North Koreans defying authorities

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-video-shot-inside-north-korea-2014-1

"where are your stars? you're an asshole!" haha

[celticnachos]

Wow, a Korean officer doing his job, how horrifying.

[reb]

Wow, a Korean officer doing his job, how horrifying.

If you said this about a US cop then you'd be out of here.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

First one is lame. Those are those annoying "entrepreneurs" the west love to praise.

I wasn't aware of this trouser ban, by the way, when was it instated and why? I have often seen women with trousers in pictures, so I wonder if that ever was observed apart from when selectively applied for some classic cop aggression.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hustle hard

[celticnachos]

If you said this about a US cop then you'd be out of here.

Well, the Korean state keeps the working class in power and the American state keeps the capitalist class in power. The key organs of the state in the DPRK are actually just in their law enforcement.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well, the Korean state keeps the working class in power and the American state keeps the capitalist class in power. The key organs of the state in the DPRK are actually just in their law enforcement.

Yeah... really. Defend this law banning women from wearing trousers, would you kindly?

[Remus Bleys]

Wow, a Korean officer doing his job, how horrifying.

How can one uphold Korea but hate Khrushchev?

[Marshal of the People]

Well, the Korean state keeps the working class in power and the American state keeps the capitalist class in power. The key organs of the state in the DPRK are actually just in their law enforcement.

North Korea is a state capitalist absolute monarchy with extreme nationalistic tendencies! How can you say the working class is in power in North Korea? The only people in power are "The Great General" (Kim Jung Un) and the military! The people in the DPRK are treated like slaves.

North Korean state capitalism is malevolent in that the workers are exploited and enslaved than compared to say Soviet state capitalism in which was benevolent and the lives of the workers were very good!

EDIT: Not that I am a fan of the Soviet Union. My father was from it and it wasn't bad for the people, they just didn't have political freedoms (which is bad but...).

[Remus Bleys]

North Korea is a state capitalist absolute monarchy with extreme nationalistic tendencies! How can you say the working class is in power in North Korea? The only people in power are "The Great General" (Kim Jung Un) and the military! The people in the DPRK are treated like slaves.

North Korean state capitalism is malevolent in that the workers are exploited and enslaved than compared to say Soviet state capitalism in which was benevolent and the lives of the workers were very good!

How can one uphold pannekoek but call the ussr benevolent state capitalism?

[Marshal of the People]

How can one uphold pannekoek but call the ussr benevolent state capitalism?

I may not like it but it wasn't the worst country ever (far from it in fact). My father was from it and he has told me about it.

[Remus Bleys]

I may not like it but it wasn't the worst country ever (far from it in fact). My father was from it and he has told me about it.

How can one claim Council communism but think that some bourgeois ate too be supported over others?

[celticnachos]

Yeah... really. Defend this law banning women from wearing trousers, would you kindly?

Where are your legitimate sources that this is actually a law? There is plenty of video evidence of women wearing trousers in the DPRK for example:

My post count unallows me to do this, but if you look at the youtube "stimmekoreas" there is plenty of video evidence of women wearing pants.

[Marshal of the People]

How can one claim Council communism but think that some bourgeois ate too be supported over others?

I don't understand that. I t doesn't make grammatical sense, sorry.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Where are your legitimate sources that this is actually a law? There is plenty of video evidence of women wearing trousers in the DPRK for example:

My post count unallows me to do this, but if you look at the youtube "stimmekoreas" there is plenty of video evidence of women wearing pants.

You're the one saying that "law" in Korea is just. Now, I thought you regarded post-Stalin SSSR as a degeneration, if that is so, how come DPRK is just? Stimmekoreas is just I think the German wing of their foreign propaganda grouping.

[celticnachos]

How can one uphold Korea but hate Khrushchev?

Because I sympathize with the Korean people against the injustice imposed upon them from imperialist nations. Initially the Korean people wanted a soviet-style Korea, which is better than an oppressing imperialist South Korea and a North Korea.

[Marshal of the People]

Because I sympathize with the Korean people against the injustice imposed upon them from imperialist nations. Initially the Korean people wanted a soviet-style Korea, which is better than an oppressing imperialist South Korea and a North Korea.

North Korea is very different from the Soviet Union. And "The Great General" is doing them more injustice than the imperialist nations can do!

[Remus Bleys]

Because I sympathize with the Korean people against the injustice imposed upon them from imperialist nations. Initially the Korean people wanted a soviet-style Korea, which is better than an oppressing imperialist South Korea and a North Korea.

No you don't sympathize with them you support them. Say it like it is and realize you have an incoherent ideology.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't understand that. I t doesn't make grammatical sense, sorry.

Unless you got hung up about "too" instead of "to"v then yes or does. I suggest you actually read Council Communist Theory or at least about it.

ah I see now. Ate should be are. Stupid new keyboard

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Because I sympathize with the Korean people against the injustice imposed upon them from imperialist nations. Initially the Korean people wanted a soviet-style Korea, which is better than an oppressing imperialist South Korea and a North Korea.

And the division of Korea between the SSSR and the American forces of the South was what? It was not imposed upon them by the geopolitical situation in the wake of the war and the Japanese colonisation attempt? You said that law in Korea is justice. What makes you think it is?

[Marshal of the People]

Unless you got hung up about "too" instead of "to"v then yes or does. I suggest you actually read Council Communist Theory or at least about it.

ah I see now. Ate should be are. Stupid new keyboard

I have read council communist theory. But did you know it is possible to have your own views which are seperate from your main tendency?

[celticnachos]

You're the one saying that "law" in Korea is just. Now, I thought you regarded post-Stalin SSSR as a degeneration, if that is so, how come DPRK is just? Stimmekoreas is just I think the German wing of their foreign propaganda grouping.

Kim Il Sung said that as long as imperialism exists, then communism will not be possible. The Korean people adhered to Juche, not revisionism. If you look in the documents of Juche theory you will find that it is actually an application of Marxism-Leninism. Juche and Songun are not revisionist ideas, nor are they theoretical contributions. It's an application of Marxism-Leninism specifically in Korea.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Kim Il Sung said that as long as imperialism exists, then communism will not be possible. The Korean people adhered to Juche, not revisionism. If you look in the documents of Juche theory you will find that it is actually an application of Marxism-Leninism. Juche and Songun are not revisionist ideas, nor are they theoretical contributions. It's an application of Marxism-Leninism specifically in Korea.

You have to be pretty daft to think that Juche is an application of ML, even for a Stalin-kiddie that is some warped shit right there, Juche and Songun not being revisionist... What more impressive mental gymnastics will you be able to do now? Military first is good because?

[Taters]

I have read council communist theory. But did you know it is possible to have your own views which are seperate from your main tendency?

Yeah, but then you wouldn't be terribly logically consistent, would you?

[celticnachos]

And the division of Korea between the SSSR and the American forces of the South was what? It was not imposed upon them by the geopolitical situation in the wake of the war and the Japanese colonisation attempt? You said that law in Korea is justice. What makes you think it is?

It's a fact that the US supported Japan's annexation of Korea throughout history, and once the Korean people wanted a socialist Korea the United States intervened. A violent intervention in fact, killing four million Koreans. Korean law is just because it is forged to keep the working class in power, states in society serve the purpose of keeping one social class in power.

[Marshal of the People]

Yeah, but then you wouldn't be terribly logically consistent, would you?

By your logic I can't like blue if I like red.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It's a fact that the US supported Japan's annexation of Korea throughout history, and once the Korean people wanted a socialist Korea the United States intervened. A violent intervention in fact, killing four million Koreans. Korean law is just because it is forged to keep the working class in power, states in society serve the purpose of keeping one social class in power.

How does the working class rule in the DPRK, would you say?

[Marshal of the People]

Yeah, but then you wouldn't be terribly logically consistent, would you?

And I never said I like the Soviet Union all I said it was better than North Korea and most countries that ever existed. That doesn't mean it was a good country all it means is it was better than the others.

[celticnachos]

You have to be pretty daft to think that Juche is an application of ML, even for a Stalin-kiddie that is some warped shit right there, Juche and Songun not being revisionist... What more impressive mental gymnastics will you be able to do now? Military first is good because?

Songun was necessary for the Korean people, to defend the Korean people from the aggression of imperialism, especially the United States. However, with the recent Jang Song purge the DPRK is moving away from Songun politics. Now the goals of Songun have been reached in the DPRK, and the military first policies are not necessary anymore. The DPRK has a sufficient military, and nuclear power. Now the DPRK can focus on economic development, and the material conditions have been improving with Kim Jong Un.

[Marshal of the People]

Songun was necessary for the Korean people, to defend the Korean people from the aggression of imperialism, especially the United States. However, with the recent Jang Song purge the DPRK is moving away from Songun politics. Now the goals of Songun have been reached in the DPRK, and the military first policies are not necessary anymore. The DPRK has a sufficient military, and nuclear power. Now the DPRK can focus on economic development, and the material conditions have been improving with Kim Jong Un.

Provide evidence for "material conditions have been improving with Kim Jong UN" please.

[celticnachos]

How does the working class rule in the DPRK, would you say?

The state is a socialist one, which represents the interests of the Korean people. The representative organs of the state are the Supreme People's Assembly and the local peoples assemblies, all operating on democratic centralism. "The working people are masters of everything."

[Marshal of the People]

The state is a socialist one, which represents the interests of the Korean people. The representative organs of the state are the Supreme People's Assembly and the local peoples assemblies, all operating on democratic centralism. "The working people are masters of everything."

I almost fell off my chair due to laughter!

[Taters]

By your logic I can't like blue if I like red.
ok. That's what I was totally saying.
What I was getting at: by supporting any kind of state capitalism at all, you're at odds with... every councilist ever.

[Marshal of the People]

ok. That's what I was totally saying.
What I was getting at: by supporting any kind of state capitalism at all, you're at odds with... every councilist ever.

I wasn't supporting state capitalism (or should I say I didn't mean/intend to) or I meant to say was that state capitalism can be good (though not nearly as good as socialism or communism) or bad.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The state is a socialist one, which represents the interests of the Korean people. The representative organs of the state are the Supreme People's Assembly and the local peoples assemblies, all operating on democratic centralism. "The working people are masters of everything."

How do you know this? How do you know these are actually genuine workers movements and organisations, and that they control the state? What are the reason for the military and political leadership having fancy secluded mansions in the forests?

[Remus Bleys]

The state is a socialist one, which represents the interests of the Korean people. The representative organs of the state are the Supreme People's Assembly and the local peoples assemblies, all operating on democratic centralism. "The working people are masters of everything."
You keep averting the question "How?"

And its really funny that when pressed by someone who's user title says "revolutionary totalitarianism" you go "its socialism because of democratic centralism!" although that is funny in general.

[celticnachos]

How do you know this? How do you know these are actually genuine workers movements and organisations, and that they control the state? What are the reason for the military and political leadership having fancy secluded mansions in the forests?

How do you know that they aren't? My source is the DPRK's Socialist Constitution, and where are your sources for that claim? And it's a top down system, state owns enterprises and they operate through worker control.

[Marshal of the People]

How do you know that they aren't? My source is the DPRK's Socialist Constitution, and where are your sources for that claim? And it's a top down system, state owns enterprises and they operate through worker control.

The nifty thing about totalitarian regimes is that they don't need to follow their constitution, they have total control over everything.

[Remus Bleys]

How do you know that they aren't? My source is the DPRK's Socialist Constitution, and where are your sources for that claim? And it's a top down system, state owns enterprises and they operate through worker control.
1. Your source is literally propaganda. You do know that Constitutions are ignored literally all the time? I mean your source is state mandated documents... lol
2. Capitalism is also a top down system. Just because it is top down does not make it socialism
3. States can own enterprises and it still isn't socialism. Do you honestly think that nationalization is some anti-capitalist thing? Then why do western states do it?
4. You have yet to provide sources on worker control
5. Worker Control does not socialism make

[Marshal of the People]

1. Your source is literally propaganda. You do know that Constitutions are ignored literally all the time? I mean your source is state mandated documents... lol
2. Capitalism is also a top down system. Just because it is top down does not make it socialism
3. States can own enterprises and it still isn't socialism. Do you honestly think that nationalization is some anti-capitalist thing? Then why do western states do it?
4. You have yet to provide sources on worker control
5. Worker Control does not socialism make

I think celticnachos has been indoctrinated by Jason Unruhe (aka The Maoist Rebel).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

How do you know that they aren't? My source is the DPRK's Socialist Constitution, and where are your sources for that claim? And it's a top down system, state owns enterprises and they operate through worker control.

I'm naturally sceptical, I don't believe things just because someone says one thing. You should know constitutions tend to be full of fluffy shit of zero relevance to practical reality. My sources for the claim are obvious deductions made from aerial photography showing secluded woodland villas surrounded by perimeter walls and security systems.

What sort of workers control does the average Korean worker have? What is their influence? What of the ones sent to Siberian logging camps to work at terrible wages to earn hard currency? DPRK had a website boasting it offered the "cheapest labour in east Asia" or whatever it was. Not even the SSSR pretended "workers control" like that, you know. How come the countryside is so terribly impoverished?

Oh yes, source on this workers control thing. And no MRN pls.

[celticnachos]

1. Your source is literally propaganda. You do know that Constitutions are ignored literally all the time? I mean your source is state mandated documents... lol
2. Capitalism is also a top down system. Just because it is top down does not make it socialism
3. States can own enterprises and it still isn't socialism. Do you honestly think that nationalization is some anti-capitalist thing? Then why do western states do it?
4. You have yet to provide sources on worker control
5. Worker Control does not socialism make

Here we go again, I wonder who owns the means of production in the DPRK. The state does, and they are utilized for public benefit rather than for profit. There is no capitalist class in the DPRK. In capitalist country healthcare, housing, and education are not rights to all they're privileges, contrary to the DPRK as everyone has access to these. Healthcare has also vastly improved since the 1950s in the DPRK, it's medical system is very good.

[Marshal of the People]

Here we go again, I wonder who owns the means of production in the DPRK. The state does, and they are utilized for public benefit rather than for profit. There is no capitalist class in the DPRK. In capitalist country healthcare, housing, and education are not rights to all they're privileges, contrary to the DPRK as everyone has access to these. Healthcare has also vastly improved since the 1950s in the DPRK, it's medical system is very good.

Incorrect definition of capitalism.

And please show proof that the MOP are utilised for public benefit, please.

[Skyhilist]

Did anyone watch the Frontline episode about DPRK tonight? It was pretty good. I guess Kim Jong Un has actually purge almost half the military leaders that were there when his father was in control. Which begs the question really, if the leaders of the military are being actively purged, why exactly is it that they don't just purge Kim Jong Un back for their own safety?

[Remus Bleys]

Here we go again, I wonder who owns the means of production in the DPRK. The state does, and they are utilized for public benefit rather than for profit. There is no capitalist class in the DPRK. In capitalist country healthcare, housing, and education are not rights to all they're privileges, contrary to the DPRK as everyone has access to these. Healthcare has also vastly improved since the 1950s in the DPRK, it's medical system is very good.
wait wait wait
so dprk is socialist because of free healthcare and education? Im not even going to demand a source, but simply look around you, look at america, look at Europe, and if this is your criteron for socialism than i guess we are living in socialism.
i mean, make a better argument. This is tiring and almost too cliche to be funny.

[celticnachos]

I think celticnachos has been indoctrinated by Jason Unruhe (aka The Maoist Rebel).

I'm not a Maoist.

[Marshal of the People]

Did anyone watch the Frontline episode about DPRK tonight? It was pretty good. I guess Kim Jong Un has actually purge almost half the military leaders that were there when his father was in control. Which begs the question really, if the leaders of the military are being actively purged, why exactly is it that they don't just purge Kim Jong Un back for their own safety?

First you must determine if Kim Jong Un is actually purging all those military leaders. If he is then that is a good question you posed, Why don't they just get rid of him?

[celticnachos]

wait wait wait
so dprk is socialist because of free healthcare and education? Im not even going to demand a source, but simply look around you, look at america, look at Europe, and if this is your criteron for socialism than i guess we are living in socialism.
i mean, make a better argument. This is tiring and almost too cliche to be funny.

These are advantages. What makes the DPRK socialist is that the working class has consolidated political power, and control of the means of production through the state. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat in the sense that the working class holds all economic power, thus all political power. The DPRK has achieved the abolition of any capitalist class,

"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."

[Marshal of the People]

These are advantages. What makes the DPRK socialist is that the working class has consolidated political power, and control of the means of production through the state. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat in the sense that the working class holds all economic power, thus all political power. The DPRK has achieved the abolition of any capitalist class,

"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."

That's it you must be a troll.

[Remus Bleys]

These are advantages. What makes the DPRK socialist is that the working class has consolidated political power, and control of the means of production through the state. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat in the sense that the working class holds all economic power, thus all political power. The DPRK has achieved the abolition of any capitalist class,
way to totally ignore everything i wrote

you still have yet to back any of this up

[celticnachos]

That's it you must be a troll.

Lol, because I have an objective view of reality?

[Marshal of the People]

Lol, because I have an objective view of reality?

No because I can't see someone in their right mind believing the stuff you do when you have been repeatedly corrected and have refused to show any evidence to back up your views.

[Marshal of the People]

No because I can't see someone in their right mind believing the stuff you do when you have been repeatedly corrected and have refused to show any evidence to back up your views.

I may have been a bit too harsh here. My psychiatrist has been telling me to not to insult and deride people with different view points.

But I stand by my position that celticnachos is incorrect in saying that North Korea is controlled by the workers for the workers benefit when we all (well most of us anyway) know that North Korea is a horrible state capitalist absolute monarchy.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Wow, a Korean officer doing his job, how horrifying.


Well, the Korean state keeps the working class in power and the American state keeps the capitalist class in power. The key organs of the state in the DPRK are actually just in their law enforcement.

I wish the left could be split into two different and opposing groups so that we could be free of you fucking double-standard stalinoid cultist freaks.


Because I sympathize with the Korean people against the injustice imposed upon them from imperialist nations. Initially the Korean people wanted a soviet-style Korea, which is better than an oppressing imperialist South Korea and a North Korea.

How about sympathize with those Korean people being forced into wearing fucking drab gendered uniform, drab hairstyles, worshipping a bronze statue, eating jack shit and working in Siberian/Chinese slave-labour/re-education camps for North Korean - and by extension Russian, Chinese and British - capitalist dogs? And stop trying to classify ethnic groups as fucking political movements you dumb shite. This isn't fucking nazi Germany. There is no 'wish of the Korean people'. The 'Korean people' are not all 'oppressed'. And clearly 'The Korean PeopleTM' are not in agreement over the fascistoid governance that rules the Northern Korean peninsula.


Seriously, when did the left become full of fanatics like you?

[Per Levy]

Lol, because I have an objective view of reality?


How do you know that they aren't? My source is the DPRK's Socialist Constitution, and where are your sources for that claim? And it's a top down system, state owns enterprises and they operate through worker control.

you say you have an "objective view of reality" while beliving in petty propaganda and useless things like constitutions. that doesnt go together.


The state is a socialist one, which represents the interests of the Korean people. The representative organs of the state are the Supreme People's Assembly and the local peoples assemblies, all operating on democratic centralism. "The working people are masters of everything."

exactly, just as the people of the usa are the ones who have all the power and their elected politicians just represent their interests isnt it?

seriously, how have the workers that are send to russia or china to work their asses of, so the political and military elite in NK can have a good live, any political or economic power? how have the workers that are forced into the special economic zones, so they can be exploited by japanese and south korean cappies, any political or economic power?

the state owns the means of production, that is correct(except in the speical economic zones of course), wich means nothing since the state isnt controlled by the workers but the state controlles the workers, its not a dictatorship of the proletariat but a dictatorship over the proletariat.

anyway, i think almost anyone, that isnt you celticnacho, is still waiting for the sources of the working class controlling everything in north korea, but probally you'll just post a link to a useless constitution or even more realistic you just go on not adressing anything substantial and just repeat propaganda.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Hmm, stalinist apologia doesn't really do much for me without the supporting 5 or 6 paragraphs quoted from books that went out of print in eastern europe during the 70s.

