalism, colonies, a significant communist (well, like many of the italian "communists" they had communists in name only) threat, etc.
That is very important.



Fascism had the goal of enriching the lives of its leaders and making all of the people an accessory to furthering that cause. Which is pretty much the goal of capitalism, yes, but they didn't seek to do that solely through the exploitation of the proletariat's labor; they use the entire vehicle of the state as a throne. The state is always the tool of the ruling class, its throne. The state is a tool, however, and can't do oppressing on its own - as it is not an abstract entity superimposed on society.




The world as represented by Marxist analysis is a conceptualization from a philosophy.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I'm sorry, what? (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=8663)

Your last statement is also a poisoning the well fallacy.
I'm sorry, I'm not a debate dweeb. But couldn't I just say that you were using an argument from authority? (OH NO AUTHORITARIAN!)



Yes. I gave you a set of criteria that North Korea fulfilled, you asserted that there is another set and never elaborated which North Korea didn't fulfill, and now we're here. Again, North Korea was a nation without colonies (hell, that was a colony) lacked a significant numer of proletarians, and didn't go through the same things Europe did. I don't care if the ideologies are similar - that is to be expected. They are from different things.




I was demonstrating that you can have a way of describing things that emerges from a specific set of circumstances and then apply it to something like it.
You aren't demonstrating anything at all. Your just saying that North Korea is fascist so you can further yourself away from it.



A revolution is, and shouldn't be, an authoritarian act. The General Strike(s) and mass protest(s) which will usher in the new era of worker ownership of the means of production will be extremely democratic in nature if they come to pass.
Isn't that authoritarian to the bourgeoisie? How do your newb facebook anarchist ethics reconcile that?



Nazism is also a specific ideology that is similar but different in name and goals from Italian Fascism. Is it not perfectly adherent to the principles of fascism as enumerated by its founders, or the conditions of the nation during which fascism was the prevailing mode of governance? And furthermore, wouldn't North Korea fulfill the same criteria?
1. Nazism and Italian Fascism will obviously differ in name and goals - they are different places. However, this does not follow that neither are fascist. Both ideologies resulted from, well, I don't feel the need to retype the second point in this post.
2. What, so do you honestly think that we judge an ideology by how well it adheres to its founders? Its "founders" did not create jack-shit. It was bound to happen.
To quote Bordiga:

That which moves man is not opinions, or beliefs or faiths, nor any phenomena whatsoever of so-called thought, which inspires their will or action.
3. Reread what I wrote. I said just because they superficially meet this, doesn't make it fash. That wasn't criteria at all.



I'm not sure if you're arguing that the portions of North Korea's economy that are planned are aberrations.
have literally no idea what you are saying here.

[Sabot Cat]

Appellations like 'debate dweeb' and 'newb facebook anarchist' are certainly interesting. I'll also say that fascism has a contentious definition, and North Korea is described well by most meanings of the term, even if it may not be the one you're advocating. Thanks for the discussion though, I was glad to learn more about the Marxist perspective on the definition of fascism.