[Ember Catching]

Here we go again, I wonder who owns the means of production in the DPRK. The state does, and they are utilized for public benefit rather than for profit. There is no capitalist class in the DPRK.
One would have to be pretty far down the ideological rabbit hole to claim there is no production of surplus-value in North Korea, or indeed to claim the general absence of the capitalist social-personality in a society with a proletariat constitutes socialism.

Time and time again, the distinction between a troll and any shade of Stalinist proves itself to be nebulous at best.

[Sea]

The key organs of the state in the DPRK are actually just in their law enforcement.So in other words, the pants-patrol?

Please explain to me and everyone here how specifically what that officer was doing has anything to do with securing the proletarian dictatorship.

[Art Vandelay]

I wonder what the PSL/WWP will have to say about this; imperialist propaganda I suppose. Anyone know if they've addressed these videos at all? I'd check their sites, but well...its the PSL/WWP. It amazes me they can uphold the DPRK as an existing form of socialism.

[celticnachos]

I feel as if the general analysis of the DPRK in this thread has been ridden with bourgeois liberalism, evidently noticed with the submission to bourgeois propaganda. With this harmful retraction of the political forces (by agreeing to this propaganda) of the DPRK you all resort to your stubborn and idealistic ways. This is detected by the denial of the DPRK as a socialist state, adhering to the "righteousness" of orthodox Marxism. In the justification of this righteousness you idealists will do anything, even if this is believing and promoting the propaganda of the bourgeoisie. Indirectly by criticizing the DPRK you help promote the interests of monopoly capital. However, if one should analyze the political economy and state structure of the DPRK one should break free from dogma and idealistic thinking. Throughout all of the economic sanctions and war threats placed upon the DPRK by imperialist powers the DPRK has has not resorted to capital investment, and remains a revolutionary country. The Korean people will not be exploited, and we should support them in their constant struggle against imperialism. True communists should look at the DPRK for inspiration.

[Marshal of the People]

I feel as if the general analysis of the DPRK in this thread has been ridden with bourgeois liberalism, evidently noticed with the submission to bourgeois propaganda. With this harmful retraction of the political forces (by agreeing to this propaganda) of the DPRK you all resort to your stubborn and idealistic ways. This is detected by the denial of the DPRK as a socialist state, adhering to the "righteousness" of orthodox Marxism. In the justification of this righteousness you idealists will do anything, even if this is believing and promoting the propaganda of the bourgeoisie. Indirectly by criticizing the DPRK you help promote the interests of monopoly capital. However, if one should analyze the political economy and state structure of the DPRK one should break free from dogma and idealistic thinking. Throughout all of the economic sanctions and war threats placed upon the DPRK by imperialist powers the DPRK has has not resorted to capital investment, and remains a revolutionary country. The Korean people will not be exploited, and we should support them in their constant struggle against imperialism. True communists should look at the DPRK for inspiration.

Maoist Rebel (Jason Unruhe) is that you?

[Sea]

I feel as if the general analysis of the DPRK in this thread has been ridden with bourgeois liberalism, evidently noticed with the submission to bourgeois propaganda. With this harmful retraction of the political forces (by agreeing to this propaganda) of the DPRK you all resort to your stubborn and idealistic ways. This is detected by the denial of the DPRK as a socialist state, adhering to the "righteousness" of orthodox Marxism. In the justification of this righteousness you idealists will do anything, even if this is believing and promoting the propaganda of the bourgeoisie. Indirectly by criticizing the DPRK you help promote the interests of monopoly capital. However, if one should analyze the political economy and state structure of the DPRK one should break free from dogma and idealistic thinking. Throughout all of the economic sanctions and war threats placed upon the DPRK by imperialist powers the DPRK has has not resorted to capital investment, and remains a revolutionary country. The Korean people will not be exploited, and we should support them in their constant struggle against imperialism. True communists should look at the DPRK for inspiration.That's why we don't subscribe to the general analysis (that the DPRK is an evil communist dictatorship), which is riddled with bourgeois liberalism. We make a class analysis, which reveals that the DPRK is a capitalist dictatorship. No bourgeois would dare to make such an analysis, as it would further tar the name of capitalism.

And by the way, I'm still waiting to hear how this officer's actions have anything to do with establishing / maintaining a dictatorship of the proletariat, especially considering he was acting against an innocent worker.

[Per Levy]

I feel as if the general analysis of the DPRK in this thread has been ridden with bourgeois liberalism, evidently noticed with the submission to bourgeois propaganda.

leftists discussion tactic number 1. if being cornered in an argument just insult comments of your opposition as "bourgois liberalism" and "bourgois propaganda".


With this harmful retraction of the political forces (by agreeing to this propaganda) of the DPRK you all resort to your stubborn and idealistic ways.idealism, says the person who thinks a constitution tell them everything about a country.


This is detected by the denial of the DPRK as a socialist stateits obvious capitalist as being shown in almost half the thread.


adhering to the "righteousness" of orthodox Marxism. In the justification of this righteousness you idealists will do anything, even if this is believing and promoting the propaganda of the bourgeoisie. you've got something wrong here, we dont belive bourgois propaganda in general, that includes the bourgois north korean propaganda that you belive so very much in.


Indirectly by criticizing the DPRK you help promote the interests of monopoly capital.indeed, revleft is such an importent place that a few comments on here can help the "interests of monopoly capital".


However, if one should analyze the political economy and state structure of the DPRK one should break free from dogma and idealistic thinking.after you celticnacho, after you. cause the dogma that NK is "socialist" and that its workers own everything there is quite a dogma that you cant even prove, no matter how many users asked for sources of your claims.


Throughout all of the economic sanctions and war threats placed upon the DPRK by imperialist powers the DPRK has has not resorted to capital investment, and remains a revolutionary country. so you're denieing the special economic zones that exist in NK? you deny that there is wagelabour, commodity production, trade with other capitalsit nations and so on and so forth?


The Korean people will not be exploited,well they are, in the special economic zones, in china and russia and in NK as well, you know what exploitation is right?


and we should support them in their constant struggle against imperialism.its not like north korea isnt complety in the sphere of influence of china and therefore part of chinas imperialist stragety.


True communists should look at the DPRK for inspiration.

indeed, we should look up to a country in wich a family clan, that practises nepotism, rules pretty much everything. "true commies" do that and look even more redicilous than usual.

[DasFapital]

The people accusing you of being Jason Unruhe are out of line. You are clearly Harpal Brar.

[Marshal of the People]

The people accusing you of being Jason Unruhe are out of line. You are clearly Harpal Brar.

Who is that comrade?

[The Intransigent Faction]

How much of a "change" is this, though? Is it really the first time in about 60 years that incidents of defiance have taken place (nothing in the article suggested some kind of systematic campaign of resistance)? That doesn't seem likely. It might fit with wishful thinking for those of us who want to see the regime overthrown and system changed internally (i.e. socialists), but there's not enough to judge from here that this is a dramatic surge of popular defiance (or defiance of the right kind, i.e. against some misogynistic dress code if that's what this is, rather than starting up businesses).

What's the broader context behind the alleged law about females wearing pants?

As for their illegally running businesses, we have no way of knowing the validity (or lack thereof) of these charges, so we ought to reserve judgment on them.

[Sea]

How much of a "change" is this, though? Is it really the first time in about 60 years that incidents of defiance have taken place (nothing in the article suggested some kind of systematic campaign of resistance)? That doesn't seem likely. It might fit with wishful thinking for those of us who want to see the regime overthrown and system changed internally (i.e. socialists), but there's not enough to judge from here that this is a dramatic surge of popular defiance (or defiance of the right kind, i.e. against some misogynistic dress code if that's what this is, rather than starting up businesses).

What's the broader context behind the alleged law about females wearing pants?

As for their illegally running businesses, we have no way of knowing the validity (or lack thereof) of these charges, so we ought to reserve judgment on them.Supposedly it means that it's happening on a broad level. Obviously there have long been "criminals" (according to North Korean law) in the DPRK, but even in the United States people still retain the "let's have some respect for the police / law" mentality.

Who is that comrade?Whose comrade is it anyway?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Who is that comrade?

nqscnaZ8kNA

This guy.
He leads the "CPGBML", which is more like the "Party of Red Flag Enthusiasts". Slap some red and a star on your flag, and they'll support you as 'socialist' no matter what you do. They support modern China as "socialist".

[Marshal of the People]

Whose comrade is it anyway?

I wasn't referring to Harpal Braras a comrade but actually referring to DasFapital as the comrade.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Supposedly it means that it's happening on a broad level. Obviously there have long been "criminals" (according to North Korean law) in the DPRK, but even in the United States people still retain the "let's have some respect for the police / law" mentality.

That's the point, though. There's nothing in this article to indicate that it is happening on a "broad level", aside from wishful thinking. Anyway I'm not sure what you're getting at, because people clearly do retain that mentality in North Korea as well (at least outwardly, which is the only aspect we can really measure right).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I didn't post it as an indicator of some sort of sleeping giant in the DPRK, I just thought the video of some punk military officials being told off in public was amusing.

[reb]

The people accusing you of being Jason Unruhe are out of line. You are clearly Harpal Brar.

He clearly isn't as sexist or homophobic enough to be Jason Unruhe.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I didn't post it as an indicator of some sort of sleeping giant in the DPRK, I just thought the video of some punk military officials being told off in public was amusing.

The guy in the video claims that non-political accusations are being resisted by the population more often in recent years, which is probably bogus. On the other hand there has been a lot of transition in the county in the last few years so it's not unreasonable to assume that traditional power structures might be decaying.

On a different note, defending police abuse in any country should be grounds to be restricted to OI. A cop is a cop whether they're from Germany, Venezuela, or North Korea.

[FSL]

Yeah... really. Defend this law banning women from wearing trousers, would you kindly?

How is that a law? Women are wearing pants all the time in the photos here.
http://instagram.com/dguttenfelder

[Tim Cornelis]

I feel as if the general analysis of the DPRK in this thread has been ridden with bourgeois liberalism, evidently noticed with the submission to bourgeois propaganda. With this harmful retraction of the political forces (by agreeing to this propaganda) of the DPRK you all resort to your stubborn and idealistic ways. This is detected by the denial of the DPRK as a socialist state, adhering to the "righteousness" of orthodox Marxism. In the justification of this righteousness you idealists will do anything, even if this is believing and promoting the propaganda of the bourgeoisie. Indirectly by criticizing the DPRK you help promote the interests of monopoly capital. However, if one should analyze the political economy and state structure of the DPRK one should break free from dogma and idealistic thinking. Throughout all of the economic sanctions and war threats placed upon the DPRK by imperialist powers the DPRK has has not resorted to capital investment, and remains a revolutionary country. The Korean people will not be exploited, and we should support them in their constant struggle against imperialism. True communists should look at the DPRK for inspiration.

This is empty phraseology and utterly divorced from reality. It's sad how the tradition of communism has been tainted by the likes of you and similar minded Stalinists whom have turned the application of Marxism on its head to embrace a society that is in every way contradictory to socialism.
To accept a country based on military rule, leaving the general population disempowered and in dire poverty, subject to minority class rule, conduct monetary-commodity exchange, a homophobic, oppressive, exploitative, chauvinist regime of the worst kind and claim any relation with Marxism or communism is an insult.
You need to be smacked around with Marxist literature.

[FSL]

That's why we don't subscribe to the general analysis (that the DPRK is an evil communist dictatorship), which is riddled with bourgeois liberalism. We make a class analysis, which reveals that the DPRK is a capitalist dictatorship. No bourgeois would dare to make such an analysis, as it would further tar the name of capitalism.

And by the way, I'm still waiting to hear how this officer's actions have anything to do with establishing / maintaining a dictatorship of the proletariat, especially considering he was acting against an innocent worker.

Actually the "the bureaucrats are taking advantage of the workers" thing has been used countless times by all bourgeois politicians when talking about socialist countries. It's probably their most common argument.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Actually the "the bureaucrats are taking advantage of the workers" thing has been used countless times by all bourgeois politicians when talking about socialist countries. It's probably their most common argument.

Perhaps, but the bourgeois politicians' "solutions" to this problem are very different.

[FSL]

Perhaps, but the bourgeois politicians' "solutions" to this problem are very different.

But their solution to this "problem" is in fact the only solution. After it is established that bureaucrats are exploiters, no one actually pays attention to the idea of a society with absolutely no bureaucracy and no officials of any kind. Or maybe Ron Paul supporters do, but just them.

That type of leftists has traditionally been great in a)discrediting socialism vehemently b)doing it while holding a red flag, c)offering no substantive alternative.


I mean how are even all bureaucrats in all socialist countries exploiters all the time? What part of the product goes to the salaries of people working as officials in ministries and how different is it from all the capitalist countries?
Has anyone even bothered to really put some thought into this?
Surely Trotsky didn't and I think things have stagnated since then.

[Tim Cornelis]

As if the mere observation of the oppressive and exploitative role of state bureaucrats in the statecapitalist countries, amongst them North Korea, by liberals (and communists alike) means it therefore does not exist.

The reason both make this observation is because it is based on the actual situation in North Korea. It is exploitative and oppressive even by conventional capitalist standards. By all credible accounts (which includes discounting the sensetionalist hysterical reports), North Korea is a vicious dictatorship. It is the Juche apologists whom absorb twisted bourgeois propaganda by the North Korean ruling elite, not the communists, and it is them whom support the ruthless exploitation at the hands of a disgustingly oppressive regime involved in gassing entire families, starving its people, torturing children. It is utterly sickening. Send these Stalinists to a North Korean prison camp for a day and they'll come back liberals (not communists, as their bourgeois paradigm remains intact and is not changed by torture).

"That type of leftists has traditionally been great in a)discrediting socialism vehemently b)doing it while holding a red flag,"

Oh the irony.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But their solution to this "problem" is in fact the only solution. After it is established that bureaucrats are exploiters, no one actually pays attention to the idea of a society with absolutely no bureaucracy and no officials of any kind. Or maybe Ron Paul supporters do, but just them.

That type of leftists has traditionally been great in a)discrediting socialism vehemently b)doing it while holding a red flag, c)offering no substantive alternative.


I mean how are even all bureaucrats in all socialist countries exploiters all the time? What part of the product goes to the salaries of people working as officials in ministries and how different is it from all the capitalist countries?
Has anyone even bothered to really put some thought into this?
Surely Trotsky didn't and I think things have stagnated since then.

Some of them are the replacement of the niches occupied by private capitalists and managerial strata in a conventional capitalist economy. As seen in the SSSR, and in the DPRK - although to the extent that the DPRK economy still operates is limited, with much industry abandoned or at least mothballed due to lack of various resources required), this entails a layer of state bureaucracy whose purpose it is to internally imitate a capitalist economy. A state bank lends money to a state enterprise that produces good X and most prioritised are things that can be exported for much-needed hard-currency, etc.

The actual level of the money, or goods, going to any one group is also irrelevant - although to be fair, the SSSR had a much more equal distribution than the DPRK does, and it's leaders did not live in such lavish estates as those - as the primary operational mode of the economy remains the same. There is no fundamental change. The conventional market is replaced by a simulated market where state-owned and coöperative players act largely the same way.

[reb]

That type of leftists has traditionally been great in a)discrediting socialism vehemently b)doing it while holding a red flag, c)offering no substantive alternative.

Then we have morons like you who call it socialism in the first place.

[Sea]

Actually the "the bureaucrats are taking advantage of the workers" thing has been used countless times by all bourgeois politicians when talking about socialist countries. It's probably their most common argument.I'd like you to refute it this specific time. If the argument is invalid it is invalid no matter who supposedly usually uses it.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I feel as if the general analysis of the DPRK in this thread has been ridden with bourgeois liberalism, evidently noticed with the submission to bourgeois propaganda. With this harmful retraction of the political forces (by agreeing to this propaganda) of the DPRK you all resort to your stubborn and idealistic ways. This is detected by the denial of the DPRK as a socialist state, adhering to the "righteousness" of orthodox Marxism. In the justification of this righteousness you idealists will do anything, even if this is believing and promoting the propaganda of the bourgeoisie. Indirectly by criticizing the DPRK you help promote the interests of monopoly capital. However, if one should analyze the political economy and state structure of the DPRK one should break free from dogma and idealistic thinking. Throughout all of the economic sanctions and war threats placed upon the DPRK by imperialist powers the DPRK has has not resorted to capital investment, and remains a revolutionary country. The Korean people will not be exploited, and we should support them in their constant struggle against imperialism. True communists should look at the DPRK for inspiration.

You don't know anything about the DPRK aside from what you read in the media and books written by westerners who talk to defectors. :rolleyes:

[celticnachos]

This is empty phraseology and utterly divorced from reality. It's sad how the tradition of communism has been tainted by the likes of you and similar minded Stalinists whom have turned the application of Marxism on its head to embrace a society that is in every way contradictory to socialism.
To accept a country based on military rule, leaving the general population disempowered and in dire poverty, subject to minority class rule, conduct monetary-commodity exchange, a homophobic, oppressive, exploitative, chauvinist regime of the worst kind and claim any relation with Marxism or communism is an insult.
You need to be smacked around with Marxist literature.

As I said before, Songun politics were necessary for the aggression of imperialism, however the worker's party is moving away from Songun politics as it has reached it's military aims (the DPRK now has nuclear power and a sufficient army). The "military dictatorship rule" is dumb slander.

The general population is not disempowered, all Koreans over the age of 17 are able to vote and hold positions in the organs of the state. Elections are held for people's assemblies on local and national levels commonly. Here is a video which shows Korean people participating in local elections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOAk9P1KFlU

From your argument you say to accept a country that leaves the general population in dire poverty. Why would the state intentionally leave it's peoples in poverty? Medical care, housing, and education are granted freely to every Korean citizen, which disproves the "dire poverty." The DPRK has suffered several natural disasters, and are under tight economic sanctions. The United Nations even cut food aid to the DPRK! In a peninsula with limited resources the state can only do so much. Read this for a thorough and depth understanding of the Korean food crisis: http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/~aslan/dprke.pdf

Subject to minority class rule? What class would that be? I would look at the party composition of the Supreme People's Assembly, and you will find that the DPRK is a worker's state. I would also look up the Taen Work System that industries operate on.

Furthermore I would like to add that it is important to understand Marxism as a science, and a revolutionary one at that. Communists need to support the proletariat, and it is vital that we are in support with the DPRK. We must acknowledge the struggle of the Korean people against imperialism.

[reb]

As I said before, Songun politics were necessary for the aggression of imperialism, however the worker's party is moving away from Songun politics as it has reached it's military aims (the DPRK now has nuclear power and a sufficient army). The "military dictatorship rule" is dumb slander.

Does Cuba need to have a military first policy? It's right next to the US and has no friendly and powerful neighbor bordering it and has no nuclear weapons. In what way is this necessary for socialism?

[goalkeeper]

Its funny to hear Stalinists accuse people of making 'bourgeois-liberal' arguments for the DPRK not being socialist. I mean, the 'bourgeois-liberal' definition of socialist is often nationalised property and the planned economy as opposed to capitalism which is supposedly private property and the market. This is exactly the same criteria used by these Stalinists to claim the DPRK is socialist - 'oh, the means of production are owned publicly'.

Arguments about surplus value still existing in the DPRK meaning it isn't socialism is pretty much the complete opposite of 'bourgeois-liberal' thinking.

[celticnachos]

Does Cuba need to have a military first policy? It's right next to the US and has no friendly and powerful neighbor bordering it and has no nuclear weapons. In what way is this necessary for socialism?

This is a question of socio-historical conditions. Kim Jong Il states,

"The revolutionary idea of the working class emerges as the reflection of the matured demand of history and the revolution in their development.”

The historical necessity does not apply to Cuba, as American aggression underwent a shift with the collapse of the revisionist USSR. Turning nuclear weapons towards the DPRK instead of the USSR, as the DPRK posed the only real military threat to the United States. During this time natural disasters spread across Asia destroying crops which resulted in several famine, the heatwaves affected the DPRK. The US knew this was the perfect time to invade the DPRK, and Songun was necessary.

[reb]

This is a question of socio-historical conditions. Kim Jong Il states,

"The revolutionary idea of the working class emerges as the reflection of the matured demand of history and the revolution in their development.”

The historical necessity does not apply to Cuba, as American aggression underwent a shift with the collapse of the revisionist USSR. Turning nuclear weapons towards the DPRK instead of the USSR, as the DPRK posed the only real military threat to the United States. During this time natural disasters spread across Asia destroying crops which resulted in several famine, the heatwaves affected the DPRK. The US knew this was the perfect time to invade the DPRK, and Songun was necessary.

I love that you can get all of that from an intentional vague sentence. In what way did north korea pose a military threat to the US?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is a question of socio-historical conditions. Kim Jong Il states,

"The revolutionary idea of the working class emerges as the reflection of the matured demand of history and the revolution in their development.”


That quote doesn't mean anything at all. Nothing. It's void. What are you trying to prove by that quotation? By the way, where's your sources for all these claims you've made á la the DPRK? While I am sceptical of South Korean right-wing rags and whatever rumours they chose to run on the North, that's no reason not to be sceptical of hyperbolic nonsense from DPRK's own government sources, by the way.

[celticnachos]

I love that you can get all of that from an intentional vague sentence. In what way did north korea pose a military threat to the US?

I just explained, the DPRK was the only logical place for the US to place to it's aggression towards communism. The DPRK lost it's main trading partner and it was highly vulnerable. What point are you trying to get across?

[Sinister Intents]

I just explained, the DPRK was the only logical place for the US to place to it's aggression towards communism. The DPRK lost it's main trading partner and it was highly vulnerable. What point are you trying to get across?

I'm not knowledgable on the history of this, but what? Do you seriously think the DPRK is socialist, even communist?

[reb]

I just explained, the DPRK was the only logical place for the US to place to it's aggression towards communism. The DPRK lost it's main trading partner and it was highly vulnerable. What point are you trying to get across?

I'm sorry, you keep throwing me when you say communism. In what way is 90 miles of water more of a deterrent than China? Is north korea more communist than cuba?

And while you mention it, it's also completely stupid for you to pose communism as a national question. Never mind all of the economic trade zones, the letting in of foreign investors so that you can get capital cash, the hiring out of workers to other countries and so on. Your actual reasoning for north korea being communist is ... what?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I just explained, the DPRK was the only logical place for the US to place to it's aggression towards communism. The DPRK lost it's main trading partner and it was highly vulnerable. What point are you trying to get across?

Of course, this was indeed the reason for the Songun policy - the fall of the SSSR, the famine which threatened the government, that is, the threat of popular uprising. In this situation, it was essential for the government to preserve the support of the wide military (not just the military leadership, who are since a long time back united with the 'civilian' leaders, that is to say the Kim and the higher party functionaries), to avoid an internal coup. The military first policy has fuck all to do with the United States but everything to do with preserving the internal order.

[reb]

I'm not knowledgable on the history of this, but what? Do you seriously think the DPRK is socialist, even communist?

For a marxist, socialism and communism are the same thing. For a stalinist they are different things FYI.

[celticnachos]

That quote doesn't mean anything at all. Nothing. It's void. What are you trying to prove by that quotation? By the way, where's your sources for all these claims you've made á la the DPRK? While I am sceptical of South Korean right-wing rags and whatever rumours they chose to run on the North, that's no reason not to be sceptical of hyperbolic nonsense from DPRK's own government sources, by the way.

The Songun Idea emerged from the demand against imperialism and the need for it's deterrence.

"The struggle of the masses of the people for the cause of
independence, the cause of socialism, is accompanied by
confrontation of power with imperialism and all sorts of other
counterrevolutionary forces. Therefore, military affairs emerge
as a matter of key importance on which hang victory or failure
in the revolution and the rise or fall of a country or a nation."

[Sinister Intents]

For a marxist, socialism and communism are the same thing. For a stalinist they are different things FYI.

Gracias, I forgot about that, I'm thinking celticnacho is a troll

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The Songun Idea emerged from the demand against imperialism and the need for it's deterrence.

"The struggle of the masses of the people for the cause of
independence, the cause of socialism, is accompanied by
confrontation of power with imperialism and all sorts of other
counterrevolutionary forces. Therefore, military affairs emerge
as a matter of key importance on which hang victory or failure
in the revolution and the rise or fall of a country or a nation."

Yeah, that's how one warps socialist jargon to support the military governments preferential treatment of the pillars upon whose strength its rule rest, indeed.

[celticnachos]

I'm not knowledgable on the history of this, but what? Do you seriously think the DPRK is socialist, even communist?

I don't mean communist in the literal sense. The DPRK is a socialist state, and socialists are forgers of communism. It takes time though. I have already explained this earlier in the thread.

[Sinister Intents]

I don't mean communist in the literal sense. The DPRK is a socialist state, and socialists are forgers of communism. It takes time though. I have already explained this in other posts.

If the DPRK are socialist, and advancing towards communism slowly then I haven't the foggiest fucking clue of what communism is. The DPRK is like a monarchy in a way from the way it seems and they're thoroughly capitalist as far as I'm concerned. In no way are they socialist with their Juche and Songun bullshit. It's a distortion of Stalinism and very bourgeios. In the DPRK exists a very exploited proletarian working class and a tiny bourgeoisie that exploits them and enslaves them.

[celticnachos]

If the DPRK are socialist, and advancing towards communism slowly then I haven't the foggiest fucking clue of what communism is. The DPRK is like a monarchy in a way from the way it seems and they're thoroughly capitalist as far as I'm concerned. In no way are they socialist with their Juche and Songun bullshit. It's a distortion of Stalinism and very bourgeios. In the DPRK exists a very exploited proletarian working class and a tiny bourgeoisie that exploits them and enslaves them.

How is the DPRK a monarchy? How is the Korean proletarian working class exploited? Show me capitalists in power.

[Sinister Intents]

How is the DPRK a monarchy? How is the Korean proletarian working class exploited? Show me capitalists in power.

I said its like a monarchy because of Kim jong Un taking power if Kim Jong Il who took power after Kim Il Sung, so there is hereditary rule like in some monarchies. They're capitalist because the workers are paid little if anything and pretty much work in slave camps. As for capitalists in power look at fucking Kim Jong Un himself and those that he works with.

[celticnachos]

I said its like a monarchy because of Kim jong Un taking power if Kim Jong Il who took power after Kim Il Sung, so there is hereditary rule like in some monarchies. They're capitalist because the workers are paid little if anything and pretty much work in slave camps. As for capitalists in power look at fucking Kim Jong Un himself and those that he works with.

How did Kim Jong Il take power? What are these "slave camps" you speak of, why would there be "slave camps" ? How is Kim Jong Un a capitalist? Your argument is too weak, please develop it some more so I can take you seriously.

[FSL]

As if the mere observation of the oppressive and exploitative role of state bureaucrats in the statecapitalist countries, amongst them North Korea, by liberals (and communists alike) means it therefore does not exist.
No, the mere observation of a fact doesn't by itself prove that the fact doesn't exist. It just brings forth a question of who is doing the observation and in this cace why they aren't backing it with data.



The reason both make this observation is because it is based on the actual situation in North Korea. It is exploitative and oppressive even by conventional capitalist standards. By all credible accounts (which includes discounting the sensetionalist hysterical reports), North Korea is a vicious dictatorship. It is the Juche apologists whom absorb twisted bourgeois propaganda by the North Korean ruling elite, not the communists, and it is them whom support the ruthless exploitation at the hands of a disgustingly oppressive regime involved in gassing entire families, starving its people, torturing children. It is utterly sickening. Send these Stalinists to a North Korean prison camp for a day and they'll come back liberals (not communists, as their bourgeois paradigm remains intact and is not changed by torture).

"That type of leftists has traditionally been great in a)discrediting socialism vehemently b)doing it while holding a red flag,"

Oh the irony.
The same observation has been made for every socialist state ever, every single time workers rebeled. And never has anyone said why.

We do know that in the capitalist economy of the US there are trillions of dollars taken by capitalists as surplus value. Pretty much half the annual product goes to people who didn't work. Does the same thing happen to all these socialist countries? Does half the annual product go to them? Do "officials" live in 100 storey scyscrapers with a gym, an indoor pool and a doorman while the ordinary workers live in dumps? Is that the state of things in these countries? Do they live in mansions with 40 bathrooms and a ferris wheel in the back yard (next to the golf course)? Does the profit rate have a tendency to fall there as well? Do officials decide to lead the economy into a crisis, do investments stop much like they do in a capitalist economy?

Tell me more about the situation because from what I've seen and read, the most luxurious lives in these countries were led by artists and scientists and they were definitely not that luxurious.


I'm pretty sure no sensationalist reports have talked about gassing families and torturing children. But alas, we have you to fill the void.

[Marshal of the People]

How did Kim Jong Il take power? What are these "slave camps" you speak of, why would there be "slave camps" ? How is Kim Jong Un a capitalist? Your argument is too weak, please develop it some more so I can take you seriously.

You make me feel like bashing my head against my desk until I am knocked unconscious!

I am not even going to answer those questions because they are stupid, the answers are obvious and you aren't going to listen or digest anything I say.

[Sinister Intents]

How did Kim Jong Il take power? What are these "slave camps" you speak of, why would there be "slave camps" ? How is Kim Jong Un a capitalist? Your argument is too weak, please develop it some more so I can take you seriously.

After doing some further research on the DPRK, I think it is rather obvious that you're a troll.

[FSL]

Some of them are the replacement of the niches occupied by private capitalists and managerial strata in a conventional capitalist economy. As seen in the SSSR, and in the DPRK - although to the extent that the DPRK economy still operates is limited, with much industry abandoned or at least mothballed due to lack of various resources required), this entails a layer of state bureaucracy whose purpose it is to internally imitate a capitalist economy. A state bank lends money to a state enterprise that produces good X and most prioritised are things that can be exported for much-needed hard-currency, etc.

The actual level of the money, or goods, going to any one group is also irrelevant - although to be fair, the SSSR had a much more equal distribution than the DPRK does, and it's leaders did not live in such lavish estates as those - as the primary operational mode of the economy remains the same. There is no fundamental change. The conventional market is replaced by a simulated market where state-owned and coöperative players act largely the same way.
X good is produced, that's a crime if I ever saw one.

No, the actual level of the money is very freakin relevant.
It's the only relevant thing left when you've chosen to completely disregard marxist thought according to which classes are shaped based on their relations to the means of production. The means of production are commonly owned but that is never enough.

So, if the common ownership is a mere formality in these states, and let's say I accept this notion, surely those ruthless state-capitalists would never accept the profits, the surplus value to also become mere formalities, right? That they'd never do.
We also accept I guess that as a workers' state exist it is bound to have a bureaucracy, hopefully not an evil, exploiting one but still. There will be ministries and people heading them. There will be a head of state etc.

Now, are these people taking almost half the workers' daily labor as capitalists do? It's a pretty simple question.
When you think of US capitalism, you think of what? Obama's 6 figure salary? The fact that he spends his days in a very nice place called the White House? Or maybe the fact that he gets to fly around in the Air Force One?
Maybe you should be thinking about the capitalist class, next to which all that money spent on the president are breadcrumbs. Now tell me, which socialist country even came close to providing to its leader a lifestyle close to that provided to the US president or any other leader of a bourgeois state.

The socialist bureaucracy is probably ten times cheaper than the capitalist bureaucracy, just as it should. It's unthinkable to put it next to the actual capitalists, but then again thinking was never a problem for some people.

[FSL]

Of course, this was indeed the reason for the Songun policy - the fall of the SSSR, the famine which threatened the government, that is, the threat of popular uprising. In this situation, it was essential for the government to preserve the support of the wide military (not just the military leadership, who are since a long time back united with the 'civilian' leaders, that is to say the Kim and the higher party functionaries), to avoid an internal coup. The military first policy has fuck all to do with the United States but everything to do with preserving the internal order.

And now they developed nuclear weapons and are cutting down on military personel because they thought that if a riot breaks out somewhere (the masses are always a-yearning), they might as well nuke the whole country to pieces.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

You guys have to be kidding! Are you suggesting that a nuclear-armed pariah state that periodically threatens to kill ordinary civilians en masse ISN'T SOCIALIST?

Damn, I have a lot to learn.:laugh:

[Marshal of the People]

You guys have to be kidding! Are you suggesting that a nuclear-armed pariah state that periodically threatens to kill ordinary civilians en masse ISN'T SOCIALIST?

Damn, I have a lot to learn.:laugh:

And then there are these people who think the nazi's weren't socialist!

People are so stupid these days, looking at facts and using intelligent thought.


Facts are Satan's sneakiest weapon.

P.S. ^ SARCASM:laugh:

[Bala Perdida]

Kim Jong Un's country is starving and he has type 2 diabetes. Im glad they at least had the desency to stop calling themselves Communists. Now if they just drop the socialist we can stop carrying this burden!

[Tim Cornelis]

No, the mere observation of a fact doesn't by itself prove that the fact doesn't exist. It just brings forth a question of who is doing the observation and in this cace why they aren't backing it with data.

Independent human rights organisations, among others, whom have also criticised the USA, disproportionally.


The same observation has been made for every socialist state ever, every single time workers rebeled. And never has anyone said why.

Why what? No bourgeois-socialist has ever explained why the working class was heavily involved in the overthrow of so-called "socialism" in the Soviet Union, Poland, Albania, which makes no sense if it were socialist.


We do know that in the capitalist economy of the US there are trillions of dollars taken by capitalists as surplus value. Pretty much half the annual product goes to people who didn't work. Does the same thing happen to all these socialist countries? Does half the annual product go to them? Do "officials" live in 100 storey scyscrapers with a gym, an indoor pool and a doorman while the ordinary workers live in dumps? Is that the state of things in these countries? Do they live in mansions with 40 bathrooms and a ferris wheel in the back yard (next to the golf course)? Does the profit rate have a tendency to fall there as well? Do officials decide to lead the economy into a crisis, do investments stop much like they do in a capitalist economy?

This is such ridiculous drivel. None of this exists in Bhutan (hence socialist) or Djibouti (hence socialist), or 1800s England (hence socialist), does it really work that way? Do you really measure a mode of production by the consumer goods owned by the ruling class? Of course, you pretence of Marxism is no substitute for Marxist analysis. Some counter-questions: is there a freely associated cooperative labour body that produces exclusively consumer goods, and not commodities? Of course, this question is rhetorical. The freedom of the wage-labourers in North Korea is severely lacking, and in every way inferior to that of Sweden's working class, or Russia's, or South Korea's. What matters is not the level of affluence in North Korea, but the actual social relations that exist in society, as per Marxism. By anecdotal accounts, there is indeed an immense wealth disparity between the ruling and working class presumably larger than Western Europe.


Tell me more about the situation because from what I've seen and read, the most luxurious lives in these countries were led by artists and scientists and they were definitely not that luxurious.


I'm pretty sure no sensationalist reports have talked about gassing families and torturing children. But alas, we have you to fill the void.

Accounts by defectors, among them former prison guards, testify in great detail the gassing of entire families and torture of children born in labour camps (as a result of the three generations of punishment policy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns80-N3SqW8

[FSL]

Why what? No bourgeois-socialist has ever explained why the working class was heavily involved in the overthrow of so-called "socialism" in the Soviet Union, Poland, Albania, which makes no sense if it were socialist.
What heavy involvement are you talking about? There was literally not an ounce of involvement in the Soviet Union (most people even disagreed with the break up and voted accordingly). There was what, one demo in Albania, what ruthless regime was ever brought down by the uncomparable force of a demo. And lastly you did have "working class involvement" in Poland. Do you care to show me solidarity's stance today? They're pretty much your regular yellow sold-out-to-the-bosses union. And guess what, that's exactly what they were in Poland as well.

All of these countries made grave mistakes in developing socialism. They introduced market reforms and weakened the central planning, they were adventurist and also threw away socialist principles (for example Albania being reluctant to trade at all), they all started talking about a socialism fused with the "special national characteristics" which reeks of bourgeois thinking. But they were also even then quite better than anything that followed and most workers when asked in polls say just that.

You think that these regimes were overthrown because of what, a demo? There have been countless demos in countless capitalist countries, never did the capitalists surrender power out of fear. If anything, they're very much willing to kill thousands upon thousands and introduce the strictest military dictatorship to save their profits. Why are these state-capitalists different?

The truth is that Gorbachev as a simple social-democrat doing speechess at universities probably earns more than Gorbachev as the general secretary of the CPSU.



This is such ridiculous drivel. None of this exists in Bhutan (hence socialist) or Djibouti (hence socialist), or 1800s England (hence socialist), does it really work that way? Do you really measure a mode of production by the consumer goods owned by the ruling class? Of course, you pretence of Marxism is no substitute for Marxist analysis. Some counter-questions: is there a freely associated cooperative labour body that produces exclusively consumer goods, and not commodities? Of course, this question is rhetorical. The freedom of the wage-labourers in North Korea is severely lacking, and in every way inferior to that of Sweden's working class, or Russia's, or South Korea's. What matters is not the level of affluence in North Korea, but the actual social relations that exist in society, as per Marxism. By anecdotal accounts, there is indeed an immense wealth disparity between the ruling and working class presumably larger than Western Europe.
No, there were mansions with 40 bathrooms for the first industrial kingpings and I'm pretty sure there are huge estates in even the poorest of countries. Brazil has many poor neighbourhoods but it also has mansions protected by high fences to keep the dangerous and angry poor outside.

What are you talking about though? Of course a capitalist has the greatest part of his net worth in assets, in means of production. The important thing about him is the power he has, the power over a company, over its production targets, over its investment plan. A capitalist can, as I said, lay off people, he can create an army of unemployed, he can even even stop investing altogether and lead the country to a crazy unemployment rate all to save his valuable profit rate.
Which of these things has ever happened in a socialist country? When were officials the "owners" of the means of production? When did they take such measures to stop the profit rate from falling (as it would surely do since we are talking about a capitalist economy).

But you've already denied the importance of them not owning the means of productions saying that's a formality and now you're saying that even living like capitalists is a formality. Well, maybe being a state-capitalist is a formality as well, because surely as hell you're not pointing to how or what part of the surplus value these evil people are taking with them.

You only claim that because a head of state and heads of ministries exist and because they earn a wage and because they're probably given a car or something, that they constitute an oppressive class, equal if not worse to capitalists who take away half the labor's production.
You claim they're an oppressive rulling class essentialy just because they exist. Great argument!




Accounts by defectors, among them former prison guards, testify in great detail the gassing of entire families and torture of children born in labour camps (as a result of the three generations of punishment policy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns80-N3SqW8

Accounts by some, very few, who I'm sure all have had great carreers and lots of admiration coming their way from fat capitalists and "leftists" alike.

It is I guess much better for someone of the 20,000 that have left north korea in the past two decades (despite many working abroad in China and Russia), much more lucrative to start telling horror stories for which after there is such an eager marketthan end up with the rest of the north koreans, unemployed or underpayed and looked down upon in Seoul.
So hats off to their entrepreneurial spirit but I won't start thinking a country is insane because a few people said it and made a buck in the process.

[FSL]

Kim Jong Un's country is starving and he has type 2 diabetes. Im glad they at least had the desency to stop calling themselves Communists. Now if they just drop the socialist we can stop carrying this burden!

How is it starving? Nice that you are referring it as "his country".
At least half the sort-of-decency to call it the bureaucrats' country. Keep up a marxist facade.

[Hrafn]

How is it starving?

Through the massive food deficiencies?

Listen, people, I've been to Pyongyang. I.e. the richest part of the entire country, where they actively try to cover up all the bad parts and show only good. And I've witnessed extreme, party elite decadence, and widespread capitalism. So yeah.

[FSL]

Through the massive food deficiencies?
Interesting. How massive is this food deficiency? I mean, you know, in numbers.




Listen, people, I've been to Pyongyang. I.e. the richest part of the entire country, where they actively try to cover up all the bad parts and show only good. And I've witnessed extreme, party elite decadence, and widespread capitalism. So yeah.
Capitals are always the richest places. It's part of the city-countryside antithesis. There's definitely a smaller gap between pyongyang and north korean countryside than between Manhattan and a texan trailer park.

What decadence did you see though? That is also very interesting. Were there 50 year old housewives with tons of botox and those weird fuzzy little dogs they always carry around?
And by widespread capitalism you mean what? Farmers' markets? Or maybe you mean you saw widespread privately owned means of production and people working there (ie what constitutes capitalism).

[Tim Cornelis]

As I said before, Songun politics were necessary for the aggression of imperialism, however the worker's party is moving away from Songun politics as it has reached it's military aims (the DPRK now has nuclear power and a sufficient army). The "military dictatorship rule" is dumb slander.

The general population is not disempowered, all Koreans over the age of 17 are able to vote and hold positions in the organs of the state. Elections are held for people's assemblies on local and national levels commonly. Here is a video which shows Korean people participating in local elections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOAk9P1KFlU

Don't be so naive. Portugal under para-fascist regime also had elections, therefore it was not oppressive huh?


From your argument you say to accept a country that leaves the general population in dire poverty. Why would the state intentionally leave it's peoples in poverty? Medical care, housing, and education are granted freely to every Korean citizen,

Nominally.

Severe economic mismanagement, yet power and wealth for the elite. Those that have the power to change things have an interest in that everything remains as it is


which disproves the "dire poverty."

No it doesn't.


The DPRK has suffered several natural disasters, and are under tight economic sanctions.

Cuba also has economic sanctions and they have the lowest malnourishment rate in all of Latin America. It's really unfortunate there are sanctions on luxurious goods for the elite :(


The United Nations even cut food aid to the DPRK!

For violating UN agremeents, how surprising.


In a peninsula with limited resources the state can only do so much. Read this for a thorough and depth understanding of the Korean food crisis: http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/~aslan/dprke.pdf

For instance what it could do, is reform capital like South Korea.


Subject to minority class rule? What class would that be?

Obviously the ruling class concentrated in the upper layers of the Workers' Party whom control capital.


I would look at the party composition of the Supreme People's Assembly, and you will find that the DPRK is a worker's state.

Without workers' power of course. With workers in Sweden having infinitely more power.


I would also look up the Taen Work System that industries operate on.

You can continue with reiterating bourgeois propaganda about the democratic management of capital but it's a waste of time, and me responding is a waste of time. You should be send to one of North Korea's concentration camps you daft imbecile.


Furthermore I would like to add that it is important to understand Marxism as a science,

If you did then you wouldn't be supporting North Korea.


and a revolutionary one at that. Communists need to support the proletariat, and it is vital that we are in support with the DPRK. We must acknowledge the struggle of the Korean people against imperialism.

You're an idiot. There's a proletariat in the DPRK is there? Well then, it's settled, the DPRK is not socialist.


What heavy involvement are you talking about? There was literally not an ounce of involvement in the Soviet Union (most people even disagreed with the break up and voted accordingly). There was what, one demo in Albania, what ruthless regime was ever brought down by the uncomparable force of a demo. And lastly you did have "working class involvement" in Poland. Do you care to show me solidarity's stance today? They're pretty much your regular yellow sold-out-to-the-bosses union. And guess what, that's exactly what they were in Poland as well.

You are delusional. You have fooled yourself into believing these statecapitalist regimes to have been something they are not, and no matter what I may say you will continue to delude yourself. It doesn't matter the Solidarity or the working class or whatever are "sell outs", it matters that the working class was heavily involved in the overthrow of their own workers' state by means of strike action and mass demonstrations throughout Eastern Europe. Of course, you will delude yourself and flat out deny this. Cognitive dissonance filters all evidence to the contrary that the USSR, etc., were not workers' states.


All of these countries made grave mistakes in developing socialism. They introduced market reforms and weakened the central planning,

Apply materialism for once. Where did these market reforms come from? A revisionist elite? Then it follows there was no workers' state. From the workers? Then it follows they freely voted away what you believe to have been socialism! Either way, it fails. The reason for market reforms was purely economical. Subsequent the full mobilisation of all national resources, labour and natural resources, they started wielding lower rates of return with the result of economic stagnation from the 1960s. Due to the centralised nature of planning implementing investments was deincentivised as it meant disrupting the productive process and hence the possibility of not reaching the quotas for the Soviet enterprise manager (incidentally, the managers were in control, not the working class — in fact, there was a working class). Hence, there was a crisis of the absolute overaccumulation of capital which was sought to be reversed by means of market reforms. Which also explains why they allowed the collapse of "socialism" (which you say I cannot explain).
Of course, you have no materialist analytical skills so this will go right over you head.


they were adventurist and also threw away socialist principles (for example Albania being reluctant to trade at all), they all started talking about a socialism fused with the "special national characteristics" which reeks of bourgeois thinking. But they were also even then quite better than anything that followed and most workers when asked in polls say just that.

An idealist analysis. Who is "they"? The elites of those "socialist" countries? Indeed, they had bourgeois thinking because they ruled a bourgeois society in a bourgeois epoch.


You think that these regimes were overthrown because of what, a demo?

Because of the over-accumulation of capital resulting in an economic crisis which was attempted to mended by means of market reforms, which enabled in popular mass demonstrations.


There have been countless demos in countless capitalist countries, never did the capitalists surrender power out of fear.

So you admit then that those with political decision-making power in Eastern Europe were external to the working classes?


If anything, they're very much willing to kill thousands upon thousands and introduce the strictest military dictatorship to save their profits. Why are these state-capitalists different?

They didn't have to reform the economy to allow


The truth is that Gorbachev as a simple social-democrat doing speechess at universities probably earns more than Gorbachev as the general secretary of the CPSU.

Oh the Great Man Theory of History. Of course, Gorbachev was en evil social-democrat for no apparent reason than him being an evil social-democrat whom had aaaaall the power in a workers' state, how contradictory. Of course, the working class allowed themselves to have their means of production expropriated, their power abolished, and in fact supported this by means of strike action against themselves (what?!) and demonstrations.

The narrative you Stalinists attempt to create is ridiculously contradictory.


No, there were mansions with 40 bathrooms for the first industrial kingpings and I'm pretty sure there are huge estates in even the poorest of countries. Brazil has many poor neighbourhoods but it also has mansions protected by high fences to keep the dangerous and angry poor outside.

So has North Korea. But of course, as the bourgeois-idealist you are you are preoccupied with the phenomenal characteristics of a society rather than the actual social dynamics. It doesn't matter how big mansions are, what matters is the social relationships, the modes of exchange or distribution. That is Marxist analysis!


What are you talking about though? Of course a capitalist has the greatest part of his net worth in assets, in means of production. The important thing about him is the power he has, the power over a company, over its production targets, over its investment plan. A capitalist can, as I said, lay off people, he can create an army of unemployed, he can even even stop investing altogether and lead the country to a crazy unemployment rate all to save his valuable profit rate.

The North Korean ruling elite employs wage-labour, extracts surplus value, and this surplus value is used to buy more labour-power and invest in production to create more surplus value. This is capital!


Which of these things has ever happened in a socialist country? When were officials the "owners" of the means of production? When did they take such measures to stop the profit rate from falling (as it would surely do since we are talking about a capitalist economy).

Wow, you have absolute no idea how to apply Marxist analysis. Inventing your own idealist abstract criteria for socialism and capitalism. Owners need to be "official"? What does that even mean?


But you've already denied the importance of them not owning the means of productions saying that's a formality and now you're saying that even living like capitalists is a formality.

Of course you bourgeois-idealist! Capitalism is not characterised by individual ownership, but private ownership. Private class ownership is when the direct producers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property or non-property. Which applies to state ownership as existed in the UK, USSR, DPRK, etc.


Well, maybe being a state-capitalist is a formality as well, because surely as hell you're not pointing to how or what part of the surplus value these evil people are taking with them.

What do you mean how? They take it by employing wage-labour, these produce value of a certain kind, part of this value is taken by the state and reinvested in the enterprises. This is surplus value turned capital!


You only claim that because a head of state and heads of ministries exist and because they earn a wage and because they're probably given a car or something, that they constitute an oppressive class, equal if not worse to capitalists who take away half the labor's production.
You claim they're an oppressive rulling class essentialy just because they exist. Great argument!

Great Strawman you idiot!



Accounts by some, very few, who I'm sure all have had great carreers and lots of admiration coming their way from fat capitalists and "leftists" alike.

It is I guess much better for someone of the 20,000 that have left north korea in the past two decades (despite many working abroad in China and Russia), much more lucrative to start telling horror stories for which after there is such an eager marketthan end up with the rest of the north koreans, unemployed or underpayed and looked down upon in Seoul.
So hats off to their entrepreneurial spirit but I won't start thinking a country is insane because a few people said it and made a buck in the process.

OF course, whether you believe their accounts is entirely faith. Neither you nor me can personally verify it. But then, this level of skepticism may well be applied to the Congo Free State (sensationalist accounts to sell books), the Holodomor, the Holocaust, etc.



Capitals are always the richest places. It's part of the city-countryside antithesis. There's definitely a smaller gap between pyongyang and north korean countryside than between Manhattan and a texan trailer park.

What decadence did you see though? That is also very interesting. Were there 50 year old housewives with tons of botox and those weird fuzzy little dogs they always carry around?
And by widespread capitalism you mean what? Farmers' markets? Or maybe you mean you saw widespread privately owned means of production and people working there (ie what constitutes capitalism).

Yes, the means of production in capitalism are private class property. Their judicial expression are inferior to their real social existence. The direct producers are alienated from the instruments of labour. But of course, housewives with botox are absent so it isn't really capitalism huh!



In conclusion, you are delusional daft non-Marxist anticommunist. Why do I even bother?

[Hrafn]

What decadence did you see though? That is also very interesting. Were there 50 year old housewives with tons of botox and those weird fuzzy little dogs they always carry around?

And by widespread capitalism you mean what? Farmers' markets? Or maybe you mean you saw widespread privately owned means of production and people working there (ie what constitutes capitalism).

I'm talking about the mini-brewery with expensive alcohols. I'm talking about the Austrian-style coffee place, likewise attended only by the elite. I'm talking about the super-expensive party cadre-owned imported cars. The casino in the hotel. The very obvious richness of certain people compared to the extreme poverty of most. Etc.

Widespread capitalism as in the very wide amount of foreign companies operating in the country.

[RedWaves]

Wow, a Korean officer doing his job, how horrifying.


LOL as always, and the ones constantly insulting North Korea such as America can never do any wrong.

[Sinister Intents]

And now they developed nuclear weapons and are cutting down on military personel because they thought that if a riot breaks out somewhere (the masses are always a-yearning), they might as well nuke the whole country to pieces.

What the fuck are you on about?

[FSL]

I'm talking about the mini-brewery with expensive alcohols. I'm talking about the Austrian-style coffee place, likewise attended only by the elite. I'm talking about the super-expensive party cadre-owned imported cars. The casino in the hotel. The very obvious richness of certain people compared to the extreme poverty of most. Etc.

Widespread capitalism as in the very wide amount of foreign companies operating in the country.
Jersey shore is decadent. Having a brewery that makes beer isn't decadent, at least not without intoxicated 12 year olds running rampant.
How do you know some of these things are ony attended by the elite (and I'm assuming you mean exclusively party elite, right?). Who did you ask?


Nothing of what you said qualifies as "decadent". How were some people very obviously rich? Diamonds? Armani suits? What was extreme poverty like, wearing those mao type shirts?
I'm sure the amount of foreign companies operating in the country is very small for its size. Foreign companies operate in Cuba and they even operated in the soviet union in some sectors early on (even post nep), when investments and expertise were needed.

Having 0,5% of your product -if that- produced by these foreign companies doesn't define the mode of production however.

[FSL]

What the fuck are you on about?
Very polite question.



North Korea adopted a new political and economic line during a plenary session of the Party Central Committee held yesterday in Pyongyang.

The new line, which can be characterized as ‘simultaneous development of nuclear weapons and the economy (the ‘byungjin line’) http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01700&num=10453


The sector of defense industry should manufacture larger numbers of modern military hardware of our own style that are light, unmanned, intelligent and of high precision to solidify the self-defense capabilities. https://nkleadershipwatch.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/kim-jong-un-delivers-new-years-address-and-visits-kumsusan/


Essentially, they're aiming to keep nuclear weapons and develop drones of some sort to take the pressure of having such a large standing army.
Many soldiers are already construction workers in uniforms anyway.

[Tim Cornelis]

God, Stalinists are stupid.

[Sinister Intents]

Very polite question.


http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01700&num=10453

https://nkleadershipwatch.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/kim-jong-un-delivers-new-years-address-and-visits-kumsusan/


Essentially, they're aiming to keep nuclear weapons and develop drones of some sort to take the pressure of having such a large standing army.
Many soldiers are already construction workers in uniforms anyway.

Do you consider this socialist? Please do explain how an authoritarian capitalist nation with a massive standing army is socialist. This sounds nothing of socialidm

[FSL]

Tim Cornelis, no way I can answer that quote-chaos you made there, it's very hard to even read though it.

Some of the things I saw you saying is why did the market reforms take place and about the sinister (according to me aparrently) Gorbachev.


The working class isn't homogeneous now or in socialism. In these countries there wasn't even just the working class, there were the collectives who were owners of their product and sold it and of course people that had a standing in the previous society etc.

Talk about market reforms was always a thing, long before they happened. Vozesensky was one of the proponents, Kosygin was another, they rose to high posts in the party, they did represent sections of the population.
There are contradictions within the working class, managerial work, skilled labor, education, all these things aren't immediately equal for everyone and not everyone is immediately equally good for any task.
What you need to do is resolve these contradictions and on that depends the development of socialism.

But for the people who were on the wrong part of these contradictions it's quite natural that they identified themselves as a separate stratum in the society. At the beginning market reforms weren't about privatizing anything. They were about giving managers more autonomy in production, about giving collectives ownership of their tractors, about fogiving them their debts, about allowing them to expand their field of work etc.

These changes did mess with the economy's planning and severely weakened it as a result. It is in this situation, a seemingly stagnating soviet union that proponents of capitalism could take a hold.

Gorbachev much like Voznesensky or Kosygin before him wasn't sinister. He was a representative of certain sections of the society however. He spoke for them when he signed the dissolution of the USSR. He wasn't speaking for some made-up all-powerful bureaucracy that was making untold millions on the back of workers for years until it suddeny got suicidal and decided to blow it all away.
If Gorbachev was the richest capitalist in the world's second richest country, he'd have an estate of effectively how many billions you'd think? 50? 60?
You think he gave up on that life? No, that is simply not the life he had.

And it's very very important to realize who are these "freedom fighters" that wanted to overthrow socialism. It's not at all irrelevant that Solidarity is a sold out yellow union. It's not an accident that it ended up like that. That is what it always was. It was "militant" in the 80s because there were no bosses around and it wanted them.

As I said above, that things like Solidarity did happen and take hold shows the huge errors commited by these countries in their policies. After a point, they weren't developing socialism, they were weakening it, dismantling it. The deeper socialism gets, the more educated and able the workers become in managing their economy, the more difficult it wil be for these notions
("let's leave it to the experts", "not everyone is meant to be equal" etc) to become dominant.
So I'm definitely not taking the side of these parties that had just as much ideological rust as eurocommunists did. I don't agree with their policies and I consider them hurtful. But I sure as hell won't take the side of the actual enemies of socialism (like Solidarity), start calling them a "huge popular movement" and try to keep up with their attacks on socialism.

[FSL]

God, Stalinists are stupid.

Another well constructed post. Well done, internet points for you.

[FSL]

Do you consider this socialist? Please do explain how an authoritarian capitalist nation with a massive standing army is socialist. This sounds nothing of socialidm

What is your deal? You asked something because you were obviously unable to find out about it yourself (not that your lack of knowledge stopped you from forming an opinion), you did get an answer (probably not the one you were looking for since it clashes with your preconcieved notions) and now what?
You're still angry with me?

[Hrafn]

Jersey shore is decadent. Having a brewery that makes beer isn't decadent, at least not without intoxicated 12 year olds running rampant.
How do you know some of these things are ony attended by the elite (and I'm assuming you mean exclusively party elite, right?). Who did you ask?


Nothing of what you said qualifies as "decadent". How were some people very obviously rich? Diamonds? Armani suits? What was extreme poverty like, wearing those mao type shirts?
I'm sure the amount of foreign companies operating in the country is very small for its size. Foreign companies operate in Cuba and they even operated in the soviet union in some sectors early on (even post nep), when investments and expertise were needed.

Having 0,5% of your product -if that- produced by these foreign companies doesn't define the mode of production however.

We seem to have different definitions of decadence.

Extremely fancy cars, gold watches, fancy suits, that sort of thing. By extreme poverty I largely mean the situation of the housing that I saw, rather than the people themselves, who dressed in very non-fancy clothes however.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

We seem to have different definitions of decadence.

Extremely fancy cars, gold watches, fancy suits, that sort of thing. By extreme poverty I largely mean the situation of the housing that I saw, rather than the people themselves, who dressed in very non-fancy clothes however.

The housing situation is quite terrible in the countryside, and in many smaller towns, there has been little effort to build new housing or even renovate the old since the 1970's, that is, before the DPRK's economy collapsed. There has been a recent push for new housing in regions, including new (very nice) housing estates in Pyongyang, Wonsan and Hamhung (under the banner of 100,000 new flats for Pyongyang etc, the new construction can be seen clearly from aerial views, though the project is largely haphazard and seems not to extend to providing much infrastructure around these new estates, probably for cost reasons), as well as some scattered renovations, but these are concentrated in the larger cities. This effort is funded by shady deals with China (exports and some more more shady things ill-defined) and one of the major contractors, outside of the military's construction arm (who seem to be the only native construction industry in the DPRK to operate at all these days) is this shady Egyptian construction firm Orascom.

Naturally, due to the instability of electricity supply, a problem that remains serious and difficult to fix due to costs and sanctions (turbines at power stations are in dire need of replacing, intermittent lack of fuels, etc), the lifts in the housing blocks do not operate much of the time, so I imagine it must be a horrible experience for an old woman living 32 storeys up.

The extreme poverty includes shortages of food (intermittent), the extreme prevalence of black market for conveying food and other resources, on which most people rely due to the lack of or too variable supplies at official stores (which is basically sanctioned by the government today), the decaying infrastructure (train services running infrequently, bridges collapsing, etc), the fact that most industry is not in operating condition (the large industrial complexes in Chongjin are only partially operable, etc), railway sections are closing. Now and then desperate attempts to paste things up or fix something take place (Hamhung fertiliser factory was renovated recently - relies on chemical imports from China though, not very generous conditions).

All in all, DPRK is a quite terrible place to live, the countryside in particular. Even the Model Farming Town they show off to tourist is pretty run-down, and that place has priority above the things tourist never see. It's a very poor place - even for most of the 'well-off' (apart from the very top), the infrastructure and urban fabric in most areas are essentially at the same state they were in 1965 after the immediate post-war reconstruction.

[Tim Cornelis]

Tim Cornelis, no way I can answer that quote-chaos you made there, it's very hard to even read though it

Some of the things I saw you saying is why did the market reforms take place and about the sinister (according to me aparrently) Gorbachev.


The working class isn't homogeneous now or in socialism. In these countries there wasn't even just the working class, there were the collectives who were owners of their product and sold it and of course people that had a standing in the previous society etc.

Stop right there. There was a working class, fine, it's settled then: there was no socialism. This should be sufficient.


Talk about market reforms was always a thing, long before they happened. Vozesensky was one of the proponents, Kosygin was another, they rose to high posts in the party, they did represent sections of the population.
There are contradictions within the working class, managerial work, skilled labor, education, all these things aren't immediately equal for everyone and not everyone is immediately equally good for any task.
What you need to do is resolve these contradictions and on that depends the development of socialism.

There are 'contradictions' in the working class, which doesn't exist in socialism!

IT doesn't matter when ideas are proposed, it matters that they only become enabled, viable, necessary, or inevitable when the material conditions or economic structures command.


But for the people who were on the wrong part of these contradictions it's quite natural that they identified themselves as a separate stratum in the society. At the beginning market reforms weren't about privatizing anything. They were about giving managers more autonomy in production, about giving collectives ownership of their tractors, about fogiving them their debts, about allowing them to expand their field of work etc.

These changes did mess with the economy's planning and severely weakened it as a result. It is in this situation, a seemingly stagnating soviet union that proponents of capitalism could take a hold.

No actually, this is an inversion of what happened, nor does it correspond to any empirical or documented evidence. The economy, growth rates, stagnated prior to market reforms. This was a process that began as soon as the late 1930s, with growth rates declining, then stagnating, then negative growth by the late 1980s.

The demise of the Soviet Union can be understood in terms of capital accumulation. There are two forms of capital accumulation, based on the present methods of production and the revolutionising of the methods of production. If there is no revolutionising of the methods of production, the volume of surplus value, for the purpose of accumulation of capital, requires an increase in the rate of exploitation through an extension of the working day or an increase in the volume of available labour-power deployed (e.g., through means of accumulation by dispossession, primitive accumulation, lower unemployment, or, for example in the instance of Saudi Arabia recently, by utilising women). Absolute over-accumulation of capital occurs when exploitable labour power is insufficient relative to growth of capital. Absolute over-accumulation of capital would, supposedly, be associated with underproduction of commodities.

The rapid industrialisation involved drawing a labour supply from the peasantry as well as natural resources while the methods of production were not revolutionised. From 1928 onwards, mass unemployment had curtailed and reversed in a labour shortage. To increase the volume of surplus value for the accumulation of capital, the working week was extended as was labour productivity, intensity, and discipline. Likewise, women were increasingly employed in wage-labour (which was in part due to the fact that real wages were low, and thence the requirement for multiple sources of income in households).


Workers' living standards declined sharply from 1928 to 1933 by at least half, to a bare subsistence level. Part of this was the disastrous outcome of agricultural Collectivization, but part of it was deliberate policy: to finance the forced industrialization of the First Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) by squeezing the workers with simultaneous pay-cuts and production speed-ups. After 1933, living standards began to recover, but only precariously. For example, by 1937, wages had climbed back to 60% of the 1928 level. Nearly all investment was directed to heavy industry and weapons, rather than consumer goods for working families. Despite a shortage of workers for new industrial projects, fierce repression of independent union activity ensured that wages would remain low.

http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/labor-discip.html

There was a constant downward trend in the growth rates of the USSR from 1937 onwards. The growth rate and reproduction of the Soviet economy was sustained by the “massive quantitative mobilization of productive resources” (p. 68, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience) and the large volume of available labour-power. The rate of growth for constant capital was many fold that of the growth of living labour, “there was no corresponding growth in the productivity of social labour.” (p. 77, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). There was spurt of growth of the labour productivity through revolutionising the methods of production. That the methods of production, fixed capital, were notoriously and comparatively outdated and old could be seen as an affirmation or indication of the crisis of absolute over-accumulation. Invention, innovation, diffusion, and incremental improvements were falling or consistently low (p. 73, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). Gorbachev noted that “the structure of our production remained unchanged and no longer corresponded to the exigencies of scientific and technological progress.” (p.74, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). As explained, this was due to the deincentivised central planning system whereby implementing innovative technology disrupted the productive process and threatened the fulfillment of quotas, and hence was subject to sabotage by the Soviet management. This, of course, likewise disrupted and sabotaged the continual revolutionaising of the methods of production.

The economic stagnation and eventual economic decline could thus be seen as the crisis of absolute over-accumulation. In an effort to correct this, the management of capital had to re-invent itself. The various reforms implemented under the rule of subsequent Soviet dictators, particularly the Liberman reforms and the reforms of the Gorbachev era, (market-oriented reforms) were intended to make capital's management more efficient and effective. The result of political and economic liberalisation in the USSR and its satellite states was that, in the face of relaxed repression of the working class, these workers undertook strike actions and demonstrations to demand civil liberties and democratic elections -- to which the Soviet and Satellite ruling elites often conceded. For instance, in Albania Alia was willing to allow market and liberal reforms in the face of continued stagnation and negative economic growth. Hence, there was not only an economic process of liberalisation, there was likewise a political turnover. The far-reaching liberalisation as spurred by Gorbachev were consolidated and further advanced by electoral democratisation which launched right-wingers to power. This constituted the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in contrast to China where the Communist Party implemented economic liberalisation but managed to hold unto power as the relaxing of repression was less considerable than in the USSR.


Gorbachev much like Voznesensky or Kosygin before him wasn't sinister. He was a representative of certain sections of the society however.

You haven't explain how they arrive at different consciousness from these apparent 'contradictions', nor how they could sway an entire economy when power is distributed equally amongst all members of society. Unless of course power was not distributed in such a way, and was concentrated in the upper layers of the Communist Party whom were not subject to external control. In fact, this is the only observation that produces an internally consistent narrative.
Indeed, Gorbachev was not a sinister socialdemocrat for the sake of being a socialdemocrat, he merely was a pawn of the economic structure, of capital, and sought to revitalise it, reverse the negative economic growth of the USSR which had befallen it due to its inherent structure of central planning. The only remedy was the disintegration of central planning in favour of competitive markets, which are a more effective and efficient means of managing capital


He spoke for them when he signed the dissolution of the USSR. He wasn't speaking for some made-up all-powerful bureaucracy that was making untold millions on the back of workers for years until it suddeny got suicidal and decided to blow it all away.

No one's arguing that, and incidentally, the members of the Soviet bureaucracy became the post-Soviet oligarchy.


If Gorbachev was the richest capitalist in the world's second richest country, he'd have an estate of effectively how many billions you'd think? 50? 60?
You think he gave up on that life? No, that is simply not the life he had.

Again with the idealist analysis! As if the material well-being of the head of state is a measure by which to determine the content of a mode of production, the absurdity of your logic is astounding! By that logic, Uruguay is socialist.


And it's very very important to realize who are these "freedom fighters" that wanted to overthrow socialism. It's not at all irrelevant that Solidarity is a sold out yellow union. It's not an accident that it ended up like that. That is what it always was. It was "militant" in the 80s because there were no bosses around and it wanted them.

It is irrelevant insofar as it reveals that the working class was antagonistic towards their own workers' state, it reveals they had no actual power, it reveals that strike action against themselves would be absurd and so that they were not striking against themselves. They were striking against their employers. The fact that they are a non-revolutionary trade union is irrelevant in this regard.


As I said above, that things like Solidarity did happen and take hold shows the huge errors commited by these countries in their policies.

As if socialism is a matter of policy.


After a point, they weren't developing socialism, they were weakening it, dismantling it.

That makes no sense and is contradictory. It also begs the question: WHO? Who is they? I have asked this question time and time and time again, and have never gotten a straightforward answer, because Stalinists can't answer it. Who implemented the pro-market reforms? If there was a workers' state, it means the majority of workers voted socialism away. If a Soviet elite or equivalent thereof did, there was no workers' state, let alone socialism, to begin with!


The deeper socialism gets, the more educated and able the workers become in managing their economy, the more difficult it wil be for these notions
("let's leave it to the experts", "not everyone is meant to be equal" etc) to become dominant.
So I'm definitely not taking the side of these parties that had just as much ideological rust as eurocommunists did. I don't agree with their policies and I consider them hurtful. But I sure as hell won't take the side of the actual enemies of socialism (like Solidarity), start calling them a "huge popular movement" and try to keep up with their attacks on socialism.

They objectively were a huge popular movement. But continue deluding yourself my not-so-much comrade. Then after your successful Stalinist takeover of Greece you will find yourself, 40 years later, in an economy liberalised as a result of the inherent defects of central planning of the management of capital, the inability to sufficiently revolutionise the methods of production (which has plagued every "socialist" state, no exception) will haunt your future Stalinist Greece and it will tear it up from the inside, with pro-market reformists rising in the KKE until the economy suffers negative growth and the market reforms have become, not an abstract or idealist proposal, but an imperative for economic recovery.


Another well constructed post. Well done, internet points for you.

That one sentence has more intellectual weight than all Stalinists combined. You cannot even resolve the fact that the workers took strike action and demonstrations against themselves (which makes no sense whatsoever). Either it means they had no power and there was no workers' state, or they did have power and the majority of workers freely voted socialism away. Either way, Stalinism fails.

[Sea]

FSL, can you please reply? I promise I'll be nicer to you than the other people here.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2707843&postcount=82

The same goes for CelticNachos. This is a topic I'm very interested in and obviously both of you disagree with me. I'd like to continue the debate so that if I'm wrong I can take the opportunity to change my views and be right. :)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2707747&postcount=62

I'd hate to just be told my views on the DPRK are wrong, and be left in the dark...


edit: this is not a trap

[celticnachos]

FSL, can you please reply? I promise I'll be nicer to you than the other people here.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2707843&postcount=82

The same goes for CelticNachos. This is a topic I'm very interested in and obviously both of you disagree with me. I'd like to continue the debate so that if I'm wrong I can take the opportunity to change my views and be right. :)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2707747&postcount=62

I'd hate to just be told my views on the DPRK are wrong, and be left in the dark...


edit: this is not a trap

Your open-mindedness is much appreciated. Criticism is a virtue we communists rely on, whilst the majority of the people in this thread claim rationality by adhering to their ideological orientation, they withhold from being criticized. The obliviousness and liberal nature of their arguments are incompatible with reality. So yes, I will respond to your rebuttal, however keep in mind that my response will be composed from the conditions the Korean people are faced with.


We make a class analysis, which reveals that the DPRK is a capitalist dictatorship.

For your claim to be true we must find out who the capitalists are in the DPRK, in what would make it a bourgeois dictatorship. The essence of the state is discovered by analyzing the development of society. We discover that it's purpose is to keep one social class in power, as it was established with the arrival of a class division. How the state maintains the power of one social class is through force, the state is simply an apparatus of force. So from your claim, the Korean state would directly serve the interests of the capitalists. My rebuttal to this claim would initially be: "show me capitalists in power." Although, I can objectively claim that the DPRK is a socialist state which serves the interests of the working class.

For my claim to be true the exploitation from capitalism would have to perished, and production would have to be aimed at maximizing the welfare of the working people. The means of production would need to be collectively owned and the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" principle will apply to distribution of goods, with necessary social services. We see socialist states as being dictatorships of the proletariat, and their existence being a result of the antagonisms and crises that sprang from the capitalist system. Ultimately a revolutionary party is necessary in overthrowing the rule of an oppressive class. And we see that the DPRK is indeed a revolutionary socialist state.

When analyzing the DPRK we can look into it's early history. Kim Il Sung and the workers party needed to develop the material conditions in the DPRK. The working class and the peasantry developed an alliance resulting in the nationalization of most of the Korean industry, with traces of petty-bourgeoisie marketing retail. The private ownership of this industry would soon be dislodged, and the petty-bourgeoisie would no longer an effective class. However during this time period a class of rich farmers was emerging, and Kim Il Sung was aware of this threat to the DPRK's development. The contradiction of the proletariat dictatorship and the rich peasantry was resolved with collectivization in the countryside. These are socialist relations of production, and now the state controls virtually all industry. You can claim that the state is privileged but the consciousness of the Korean people shows how devoted the state is to the construction of socialism. "The property of the State belongs to the entire people...The State shall guarantee giving priority to the growth of its property which plays a leading role in the development of the national economy."

From analyzing the history of the DPRK and it's development towards we see how the Korean people are the devoted constructors of socialism. The Korean Workers Party holds a majority in the Supreme People's Assembly and it is difficult to imagine the WPK serving any interests besides those of the Korean people. A party that adheres to Marxism-Leninism as the grounds for class power with a necessary militarized application. In which it is deemed honorable to apart of the Korean's People Army as one of the key organs in the construction of socialism.

Finally I would like to quote Stalin on the general laws of building socialism.


1. Above all it is the dictatorship of the proletariat the workers’ and peasants’ State, a particular form of the union of these classes under the obligatory leadership of the most revolutionary class in history the class of workers. Only this class is capable of building socialism and suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and petty bourgeoisie.

2. Socialised property of the main instruments and means of production. Expropriation of all the large factories and their management by the state.

3. Nationalisation of all capitalist banks, the merging of all of them into a single state bank and strict regulation of its functioning by the state.

4. The scientific and planned conduct of the national economy from a single centre. Obligatory use of the following principle in the building of socialism: from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution of the material good depending upon the quality and quantity of the work of each person.

5. Obligatory domination of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

6. Creation of armed forces that would allow the defence of the accomplishments of the revolution and always remember that any revolution is worth anything only if it is capable of defending itself.

7. Ruthless armed suppression of counter revolutionaries and the foreign agents.



The pursuit of the laws is evidently detected in the Korean people. "These, in short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring that we relate to them as such."

[BIXX]

Your open-mindedness is much appreciated. Criticism is a virtue we communists rely on, whilst the majority of the people in this thread claim rationality by adhering to their ideological orientation, they withhold from being criticized. The obliviousness and liberal nature of their arguments are incompatible with reality. So yes, I will respond to your rebuttal, however keep in mind that my response will be composed from the conditions the Korean people are faced with.



For your claim to be true we must find out who the capitalists are in the DPRK, in what would make it a bourgeois dictatorship. The essence of the state is discovered by analyzing the development of society. We discover that it's purpose is to keep one social class in power, as it was established with the arrival of a class division. How the state maintains the power of one social class is through force, the state is simply an apparatus of force. So from your claim, the Korean state would directly serve the interests of the capitalists. My rebuttal to this claim would initially be: "show me capitalists in power." Although, I can objectively claim that the DPRK is a socialist state which serves the interests of the working class.

For my claim to be true the exploitation from capitalism would have to perished, and production would have to be aimed at maximizing the welfare of the working people. The means of production would need to be collectively owned and the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" principle will apply to distribution of goods, with necessary social services. We see socialist states as being dictatorships of the proletariat, and their existence being a result of the antagonisms and crises that sprang from the capitalist system. Ultimately a revolutionary party is necessary in overthrowing the rule of an oppressive class. And we see that the DPRK is indeed a revolutionary socialist state.

When analyzing the DPRK we can look into it's early history. Kim Il Sung and the workers party needed to develop the material conditions in the DPRK. The working class and the peasantry developed an alliance resulting in the nationalization of most of the Korean industry, with traces of petty-bourgeoisie marketing retail. The private ownership of this industry would soon be dislodged, and the petty-bourgeoisie would no longer an effective class. However during this time period a class of rich farmers was emerging, and Kim Il Sung was aware of this threat to the DPRK's development. The contradiction of the proletariat dictatorship and the rich peasantry was resolved with collectivization in the countryside. These are socialist relations of production, and now the state controls virtually all industry. You can claim that the state is privileged but the consciousness of the Korean people shows how devoted the state is to the construction of socialism. "The property of the State belongs to the entire people...The State shall guarantee giving priority to the growth of its property which plays a leading role in the development of the national economy."

From analyzing the history of the DPRK and it's development towards we see how the Korean people are the devoted constructors of socialism. The Korean Workers Party holds a majority in the Supreme People's Assembly and it is difficult to imagine the WPK serving any interests besides those of the Korean people. A party that adheres to Marxism-Leninism as the grounds for class power with a necessary militarized application. In which it is deemed honorable to apart of the Korean's People Army as one of the key organs in the construction of socialism.

Finally I would like to quote Stalin on the general laws of building socialism.



The pursuit of the laws is evidently detected in the Korean people. "These, in short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring that we relate to them as such."


Can you source claims from the people of NK? I have personally met lots of people who have escaped, but as I have never been to NK, I can not say I've met people who haven't left, and I've never met anyone who said they wished they'd stayed.

Also, why does the same family hold primary power over several generations?

[celticnachos]

Can you source claims from the people of NK? I have personally met lots of people who have escaped, but as I have never been to NK, I can not say I've met people who haven't left, and I've never met anyone who said they wished they'd stayed.

Also, why does the same family hold primary power over several generations?

They are elected into their positions of power. The Supreme Leader of the DPRK runs for re-election every five years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiKCx8ln7Ts

Pyongyang, December 20 (KCNA) -- Round-table talks with the inhabitants who returned the DPRK from south Korea took place at the Koryo Hall of Compatriots on Friday. They had been taken to south Korea, after being allured and abducted by agents of the south Korean puppet Intelligence Service (IS). They are Choe Kye Sun, 64, residing in Saegori-dong No.1 of Sapho District in Hamhung City of South Hamgyong Province, and Pak Jong Suk, 67, living in Munsu-dong No.1 of the Taedonggang District here. They first told, to begin with, how they had been taken to south Korea after being fallen into a trap laid by south Korean puppet agents. Choe said: I illegally crossed the border to go over to China, blinded by money-making, and wandered about its different places. I fell a prey to a trick of flesh traffickers bribed by agents of the IS before being taken to south Korea in December, 2011. I came into the care of the DPRK some time ago. Recalling that it is one and half years since she returned home after spiting at the cursed south Korean society, Pak said she is leading a happy life together with her son and daughter-in-law at her home in Munsu-dong No.1 under the loving care of the party. Choe referred to the desperate moves of the south Korean puppet group to take inhabitants of the DPRK to south Korea. Pak said the south Korean puppet group is no more than a group of hooligans who run the whole gamut of despicable intrigues to take even one more inhabitant of the DPRK to south Korea in wanton violation of not only human ethics but the sovereignty of other countries and international law. Noting all the south Korean embassies in foreign countries are field plot-breeding centers for luring and abducting inhabitants of the DPRK, she disclosed the truth behind their criminal operations. Participants in the talks referred to the fact that the puppet group is making no scruple of perpetrating such base acts as luring and abducting citizens of the DPRK working in foreign countries and their children and holding them hostage and making even threatening phone calls to them. The group formed what it called a "team for cooperation" for operations to lure and abduct inhabitants of the DPRK and set up similar teams at its embassies in neighboring countries and is now getting frantic with those operations while reinforcing their staff, they added. They vehemently denounced the organized and premeditated abduction of the puppet group against humanity as unpardonable politically-motivated provocations to the DPRK and hideous acts that deserve international condemnation. They pointed to the situation in the corrupt south Korean society. Choe Kye Sun said: What awaited me from the very moment I set foot on south Korea was neither house nor money but sub-human treatment at the IS. Pak said that the puppet group is imposing brain washing and education by use of visual aid upon inhabitants of the DPRK after bringing them to south Korea and then throwing them like rubble stones. Choe said: South Korea is a cold society where even an iota of humanity can hardly be found and a veritable hell where there is no one to whom one can file complaint even after one of the eyes is gouged out in broad daylight. "Defectors from the north" are subject to cold shoulder and ridicule wherever they go and have to live under the watch and control of the puppet group. The south Korean people are leading a miserable life, to say nothing of the wretched plight of the "defectors from the north" who had been allured and abducted to south Korea by the puppet group, Pak said, laying bare the hypocrisy of "wellbeing" touted by the puppet group. South Korea is a veritable hell as all sorts of crimes occur in an unbroken chain, Choe said. The round-table talks disclosed that the puppet group is intensifying the watch for those who wanted to come back to the DPRK and the campaign to control, suppress and punish them by mobilizing the IS and police. The participants in the round-table talks noted that the group is making desperate efforts to tarnish the international image of the DPRK and quell the ever-growing desire for reunification in south Korea but it is nothing but a reckless racket. Choe told how she came back to the DPRK, breaking with the cursed south Korean society. Pak said: Recalling the days since I came back to the DPRK, I feel as if I were dreaming. It seems to me that I grow young day by day and I feel the worth of living in my homeland. That is why I am writing a book dealing with the quite different realities in the north and the south. No force on earth can block the Korean people dynamically advancing to build a thriving socialist nation and reunify the country, holding Marshal Kim Jong Un in high esteem and the future of Kim Il Sung's nation and Kim Jong Il's Korea is rosy, they declared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ZrrECf4Qo

Pyongyang, September 30 (KCNA) -- There took place at the Koryo Compatriots Hall on Monday round-table talks with inhabitants who came back to the DPRK after being taken away to south Korea due to the allurement and abduction operations of the south Korean puppet forces. Pak Jin Gun, 49, who resided in Tongam-dong, Tanchon City and Jang Kwang Chol, 33, who resided in Ryonbong-dong No. 1, Hyesan City were present there. They told how they were deceived by the intrigues of the puppet group before being taken away to south Korea. Pak Jin Gun said he was taken away to south Korea in October 2011, caught in the tentacles of the Intelligence Service while roaming about in China after trespassing on the border with it in quest of money. Jang Kwang Chol said he was taken to south Korea in March last year, fooled by the tricks of brokers tied with the Intelligence Service. They noted that the puppet forces are becoming all the more pronounced in their moves to allure and abduct inhabitants of the DPRK to take them to south Korea. They referred to the reality of the corrupt south Korean society. The one year he spent in south Korea was the days of nightmare, Jang said. Pak stressed that those who were taken to south Korea can hardly eke out their living as they can not get jobs without money. Jang said that south Korean society is a dark society not only for those who had been abducted and taken away to it but for south Koreans. Touching on the frantic smear campaign being staged by the puppet group against the DPRK over human rights, Pak and Jang said this was prompted by its sinister scenario to tarnish the international image of the DPRK and break its single-minded unity. Jang said the group's anti-DPRK human rights campaign is based on lies, fabrications and intrigues. Pak and Jang told how they came back to the care of the DPRK, cursing south Korean society. Upon hearing in great shock the news of the press conferences given by the returnees to the DPRK, he decided to come back to the homeland, being prepared for punishment, Pak said. But he hesitated and wavered after hearing the lies cooked up by the south Korean puppet forces, he added. It was only after he saw the TV footage of the round-table talks given by teenagers who were allured and almost taken to south Korea by the puppet forces in June that he came to realize it was all a whopping lie that the returnees to the DPRK were punished, Pak said. Defying the appeasement of the police in charge who tried hard to convert him, he resolved to return to the homeland, not wanting to live in the dark land of south Korea and questioning if it is wrong to go back to native place, Pak said. Finally he succeeded in coming back to the DPRK despite disturbance, he noted. Jang Kwang Chol said he was taken away to south Korea, being caught by flesh dealers but he always kept in his mind his dear homeland and his beloved wife and children. He said he left home without saying to his wife where he was going. He added: I cursed myself a thousand times asking myself where you are and what you are doing far away from the great embrace where the genuine life and dignity shine. My heart was afire with the strong desire to return to the embrace of our party and the DPRK, and at last I managed to return to the motherland in July which I missed even in dreams. The returnees noted in excitement that thanks to supreme leader Kim Jong Un, the people of the DPRK are the happiest in the world and the country is demonstrating its might as an invincible and powerful nation. Pak Jin Gun noted that the motherland warmly embraced him and pardoned his sins, not punishing him even though he took the road of treachery. He can not find words to express his gratitude, Pak added. He remarked that our socialist system under which the people of the country are living in a great harmonious family and our party's policy of loving the people are the best in the world, adding this is the truth he keenly realized as he had been under the differing social systems in the north and the south of Korea. He expressed his determination to devotedly work for the most advantageous country.

[BIXX]

They are elected into their positions of power. The Supreme Leader of the DPRK runs for re-election every five years.

Is there ever any opposition? If not that is awfully suspicious.

Also, if they run for reelection every five years, what is the process when the leader dies? Does their child take office?

Also, please explain the series of pictures released by the DPRK that showed NK "preparing to attack the US"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiKCx8ln7Ts

Pyongyang, December 20 (KCNA) -- Round-table talks with the inhabitants who returned the DPRK from south Korea took place at the Koryo Hall of Compatriots on Friday. They had been taken to south Korea, after being allured and abducted by agents of the south Korean puppet Intelligence Service (IS). They are Choe Kye Sun, 64, residing in Saegori-dong No.1 of Sapho District in Hamhung City of South Hamgyong Province, and Pak Jong Suk, 67, living in Munsu-dong No.1 of the Taedonggang District here. They first told, to begin with, how they had been taken to south Korea after being fallen into a trap laid by south Korean puppet agents. Choe said: I illegally crossed the border to go over to China, blinded by money-making, and wandered about its different places. I fell a prey to a trick of flesh traffickers bribed by agents of the IS before being taken to south Korea in December, 2011. I came into the care of the DPRK some time ago. Recalling that it is one and half years since she returned home after spiting at the cursed south Korean society, Pak said she is leading a happy life together with her son and daughter-in-law at her home in Munsu-dong No.1 under the loving care of the party. Choe referred to the desperate moves of the south Korean puppet group to take inhabitants of the DPRK to south Korea. Pak said the south Korean puppet group is no more than a group of hooligans who run the whole gamut of despicable intrigues to take even one more inhabitant of the DPRK to south Korea in wanton violation of not only human ethics but the sovereignty of other countries and international law. Noting all the south Korean embassies in foreign countries are field plot-breeding centers for luring and abducting inhabitants of the DPRK, she disclosed the truth behind their criminal operations. Participants in the talks referred to the fact that the puppet group is making no scruple of perpetrating such base acts as luring and abducting citizens of the DPRK working in foreign countries and their children and holding them hostage and making even threatening phone calls to them. The group formed what it called a "team for cooperation" for operations to lure and abduct inhabitants of the DPRK and set up similar teams at its embassies in neighboring countries and is now getting frantic with those operations while reinforcing their staff, they added. They vehemently denounced the organized and premeditated abduction of the puppet group against humanity as unpardonable politically-motivated provocations to the DPRK and hideous acts that deserve international condemnation. They pointed to the situation in the corrupt south Korean society. Choe Kye Sun said: What awaited me from the very moment I set foot on south Korea was neither house nor money but sub-human treatment at the IS. Pak said that the puppet group is imposing brain washing and education by use of visual aid upon inhabitants of the DPRK after bringing them to south Korea and then throwing them like rubble stones. Choe said: South Korea is a cold society where even an iota of humanity can hardly be found and a veritable hell where there is no one to whom one can file complaint even after one of the eyes is gouged out in broad daylight. "Defectors from the north" are subject to cold shoulder and ridicule wherever they go and have to live under the watch and control of the puppet group. The south Korean people are leading a miserable life, to say nothing of the wretched plight of the "defectors from the north" who had been allured and abducted to south Korea by the puppet group, Pak said, laying bare the hypocrisy of "wellbeing" touted by the puppet group. South Korea is a veritable hell as all sorts of crimes occur in an unbroken chain, Choe said. The round-table talks disclosed that the puppet group is intensifying the watch for those who wanted to come back to the DPRK and the campaign to control, suppress and punish them by mobilizing the IS and police. The participants in the round-table talks noted that the group is making desperate efforts to tarnish the international image of the DPRK and quell the ever-growing desire for reunification in south Korea but it is nothing but a reckless racket. Choe told how she came back to the DPRK, breaking with the cursed south Korean society. Pak said: Recalling the days since I came back to the DPRK, I feel as if I were dreaming. It seems to me that I grow young day by day and I feel the worth of living in my homeland. That is why I am writing a book dealing with the quite different realities in the north and the south. No force on earth can block the Korean people dynamically advancing to build a thriving socialist nation and reunify the country, holding Marshal Kim Jong Un in high esteem and the future of Kim Il Sung's nation and Kim Jong Il's Korea is rosy, they declared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ZrrECf4Qo

Pyongyang, September 30 (KCNA) -- There took place at the Koryo Compatriots Hall on Monday round-table talks with inhabitants who came back to the DPRK after being taken away to south Korea due to the allurement and abduction operations of the south Korean puppet forces. Pak Jin Gun, 49, who resided in Tongam-dong, Tanchon City and Jang Kwang Chol, 33, who resided in Ryonbong-dong No. 1, Hyesan City were present there. They told how they were deceived by the intrigues of the puppet group before being taken away to south Korea. Pak Jin Gun said he was taken away to south Korea in October 2011, caught in the tentacles of the Intelligence Service while roaming about in China after trespassing on the border with it in quest of money. Jang Kwang Chol said he was taken to south Korea in March last year, fooled by the tricks of brokers tied with the Intelligence Service. They noted that the puppet forces are becoming all the more pronounced in their moves to allure and abduct inhabitants of the DPRK to take them to south Korea. They referred to the reality of the corrupt south Korean society. The one year he spent in south Korea was the days of nightmare, Jang said. Pak stressed that those who were taken to south Korea can hardly eke out their living as they can not get jobs without money. Jang said that south Korean society is a dark society not only for those who had been abducted and taken away to it but for south Koreans. Touching on the frantic smear campaign being staged by the puppet group against the DPRK over human rights, Pak and Jang said this was prompted by its sinister scenario to tarnish the international image of the DPRK and break its single-minded unity. Jang said the group's anti-DPRK human rights campaign is based on lies, fabrications and intrigues. Pak and Jang told how they came back to the care of the DPRK, cursing south Korean society. Upon hearing in great shock the news of the press conferences given by the returnees to the DPRK, he decided to come back to the homeland, being prepared for punishment, Pak said. But he hesitated and wavered after hearing the lies cooked up by the south Korean puppet forces, he added. It was only after he saw the TV footage of the round-table talks given by teenagers who were allured and almost taken to south Korea by the puppet forces in June that he came to realize it was all a whopping lie that the returnees to the DPRK were punished, Pak said. Defying the appeasement of the police in charge who tried hard to convert him, he resolved to return to the homeland, not wanting to live in the dark land of south Korea and questioning if it is wrong to go back to native place, Pak said. Finally he succeeded in coming back to the DPRK despite disturbance, he noted. Jang Kwang Chol said he was taken away to south Korea, being caught by flesh dealers but he always kept in his mind his dear homeland and his beloved wife and children. He said he left home without saying to his wife where he was going. He added: I cursed myself a thousand times asking myself where you are and what you are doing far away from the great embrace where the genuine life and dignity shine. My heart was afire with the strong desire to return to the embrace of our party and the DPRK, and at last I managed to return to the motherland in July which I missed even in dreams. The returnees noted in excitement that thanks to supreme leader Kim Jong Un, the people of the DPRK are the happiest in the world and the country is demonstrating its might as an invincible and powerful nation. Pak Jin Gun noted that the motherland warmly embraced him and pardoned his sins, not punishing him even though he took the road of treachery. He can not find words to express his gratitude, Pak added. He remarked that our socialist system under which the people of the country are living in a great harmonious family and our party's policy of loving the people are the best in the world, adding this is the truth he keenly realized as he had been under the differing social systems in the north and the south of Korea. He expressed his determination to devotedly work for the most advantageous country.


Can you show how you know this evidence isn't falsified?

[Marshal of the People]

Celticnachos next time you post "evidence" can you please make sure the "evidence" can be proven to be evidence and is not horribly biased or fabricated in any way. I would like to debate with you but every single post of yours is horribly biased opinions and propaganda which not only can't be proven to be correct it in fact can be proven to be lies made up by King Kim Jong Un.

Celticnachos I don't mean to be rude but do you actually believe what you are saying or are you either just very stubborn (and will refuse to admit you were wrong even when you know it) or a troll?

[celticnachos]

Is there ever any opposition? If not that is awfully suspicious.

Also, if they run for reelection every five years, what is the process when the leader dies? Does their child take office?

Also, please explain the series of pictures released by the DPRK that showed NK "preparing to attack the US"?




Can you show how you know this evidence isn't falsified?

The organs of state power decide in a situation like that, which function on the principle of democratic centralism.

Are you implying that the US is the aggressor in these situations? The US sent nuclear arms to South Korea. And in response the DPRK stated that they will retaliate against the bases if a war is announced. Now there are batteries in Guam from the US! http://rt.com/news/us-missile-guam-korea-290/

[BIXX]

The organs of state power decide in a situation like that, which function on the principle of democratic centralism.



Are you implying that the US is the aggressor in these situations? The US sent nuclear arms to South Korea. And in response the DPRK stated that they will retaliate against the bases if a war is announced. Now there are batteries in Guam from the US! http://rt.com/news/us-missile-guam-korea-290/


I was just curious about them. Some of them seemed... Overdone.

You still have t answered how we know that this isn't just propaganda from the DPRK, by the way.

[Marshal of the People]

The organs of state power decide in a situation like that, which function on the principle of democratic centralism.

Are you implying that the US is the aggressor in these situations? The US sent nuclear arms to South Korea. And in response the DPRK stated that they will retaliate against the bases if a war is announced. Now there are batteries in Guam from the US! http://rt.com/news/us-missile-guam-korea-290/

Just a question what on earth makes you think that North Korea is a democracy? I really don't get your logic and beleifs/opinions.

There isn't one aggressor when referring to the US-DPRK tension! Both sides are really to blame.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Your open-mindedness is much appreciated. Criticism is a virtue we communists rely on, whilst the majority of the people in this thread claim rationality by adhering to their ideological orientation, they withhold from being criticized. The obliviousness and liberal nature of their arguments are incompatible with reality. So yes, I will respond to your rebuttal, however keep in mind that my response will be composed from the conditions the Korean people are faced with.



For your claim to be true we must find out who the capitalists are in the DPRK, in what would make it a bourgeois dictatorship. The essence of the state is discovered by analyzing the development of society. We discover that it's purpose is to keep one social class in power, as it was established with the arrival of a class division. How the state maintains the power of one social class is through force, the state is simply an apparatus of force. So from your claim, the Korean state would directly serve the interests of the capitalists. My rebuttal to this claim would initially be: "show me capitalists in power." Although, I can objectively claim that the DPRK is a socialist state which serves the interests of the working class.

For my claim to be true the exploitation from capitalism would have to perished, and production would have to be aimed at maximizing the welfare of the working people. The means of production would need to be collectively owned and the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" principle will apply to distribution of goods, with necessary social services. We see socialist states as being dictatorships of the proletariat, and their existence being a result of the antagonisms and crises that sprang from the capitalist system. Ultimately a revolutionary party is necessary in overthrowing the rule of an oppressive class. And we see that the DPRK is indeed a revolutionary socialist state.

When analyzing the DPRK we can look into it's early history. Kim Il Sung and the workers party needed to develop the material conditions in the DPRK. The working class and the peasantry developed an alliance resulting in the nationalization of most of the Korean industry, with traces of petty-bourgeoisie marketing retail. The private ownership of this industry would soon be dislodged, and the petty-bourgeoisie would no longer an effective class. However during this time period a class of rich farmers was emerging, and Kim Il Sung was aware of this threat to the DPRK's development. The contradiction of the proletariat dictatorship and the rich peasantry was resolved with collectivization in the countryside. These are socialist relations of production, and now the state controls virtually all industry. You can claim that the state is privileged but the consciousness of the Korean people shows how devoted the state is to the construction of socialism. "The property of the State belongs to the entire people...The State shall guarantee giving priority to the growth of its property which plays a leading role in the development of the national economy."

From analyzing the history of the DPRK and it's development towards we see how the Korean people are the devoted constructors of socialism. The Korean Workers Party holds a majority in the Supreme People's Assembly and it is difficult to imagine the WPK serving any interests besides those of the Korean people. A party that adheres to Marxism-Leninism as the grounds for class power with a necessary militarized application. In which it is deemed honorable to apart of the Korean's People Army as one of the key organs in the construction of socialism.

Finally I would like to quote Stalin on the general laws of building socialism.



The pursuit of the laws is evidently detected in the Korean people. "These, in short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring that we relate to them as such."

Question: Do socialist societies generally imprison three generations of the family when one of the family members makes a small complaint about the food rations for the week?

If you deny that this occurs, then do you believe that Korean defectors are hired by capitalist nations in some kind of conspiracy to discredit NK? Are these people actors?

If you do believe that this is a thing and support it, can you explain the logic behind imprisoning three generations of the family in labor camps? Are the children taken there also guilty? How about those who are born in the labor camps?

[Hrafn]

They are elected into their positions of power. The Supreme Leader of the DPRK runs for re-election every five years.

Incorrect.

The "Supreme Leader" runs for re-election for his parliamentary seat every five years.

In 2009, Kim Jong-il received an amazing 100% support rate - just like every single other parliamentary member - from his district, with a 99.98% turnout.

[Marshal of the People]

Incorrect.

The "Supreme Leader" runs for re-election for his parliamentary seat every five years.

In 2009, Kim Jong-il received an amazing 100% support rate - just like every single other parliamentary member - from his district, with a 99.98% turnout.

Yeah I know the facts are obvious, but facts aren't celticnacho's strong suit.

[Per Levy]

allright so i skimmed over the last 2 pages and it seems to me that celticnacho and fsl both like to talk about a lot of unimportent stuff in order to paint NK as socialist, yet none of two bothered to say anything about the special econmoic zones, the renting our workers to other countries and the exploitation of workers in NK itsself. i especially still wait for celticnacho to answer me if they know what exploitation is.

also peeps who deny the nepotism of the ruling family and belive that "elections" in "socialist states" arnt rigged are idealist to the core.

[Marshal of the People]

allright so i skimmed over the last 2 pages and it seems to me that celticnacho and fsl both like to talk about a lot of unimportent stuff in order to paint NK as socialist, yet none of two bothered to say anything about the special econmoic zones, the renting our workers to other countries and the exploitation of workers in NK itsself. i especially still wait for celticnacho to answer me if they know what exploitation is.

also peeps who deny the nepotism of the ruling family and belive that "elections" in "socialist states" arnt rigged are idealist to the core.

We've brought the 'special economic zones' up numerous times but they continue to dodge (or should I say ignore) the question.

[FSL]

allright so i skimmed over the last 2 pages and it seems to me that celticnacho and fsl both like to talk about a lot of unimportent stuff in order to paint NK as socialist, yet none of two bothered to say anything about the special econmoic zones, the renting our workers to other countries and the exploitation of workers in NK itsself. i especially still wait for celticnacho to answer me if they know what exploitation is.

also peeps who deny the nepotism of the ruling family and belive that "elections" in "socialist states" arnt rigged are idealist to the core.

No, the idea that bureaucrats are capitalists in disguise is certainly not unimportant and it's certainly not solely north-korea related. "Leftists" say that all the time for every socialist country to ever exist.

Cuba's nickel is mined by the state and a canadian company and it's been so for decades. It's rum is made by the state and pernot ricard etc. There was foreign investment in the soviet union in some sectors, for example gold mining iirc even after the end of the NEP.

You seem to think to much in black and white terms, when Lenin spoke of the soviet economy in its first years he described five different modes of production co-existing, from socialist to substinence agriculture. Only in communism there is just one mode of production.


People keep saying how poor north korea is and they happily go way past the things the wall street journal would write. So what's their or your plan? If a socialist country is in need of machinery why can't foreign investment be used to a small extent in the sectors where it is needed? Is it possible that the gains outweigh the losses? What part of the labor force works for foreign companies? 0,1%? 0,2%? Is that significant? Does that make capitalism the dominant mode of production?

Of course there is nepotism, just like there is nepotism elsewhere. There are many countries where sons and grandsons are elected because of their name, it doesn't make them feudal even though that is a feudal relic.


Elections in capitalist countries almost always have results of 95-100% support for the regime. The vote is split on absolutely ridiculous subjects like "are abortions evil, is pot good?" or on whether some social-democrat plans to increase spending by 1% or something.
But they're not forged. If there was going to be a 20% of the vote against the regime then probably there wouldn't even be elections but a dictatorship would be installed in advance. If there was a 50% of the vote against the regime, against capitalism, again there wouldn't be elections, there'd be an all-out civil war.



Tim Cornelis, you saying that the fact that solidarity are "not revolutionary" (they are actually just as conservative and as sold out as all those other fat union types you pretend to despise) doesn't matter is one of the funniest things I've heard.

They are a counter-revolutionary, boss loving union. Much like Orban in Hungary who was also a "leader of the popular movement" and who is also a business loving quasi-fascist, much like Yeltsin (another "popular leader") who was a libertarian autocrat.
Have fun with your besties.

[FSL]

There isn't one aggressor when referring to the US-DPRK tension! Both sides are really to blame.
Were there two agressors in the cold war too?

Does Korea keep soldiers in the mexican borders? Does it have war-drills next to california?

Agression by north korea is developing long range missiles.
Agression by the us is having long range missiles but not finding them enough.
Out of curiosity, you having such a balance opinion on the matter, how can you accept these double standards and speak of "not one agressor"?

[motion denied]

I don't intend to derail the thread or anything. I just would like to point out how abhorrent and anti-marxist is any "general law of building socialism". It reeks of positivism.

[Leftsolidarity]

There isn't one aggressor when referring to the US-DPRK tension! Both sides are really to blame.

What a load of shit. How about you stop reading your high school history book for your international positions.

----

This is an interesting article relating to the OP:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/americas-police-state-worse-than-communist-north-korea/

[FSL]

I don't intend to derail the thread or anything. I just would like to point out how abhorrent and anti-marxist is any "general law of building socialism". It reeks of positivism.

Socialism isn't an abstract concept, it's a way to organize your economy. Much like capitalism there are some dos and some donts.

It's the opposite that often leads to bad places. Everyone saying that their socialism is "unique" with this uniqueness often ending up in something that is socialist only in name.
For example, when we speak of a "socialism of the 21st century" and we go on to say that because of its uniqueness there is no need for a revolution, no need for a workers' state and that, in the end, even having capitalists isn't that bad as long as they behave themselves and pay their taxes.

Eurocommunist parties claimed they weren't following any "general laws of building socialism" and we know where they ended up. China is having its own brand of socialism that's as capitalist as possible. Hungary, Romania, Poland, Albania, all had something special in their socialism and -in relation to this thread- North Korea as well speaks of a "korean-style socialism".


All these special kinds of socialism never really have anything quite special to offer. It's usually a sign of bourgeois -or generally non-worker- influence or remains of it. What is "korean style" in north korea's socialism? Probably the adherence and unity behind the Kims. That kind of loyalty to someone might be common in the area's culture (important figures and the elderly from what I've seen are treated much differently in both Koreas and Japan) but it's something they could do away with.

[motion denied]

Socialism isn't an abstract concept,

That's why the 7 universal laws of socialism-building have nothing to do with, well, socialism. Mabe I should have quoted celticnachos and the citation of Stalin.


it's a way to organize your economy. Much like capitalism there are some dos and some donts.

Firstly, saying socialism is merely a way to organize economy, sounds a bit reductionist. Instead, a 'new mode of production' (and everything it entails, free from alienation etc), which is a broader term, should be closer to correct. I see socialism as the plain self-construction (don't know if the expression works in English) of the humankind, through associated labour, of course.

These 'do and donts', however, come from the concrete analysis of the capitalist mode of production and its potential overcoming (aufhebung) by the proletariat. Okay, nothing new here.

What I'm trying to say is: there is no law or model to build socialism. Asserting the opposite is breaking with Marx and his legacy and bordering positivism.

I'm not calling for an abandon of principles - I'm discarding dogmatism (not to be confused it with orthodoxy). I'm no euro-communist, or revisionist (as in the original terminology).

[Per Levy]

@fsl: you write so much yet answer none of my points, is that another argument tactic?

so in your "socialist state" in your socalism, exploitation still exist, wage labour still exist, commodity production still exist, alienation still exist. in that socialist state nepotism is a big thing, elections are getting rigged, workers getting rented out to other captialist states, special economic zones exist where the official exploitation is going on and workers have no power. sounds a lot like a capitalist dictatorship to me, at least its nothing a communist worker should aspire. and im sorry if that is to black and white for you but i wont call a capitalist state socialism.

[celticnachos]

Socialism isn't an abstract concept, it's a way to organize your economy. Much like capitalism there are some dos and some donts.

It's the opposite that often leads to bad places. Everyone saying that their socialism is "unique" with this uniqueness often ending up in something that is socialist only in name.
For example, when we speak of a "socialism of the 21st century" and we go on to say that because of its uniqueness there is no need for a revolution, no need for a workers' state and that, in the end, even having capitalists isn't that bad as long as they behave themselves and pay their taxes.

Eurocommunist parties claimed they weren't following any "general laws of building socialism" and we know where they ended up. China is having its own brand of socialism that's as capitalist as possible. Hungary, Romania, Poland, Albania, all had something special in their socialism and -in relation to this thread- North Korea as well speaks of a "korean-style socialism".


All these special kinds of socialism never really have anything quite special to offer. It's usually a sign of bourgeois -or generally non-worker- influence or remains of it. What is "korean style" in north korea's socialism? Probably the adherence and unity behind the Kims. That kind of loyalty to someone might be common in the area's culture (important figures and the elderly from what I've seen are treated much differently in both Koreas and Japan) but it's something they could do away with.

I think it is important to note that the construction of socialism varies depending on the conditions of a country. We can seemingly observe with the Korean unity behind the Kims. However, I am not denying that their exists privileged cadres, as there is no evidence of free criticism. This creates an issue in applying democratic centralism, however it is their conditions which impedes them to do so. Incorrect application of democratic centralism does indeed pose a threat to the Korean people in their path for socialism, and it is vital that we critique Juche in that regard.


The Juche philosophy is an original philosophy which has been evolved and systematized with its own principles. The historic contribution made by the Juche philosophy to the development of philosophical thoughts lies not in its advancement of Marxist materialistic dialectics, but in its clarification of new philosophical principles centred on man. - Kim Jong Il

Theoretical advancements in Juche creates the appearence of it being an original ideology. Yet, Koreans fear making criticism of Juche, how does one conclude it's advancement on the conjecture that it's original? These complications in Juche are the result of an external contradiction with imperialism and internal contradictions.

We should do away with this loyalty as you described, but we also must understand the development of this loyalty in relation to the construction of socialism.

[DOOM]

I don't see how the DPRK can be "socialist", when Kimmieboy is partying with Rodman in his 1000 m^2 mansion, while the real workers are dying because of famine.
Holy fuck

[celticnachos]

That's why the 7 universal laws of socialism-building have nothing to do with, well, socialism. Mabe I should have quoted celticnachos and the citation of Stalin.



Firstly, saying socialism is merely a way to organize economy, sounds a bit reductionist. Instead, a 'new mode of production' (and everything it entails, free from alienation etc), which is a broader term, should be closer to correct. I see socialism as the plain self-construction (don't know if the expression works in English) of the humankind, through associated labour, of course.

These 'do and donts', however, come from the concrete analysis of the capitalist mode of production and its potential overcoming (aufhebung) by the proletariat. Okay, nothing new here.

What I'm trying to say is: there is no law or model to build socialism. Asserting the opposite is breaking with Marx and his legacy and bordering positivism.

I'm not calling for an abandon of principles - I'm discarding dogmatism (not to be confused it with orthodoxy). I'm no euro-communist, or revisionist (as in the original terminology).

You are a revisionist in that you deprive Marxism of it's scientific and revolutionary content. The application of Marxism requires scientific analysis and only does it lay down the foundations. Your criticism is divorced from material struggle, are you living in a vacuum?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't see how the DPRK can be "socialist", when Kimmieboy is partying with Rodman in his 1000 m^2 mansion, while the real workers are dying because of famine.
Holy fuck

You're a very clever liberal but its material conditions all the way down and you know it.

[DOOM]

Calling us, us opposed to the DPRK, liberals, bourgeoise or revisionists, won't make your point more true.

[celticnachos]

Calling us, us opposed to the DPRK, liberals, bourgeoise or revisionists, won't make your point more true.

You oppose the DPRK? The fact that you cannot properly apply dialectics makes makes you a bourgeois liberal.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think it is important to note that the construction of socialism varies depending on the conditions of a country. We can seemingly observe with the Korean unity behind the Kims. However, I am not denying that their exists privileged cadres, as there is no evidence of free criticism. This creates an issue in applying democratic centralism, however it is their conditions which impedes them to do so. Incorrect application of democratic centralism does indeed pose a threat to the Korean people in their path for socialism, and it is vital that we critique Juche in that regard.



Theoretical advancements in Juche creates the appearence of it being an original ideology. Yet, Koreans fear making criticism of Juche, how does one conclude it's advancement on the conjecture that it's original? These complications in Juche are the result of an external contradiction with imperialism and internal contradictions.

We should do away with this loyalty as you described, but we also must understand the development of this loyalty in relation to the construction of socialism.

Where are you getting your information that there is no 'free criticism' in the DPRK? You claim to uphold and defend the DPRK and then come in here regurgitating 'information' from the bourgeois press? Revisionists like you make me sick.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You oppose the DPRK? The fact that you cannot properly apply dialectics makes makes you a bourgeois liberal.

While dialectics is most certainly rubbish, I don't think you have any clue of what you just said at all, I don't think you comprehend even what those words mean. What is bourgeois about "not properly applying dialectics"?

[motion denied]

You are a revisionist in that you deprive Marxism of it's scientific and revolutionary content. The application of Marxism requires scientific analysis and only does it lay down the foundations. Your criticism is divorced from material struggle, are you living in a vacuum?

Uh, what?

Marxism is not applied, because it is not a method. Or else, not in the sense of epistemological constructions that precede the object and its development. It's not useful to extend ourselves in it though. Where did I say that marxism requires no analysis? How is my criticism divorced from struggle?

And then again, when you support the 7 eternal laws of socialism, you deny the contradictory development of society; thus, disregarding the 'material conditions'.

[celticnachos]

While dialectics is most certainly rubbish, I don't think you have any clue of what you just said at all, I don't think you comprehend even what those words mean. What is bourgeois about "not properly applying dialectics"?

The struggle between the Koreans and the forces of imperialism is real. We should be in solidarity with the Korean people for this reason, are you not a proponent of proletarian internationalism? With a dogmatic understanding of reality by not being in solidarity with the Korean people, then dialectics are not properly being applied. Our criticisms must be made in accordance to reality. Congratulations, you simultaneously prove yourself to be condescending and naive.

[FSL]

@fsl: you write so much yet answer none of my points, is that another argument tactic?

so in your "socialist state" in your socalism, exploitation still exist, wage labour still exist, commodity production still exist, alienation still exist. in that socialist state nepotism is a big thing, elections are getting rigged, workers getting rented out to other captialist states, special economic zones exist where the official exploitation is going on and workers have no power. sounds a lot like a capitalist dictatorship to me, at least its nothing a communist worker should aspire. and im sorry if that is to black and white for you but i wont call a capitalist state socialism.

I certainly answered your point. How the 0.2% of the labour force is employed doesn't define the mode of production. India is a capitalist economy with a much larger percentage of the population living and working outside of "capitalist relations of production".
Maybe you don't want to accept that. I don't care. Might as well point out to a public park in the US and claim it is certain evidence of Obama's communist tendencies.

Most of the things in north korea (perhaps too many) are distributed. From food to houses to other goods. That deals with commodity production and wage labour. The rigged elections are your opinion, don't care about it, at least not enough to say anything more than what I already said. In your opinion all elections in all socialist countries were always rigged and people remained "apathetic" or "frightened".

The only real and vibrant democracy as a result has only been found in capitalism, where it's very easy for the two candidates of the super rich to get 100% of the vote between them, give hugs and congratulate each other after the election, say they'll govern "for all the people" and carry on with their lives and with the exact same policies of each and everyone of the previous dozen administrations.
On that concept, the concept where 100% of the people, of the workers, are agreeing on their exploitation you don't seem to show the same amount of scepticism. Only when it comes to socialist countries you become suspicious.


Nepotism is a bad thing but I don't accept that all bad things will be gone by the time there is a revolution.
Look at yourself for example. You're reasoning is infested with capitalist ideology (sorry to put it in so bland terms but it is obvious that a lot of the time when you think you're expressing your opinion, you're just repeating things a pundit at the CNN or Fox News would say). Am I to consider it imperative that you let go of all of it in order for a revolution to happen? No, chances are you'll still believe a lot of that even after a revolution. That's why nothing ends there, it's just a new beginning, a big school if you will.

[Taters]

lol. If you dare impugn the DPRK's socialist credentials, you are a capitalist shill!

Now, FSL, bear in mind that I'm under the thrall of bourgeois propaganda, but Per Levy's objections to your claim that the DPRK is socialist still stand. There is still wage labor and there is still exploitation.
Again, you may rightly dismiss me as counterrevolutionary, but do try to address those facts.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The struggle between the Koreans and the forces of imperialism is real. We should be in solidarity with the Korean people for this reason, are you not a proponent of proletarian internationalism? With a dogmatic understanding of reality by not being in solidarity with the Korean people, then dialectics are not properly being applied. Our criticisms must be made in accordance to reality. Congratulations, you simultaneously prove yourself to be condescending and naive.

The North Koreans are stuck in the lingering morass left by an inter-bourgeois conflict (the Cold War, the Korean War). We thus stand in solidarity to the working class of both Korea's who suffer under their repressive capitalist regimes and welcome their rising up to destroy the leadership of their respective states. You, on the other hand, has your allegiance with the leadership of the DPRK, not its working class, in-fact, you and your ilk are actively anti-worker when it benefits the utterly naïve cold-war thinking that shapes your views (not to mention the cloudy views of imperialism).

[DOOM]

You oppose the DPRK? The fact that you cannot properly apply dialectics makes makes you a bourgeois liberal.

Wow
you're doing it again.
And diamat is rubbish

[BIXX]

Wow

you're doing it again.

And diamat is rubbish


Well, no one has disproven or proven it to be great. Personally I find it useful to display my ideas, but not much else than that.

[Marshal of the People]

Were there two agressors in the cold war too?

Does Korea keep soldiers in the mexican borders? Does it have war-drills next to california?

Agression by north korea is developing long range missiles.
Agression by the us is having long range missiles but not finding them enough.
Out of curiosity, you having such a balance opinion on the matter, how can you accept these double standards and speak of "not one agressor"?

I would say threatening to nuclear bomb America is an act of agression but that is just my opinion.

Anyway who needs facts or thinking skills when you have the Korean Central News Agency to "enlighten" you!

[Marshal of the People]

What a load of shit. How about you stop reading your high school history book for your international positions.

----

This is an interesting article relating to the OP:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/americas-police-state-worse-than-communist-north-korea/

As I said before threatening to nuclear bomb another country and destroy it is considered an act of aggression. I am not saying that America hasn't acted aggressive towards North Korea (because it most definitely has), what I am trying to say is that North Korea has also acted aggressively.

I read you link and it had nothing to do with what you posted. I do agree with the link about the brutality of American police though that has nothing to do with America being the "only" aggressor in the US-DPRK conflict!

[FSL]

lol. If you dare impugn the DPRK's socialist credentials, you are a capitalist shill!

Now, FSL, bear in mind that I'm under the thrall of bourgeois propaganda, but Per Levy's objections to your claim that the DPRK is socialist still stand. There is still wage labor and there is still exploitation.
Again, you may rightly dismiss me as counterrevolutionary, but do try to address those facts.

It's not about the dprk, you say the same thing, the exact same thing for any socialist state. Why do I need to repeat this, surely you aren't forgeting it. Claiming those socialist states are super evil is like quoting the bible for you.
You use "wage labor" wrongly, you can read marx's critique of gotha for clarification.

There is something given in exchange for labor but it is not money, it is not a means to trade like money in a capitalist economy is. Commodity production is very limited in north korea (and like I said taking into account material conditions especially in agriculture perhaps too limited). Commodities exchanged are some kinds of vegetable, not staple food, and other goods of equally secondary importance. People work and what they really get for it is a house, an insurance, school for their children, most of their food through the PDS and I guess tickets to that new water park when they do well in their jobs.
These are all distributed either freely or with nominal prices.

The "wage" part of their reward is small and most of it probably still goes to subsidised goods (mostly from the socialist industry) since it might be hard to exactly match each person's wants with what's available.


If by exploitation you mean the foreign companies employing a few ten thousands in a country with a labor force of more than 10 million, I've answered it and don't feel the need to do so again.
If by exploitation you mean the exploitation at the hands of the evil, capitalist-like bureaucrats, I've also talked about that and I feel even less the need to do so again.


I'll say this again however. Just take a moment and look at yourselves. You mock north korea when you're not trying to outdo the most conservative paper in attacking it. There is a 100% chance that if a socialist revolution were to happen anywhere on the planet, you'd fight it with all the might of your heart. You'd be ruthless. Much like before with Kautsky and Trotsky, capitalists would just be waiting for you to discover some hideous crime of that state and then they'd join forces with you, happy that they're not alone in condemning that "inhuman regime".

I mean that you really couldn't be worse, you really couldn't be more damning to the cause you're claiming to hold dear but at the same time you're the ones with the most expectations.
Isn't that weird? Why is it ok for you to compete with fox news in anti-communist fear-mongering ("they're starving their people to death as we speak! they're gassing families! they're torturing babies! they even threaten the states, god forbid!") but it is so bad for koreans to love the Kims?

I mean I understand they're wrong in that respect and I certainly understand you're wrong. But I'm not so fast to irrevocably dismiss any of you. Why are you? That's a bit sad I think.

[Leftsolidarity]

I read you link and it had nothing to do with what you posted. I do agree with the link about the brutality of American police though that has nothing to do with America being the "only" aggressor in the US-DPRK conflict!

I didn't say it did. It had to do with the OP of this thread. I really didn't care to discuss your glaring lack of understanding the situation of the DPRK.

[Marshal of the People]

I didn't say it did. It had to do with the OP of this thread. I really didn't care to discuss your glaring lack of understanding the situation of the DPRK.

It was in the same post which had quoted me I thought.... ooops.

Why do you think the DPRK is a socialist workers utopia?

[Taters]

It's not about the dprk, you say the same thing, the exact same thing for any socialist state. Why do I need to repeat this, surely you aren't forgeting it. Claiming those socialist states are super evil is like quoting the bible for you.


I wasn't criticizing the dprk moralistically, and it's rather dishonest to try make it look like others and I were doing so.



You use "wage labor" wrongly, you can read marx's critique of gotha for clarification.
There is something given in exchange for labor but it is not money, it is not a means to trade like money in a capitalist economy is. Commodity production is very limited in north korea (and like I said taking into account material conditions especially in agriculture perhaps too limited). Commodities exchanged are some kinds of vegetable, not staple food, and other goods of equally secondary importance. People work and what they really get for it is a house, an insurance, school for their children, most of their food through the PDS and I guess tickets to that new water park when they do well in their jobs.
These are all distributed either freely or with nominal prices.

The "wage" part of their reward is small and most of it probably still goes to subsidised goods (mostly from the socialist industry) since it might be hard to exactly match each person's wants with what's available.

So, they're still paid a wage, then? What you've described sounds more than a bit like company stores and company credits. Again, something that's not alien to capitalism.



If by exploitation you mean the foreign companies employing a few ten thousands in a country with a labor force of more than 10 million, I've answered it and don't feel the need to do so again.
If by exploitation you mean the exploitation at the hands of the evil, capitalist-like bureaucrats, I've also talked about that and I feel even less the need to do so again.

Alright then.



I'll say this again however. Just take a moment and look at yourselves. You mock north korea when you're not trying to outdo the most conservative paper in attacking it. There is a 100% chance that if a socialist revolution were to happen anywhere on the planet, you'd fight it with all the might of your heart. You'd be ruthless. Much like before with Kautsky and Trotsky, capitalists would just be waiting for you to discover some hideous crime of that state and then they'd join forces with you, happy that they're not alone in condemning that "inhuman regime".

I mean that you really couldn't be worse, you really couldn't be more damning to the cause you're claiming to hold dear but at the same time you're the ones with the most expectations.
Isn't that weird? Why is it ok for you to compete with fox news in anti-communist fear-mongering ("they're starving their people to death as we speak! they're gassing families! they're torturing babies! they even threaten the states, god forbid!") but it is so bad for koreans to love the Kims?

I mean I understand they're wrong in that respect and I certainly understand you're wrong. But I'm not so fast to irrevocably dismiss any of you. Why are you? That's a bit sad I think.


Whew. Did that feel better?
Now, take a deep breath, champ: no one was saying the things you claimed we did. I wasn't taking some kind of tabloid "KIM JONG UN FEEDS HIS UNCLE TO THE DOGS! etc" stance. Rather, I was pointing out the DPRK still operates under capitalist logic, as it always has.
Now, is it so bad for the Koreans to love the Kims? I'd say it's another putrid display of nationalism, sure.

[celticnachos]

Rather, I was pointing out the DPRK still operates under capitalist logic, as it always has.
Now, is it so bad for the Koreans to love the Kims? I'd say it's another putrid display of nationalism, sure.

The DPRK operates under capitalist logic? Do you deny historical fact? Have you read the entire thread?

[Taters]

The DPRK operates under capitalist logic? Do you deny historical fact? Have you read the entire thread?

Yes, I deny historical fact. I have also failed to apply the dialectic.

It's as if you think you think communism is just another policy to be enacted when enough countries profess "socialism" and capitalism is a political form you shrug off when a different party comes to power.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The DPRK operates under capitalist logic? Do you deny historical fact? Have you read the entire thread?

Hey, you ignored my question about the three generations of family members imprisoned. I wrote it on page 7. Can't wait for the response as to how socialist societies imprison three generations of people.

[celticnachos]

Hey, you ignored my question about the three generations of family members imprisoned. I wrote it on page 7. Can't wait for the response as to how socialist societies imprison three generations of people.

First of all, are there any legitimate sources that validate the accuracy of this claim?

Aside from the fact that there is nothing to verify that this claim is true, it is also implausible. Having generations of families spend their entire lives in prisons would be an extreme waste of resources. What is even the logic here?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

First of all, are there any legitimate sources that validate the accuracy of this claim?

Aside from the fact that there is nothing to verify that this claim is true, it is also implausible. Having generations of families spend their entire lives in prisons would be an extreme waste of resources. What is even the logic here?

Well, there are multiple people who have escaped from them. Even former guards at the camps who have escaped tell of their horrors. Also, satellite images show these camps. Also, labor from the camps is sometimes outsourced to Russia and China for the cheap.

[celticnachos]

Well, there are multiple people who have escaped from them. Even former guards at the camps who have escaped tell of their horrors. Also, satellite images show these camps. Also, labor from the camps is sometimes outsourced to Russia and China for the cheap.

You fail to give me sources. Those satellite images prove nothing. Yes there are labor camps in the DPRK, however, the claims made by bourgeois media demonize these camps.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

You fail to give me sources. Those satellite images prove nothing. Yes there are labor camps in the DPRK, however, the claims made by bourgeois media demonize these camps.

Then explain the conspiracy. What are they used for then? You do realize that the media doesn't even care about North Korea, really other than the occasional mention of Dennis Rodman and nukes. The US really does not care what we think of North Korea. It's more in the US's interests to demonize places like Cuba and actual Marxist republics in Latin America where the US had a lot of financial stake. The cold war is over, and NK is a small blip on the map.

So, are you telling me that the defectors who were camp guards are lying? If so, why would they lie? You must admit that if they are saying bad things about North Korea, it must have been pretty bad even for them, yeah? Or are you claiming that these were never guards there and that they are actors hired by the "bourgeois" media?

WHat about the well-documented sell of North Korean labor to Russia and China? Address my points specifically and show me sources to refute them.

[FSL]

I wasn't criticizing the dprk moralistically, and it's rather dishonest to try make it look like others and I were doing so.
Ok, super capitalist then.



So, they're still paid a wage, then? What you've described sounds more than a bit like company stores and company credits. Again, something that's not alien to capitalism.
Yes, if a company is all the companies, its stores are all the stores and its credits cover almost every product. Then yes, what you said makes sense. But you're not the first to say it, Lenin compared the whole of a socialist economy to a single factory that produces and consumes all its inputs.

What is your point? That for an economic system to be called socialism, there can be nothing else? Isn't socialism by definition a continuous state of improvement? Will a socialist economy immediately do away with all commerce and all commodity production? Even if some sectors aren't as concentrated?

And what are you saying that's specific to this case? That north korean farmers should give away all of their production and then take rations along with every other person?
Do you care if that's feasible? If they are going to accept that?
Or is that something you're not taking into account?





Whew. Did that feel better?
Now, take a deep breath, champ: no one was saying the things you claimed we did. I wasn't taking some kind of tabloid "KIM JONG UN FEEDS HIS UNCLE TO THE DOGS! etc" stance. Rather, I was pointing out the DPRK still operates under capitalist logic, as it always has.
Now, is it so bad for the Koreans to love the Kims? I'd say it's another putrid display of nationalism, sure.
It was a very good-natured comment, you shouldn't dismiss it.


You mustn't have read this thread.


As if the mere observation of the oppressive and exploitative role of state bureaucrats in the statecapitalist countries, amongst them North Korea, by liberals (and communists alike) means it therefore does not exist.

The reason both make this observation is because it is based on the actual situation in North Korea. It is exploitative and oppressive even by conventional capitalist standards. By all credible accounts (which includes discounting the sensetionalist hysterical reports), North Korea is a vicious dictatorship. It is the Juche apologists whom absorb twisted bourgeois propaganda by the North Korean ruling elite, not the communists, and it is them whom support the ruthless exploitation at the hands of a disgustingly oppressive regime involved in gassing entire families, starving its people, torturing children. It is utterly sickening. Send these Stalinists to a North Korean prison camp for a day and they'll come back liberals (not communists, as their bourgeois paradigm remains intact and is not changed by torture).


This post has been here and quite a few people agreed with it. Yet you don't criticize that post, you criticize me. Perhaps that type of rabid anti-communism that would make the most far-right publication shy away doesn't really concern you?
If you'd like to disassociate yourself from comments like the one above, you could of course do it and I'd have little reason to doubt your honesty.


You'll need to explain "capitalist logic". I'm pretty sure I live under capitalism. Jobs are not guaranteed and the vast majority of the products aren't distributed.
Why isn't the fact that homes or rice or education or healthcare, a very large number of things really, that all these get distributed more relevant than the fact that carrots (if they have those there) aren't?
As I asked above, do you care if it's feasible to announce to everyone, every farmer, that from this day on they're only working for rations? Relations of production can't be separated from the forces of production. Not every sector of an economy can immediately be ran as a socialist industry.



Lastly, you claim loving the Kims is "putrid nationalism". Harsh words there.
Yet, some people here also claimed that north korea, a country of 25 million with no army outside its borders and no interest in even threatening anyone not actively in a war against it, that this country is an agressor against the US, a country responsible for half the world's spending in military equipment, with soldiers in South Korea, involved in constant war drills right next to dprk borders and also involved in -I've lost count- wars in pretty much every corner of the planet.

Isn't that putrid westernism? Isn't that a 100 or a 1000 times worse than what the north koreans are doing? Surely enough, the north koreans might have their customs and their way of thinking. And surely enough they can be backward, much like any nation that doesn't reject the unprogressive elements of its culture (that is every nation at this moment).
But is that really so bad when compared to people who think countries merely talking back to imperialist powers should be condemned as "they're just as agressive!"?


See, this is my problem outside of all the talk oh what constitutes socialism. You say you're against the tabloid talk of north korea but have no comments on those comrades of yours that repeat it, enhanced.
You say you're against the "putrid nationalism" of the koreans but again have no words for people on the other end.

Doesn't that seem like double standards?

[Sea]

"The State shall guarantee giving priority to the growth of its property which plays a leading role in the development of the national economy."You say that the relations of production in North Korea are socialist, but this quote from their constitution implies that capitalist relations of production exist between the workers and the state. This precludes socialism, and indicates that either North Korea has been unable to advance beyond a simple dictatorship of the proletariat (not unlikely given their relatively underdeveloped conditions) or that their state formation is of a revisionist, capitalist character.

They are elected into their positions of power. The Supreme Leader of the DPRK runs for re-election every five years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiKCx8ln7Ts

Pyongyang, December 20 (KCNA) -- Round-table talks with the inhabitants who returned the DPRK from south Korea took place at the Koryo Hall of Compatriots on Friday. They had been taken to south Korea, after being allured and abducted by agents of the south Korean puppet Intelligence Service (IS). They are Choe Kye Sun, 64, residing in Saegori-dong No.1 of Sapho District in Hamhung City of South Hamgyong Province, and Pak Jong Suk, 67, living in Munsu-dong No.1 of the Taedonggang District here. They first told, to begin with, how they had been taken to south Korea after being fallen into a trap laid by south Korean puppet agents. Choe said: I illegally crossed the border to go over to China, blinded by money-making, and wandered about its different places. I fell a prey to a trick of flesh traffickers bribed by agents of the IS before being taken to south Korea in December, 2011. I came into the care of the DPRK some time ago. Recalling that it is one and half years since she returned home after spiting at the cursed south Korean society, Pak said she is leading a happy life together with her son and daughter-in-law at her home in Munsu-dong No.1 under the loving care of the party. Choe referred to the desperate moves of the south Korean puppet group to take inhabitants of the DPRK to south Korea. Pak said the south Korean puppet group is no more than a group of hooligans who run the whole gamut of despicable intrigues to take even one more inhabitant of the DPRK to south Korea in wanton violation of not only human ethics but the sovereignty of other countries and international law. Noting all the south Korean embassies in foreign countries are field plot-breeding centers for luring and abducting inhabitants of the DPRK, she disclosed the truth behind their criminal operations. Participants in the talks referred to the fact that the puppet group is making no scruple of perpetrating such base acts as luring and abducting citizens of the DPRK working in foreign countries and their children and holding them hostage and making even threatening phone calls to them. The group formed what it called a "team for cooperation" for operations to lure and abduct inhabitants of the DPRK and set up similar teams at its embassies in neighboring countries and is now getting frantic with those operations while reinforcing their staff, they added. They vehemently denounced the organized and premeditated abduction of the puppet group against humanity as unpardonable politically-motivated provocations to the DPRK and hideous acts that deserve international condemnation. They pointed to the situation in the corrupt south Korean society. Choe Kye Sun said: What awaited me from the very moment I set foot on south Korea was neither house nor money but sub-human treatment at the IS. Pak said that the puppet group is imposing brain washing and education by use of visual aid upon inhabitants of the DPRK after bringing them to south Korea and then throwing them like rubble stones. Choe said: South Korea is a cold society where even an iota of humanity can hardly be found and a veritable hell where there is no one to whom one can file complaint even after one of the eyes is gouged out in broad daylight. "Defectors from the north" are subject to cold shoulder and ridicule wherever they go and have to live under the watch and control of the puppet group. The south Korean people are leading a miserable life, to say nothing of the wretched plight of the "defectors from the north" who had been allured and abducted to south Korea by the puppet group, Pak said, laying bare the hypocrisy of "wellbeing" touted by the puppet group. South Korea is a veritable hell as all sorts of crimes occur in an unbroken chain, Choe said. The round-table talks disclosed that the puppet group is intensifying the watch for those who wanted to come back to the DPRK and the campaign to control, suppress and punish them by mobilizing the IS and police. The participants in the round-table talks noted that the group is making desperate efforts to tarnish the international image of the DPRK and quell the ever-growing desire for reunification in south Korea but it is nothing but a reckless racket. Choe told how she came back to the DPRK, breaking with the cursed south Korean society. Pak said: Recalling the days since I came back to the DPRK, I feel as if I were dreaming. It seems to me that I grow young day by day and I feel the worth of living in my homeland. That is why I am writing a book dealing with the quite different realities in the north and the south. No force on earth can block the Korean people dynamically advancing to build a thriving socialist nation and reunify the country, holding Marshal Kim Jong Un in high esteem and the future of Kim Il Sung's nation and Kim Jong Il's Korea is rosy, they declared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ZrrECf4Qo

Pyongyang, September 30 (KCNA) -- There took place at the Koryo Compatriots Hall on Monday round-table talks with inhabitants who came back to the DPRK after being taken away to south Korea due to the allurement and abduction operations of the south Korean puppet forces. Pak Jin Gun, 49, who resided in Tongam-dong, Tanchon City and Jang Kwang Chol, 33, who resided in Ryonbong-dong No. 1, Hyesan City were present there. They told how they were deceived by the intrigues of the puppet group before being taken away to south Korea. Pak Jin Gun said he was taken away to south Korea in October 2011, caught in the tentacles of the Intelligence Service while roaming about in China after trespassing on the border with it in quest of money. Jang Kwang Chol said he was taken to south Korea in March last year, fooled by the tricks of brokers tied with the Intelligence Service. They noted that the puppet forces are becoming all the more pronounced in their moves to allure and abduct inhabitants of the DPRK to take them to south Korea. They referred to the reality of the corrupt south Korean society. The one year he spent in south Korea was the days of nightmare, Jang said. Pak stressed that those who were taken to south Korea can hardly eke out their living as they can not get jobs without money. Jang said that south Korean society is a dark society not only for those who had been abducted and taken away to it but for south Koreans. Touching on the frantic smear campaign being staged by the puppet group against the DPRK over human rights, Pak and Jang said this was prompted by its sinister scenario to tarnish the international image of the DPRK and break its single-minded unity. Jang said the group's anti-DPRK human rights campaign is based on lies, fabrications and intrigues. Pak and Jang told how they came back to the care of the DPRK, cursing south Korean society. Upon hearing in great shock the news of the press conferences given by the returnees to the DPRK, he decided to come back to the homeland, being prepared for punishment, Pak said. But he hesitated and wavered after hearing the lies cooked up by the south Korean puppet forces, he added. It was only after he saw the TV footage of the round-table talks given by teenagers who were allured and almost taken to south Korea by the puppet forces in June that he came to realize it was all a whopping lie that the returnees to the DPRK were punished, Pak said. Defying the appeasement of the police in charge who tried hard to convert him, he resolved to return to the homeland, not wanting to live in the dark land of south Korea and questioning if it is wrong to go back to native place, Pak said. Finally he succeeded in coming back to the DPRK despite disturbance, he noted. Jang Kwang Chol said he was taken away to south Korea, being caught by flesh dealers but he always kept in his mind his dear homeland and his beloved wife and children. He said he left home without saying to his wife where he was going. He added: I cursed myself a thousand times asking myself where you are and what you are doing far away from the great embrace where the genuine life and dignity shine. My heart was afire with the strong desire to return to the embrace of our party and the DPRK, and at last I managed to return to the motherland in July which I missed even in dreams. The returnees noted in excitement that thanks to supreme leader Kim Jong Un, the people of the DPRK are the happiest in the world and the country is demonstrating its might as an invincible and powerful nation. Pak Jin Gun noted that the motherland warmly embraced him and pardoned his sins, not punishing him even though he took the road of treachery. He can not find words to express his gratitude, Pak added. He remarked that our socialist system under which the people of the country are living in a great harmonious family and our party's policy of loving the people are the best in the world, adding this is the truth he keenly realized as he had been under the differing social systems in the north and the south of Korea. He expressed his determination to devotedly work for the most advantageous country.The KCNA is the Korean Central News Agency, the state news agency of the DRPK. This is not a source that I am willing to accept, because there are essentially two possibilities here:

1. You are correct, and the DPRK represents a healthy worker's state.
2. You are incorrect, and the DPRK represents a revisionist-capitalist state.

The state press of the Soviet Union during Lenin's tenure showed their state formation to be democratic and worker-controlled. The state press of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev's tenure, likewise, painted a picture of a democratic and worker-oriented state apparatus. We can see that the state press of a capitalist-revisionist state and of a healthy worker's state will both speak of said state as if it were a healthy worker's state in both cases, and information provided by such a press is therefore only useful if we already know what the class character of that state is. This makes such information unacceptable in a debate where the goal is to establish the class character of said state.

[Marshal of the People]

You fail to give me sources. Those satellite images prove nothing. Yes there are labor camps in the DPRK, however, the claims made by bourgeois media demonize these camps.

Are they like summer camps. All those lucky political prisoners get a nice long vacation to go playing outdoors and having as much fun as anyone on a summer camp in America would have complete with helpers/minders (armed with guns), a security fence (to protect them from dangerous animals of course complete with watch towers and machine guns), hardly any food (and when there is food just scraps from John the guard dog) and working everyday and all day, for fun of course.

Those lucky political prisoners. I am sure if you would like a stay King Kim wouldn't mind he is always in need of slave labour, I mean guests at his most glorious summer camps.

[Sabot Cat]

Have any posters in this thread pointed celticnachos to Escape from Camp 14? I doubt Shin Dong-hyuk made up the story of how he reported his mother and brother to the North Korean government for trying to escape, which led to their execution that he watched. He also said that he was tortured for more information about the escape plan, and he still has the scars from the charcoal fire on his back and the hook that was forced into his skin. (http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/2008-01-shin.htm)

[Marshal of the People]

Have any posters in this thread pointed celticnachos to Escape from Camp 14? I doubt Shin Dong-hyuk made up the story of how he reported his mother and brother to the North Korean government for trying to escape, which led to their execution that he watched. He also said that he was tortured for more information about the escape plan, and he still has the scars from the charcoal fire on his back and the hook that was forced into his skin.

Celticnachos is indoctrinated he will probably just yell "imperialist propaganda!" again.

[Sabot Cat]

Celticnachos is indoctrinated he will probably just yell "imperialist propaganda!" again.

Those imperialist propaganda purveyors must be excellent at their jobs if they can fake all of those scars and abnormalities. Or to make sure that all of the stories given by the people who escape are highly consistent. The ~24,608 defectors from 1953 to 2012, that is.

[Marshal of the People]

Those imperialist propaganda purveyors must be excellent at their jobs if they can fake all of those scars and abnormalities. Or to make sure that all of the stories given by the people who escape are highly consistent. The ~24,608 defectors from 1953 to 2012, that is.

But the Korean Central News Agency would never lie.

^SARCASM.

[Sinister Intents]

But the Korean Central News Agency would never lie.

^SARCASM.

Ov course KCNA always tells the truth :rolls eyes:
I've learned a lot from this thread :)

[Marshal of the People]

Ov course KCNA always tells the truth :rolls eyes:
I've learned a lot from this thread :)

So have I. Who new leftists could be as ignorant as creationists.

P.S. No offence intended, just an observation.

[Sinister Intents]

So have I. Who new leftists could be as ignorant as creationists.

P.S. No offence intended, just an observation.

Indeed! We lefties love North Korea :rollseyes: Do you think there are actual leftists in the DPRK?

[Marshal of the People]

Indeed! We lefties love North Korea :rollseyes: Do you think there are actual leftists in the DPRK?

I really doubt there are any leftists in the DPRK that are not in one of King Kim's "Glorious Summer Camps" (aka gulags).

[Sinister Intents]

I really doubt there are any leftists in the DPRK that are not in one of King Kim's "Glorious Summer Camps" (aka gulags).

I hope there are real communists and anarchists in those fun "Summer Camps" Perhaps they can sieze control of the camps then sieze control ov the state and dismantle it!

[Marshal of the People]

I hope there are real communists and anarchists in those fun "Summer Camps" Perhaps they can sieze control of the camps then sieze control ov the state and dismantle it!

No, unfortunately they are to busy doing "fun" things which the Glorious King Kim allows like pretending to be slaves for the rest of their lives.

[Sinister Intents]

No, unfortunately they are to busy doing "fun" things which the Glorious King Kim allows like pretending to be slaves for the rest of their lives.

Fuck!!! Then how will the fun revolution strangle the forsaken state to death and kill the dynasty ov Kims? They need to organize in the camps and use the camps against the state and sieze the means of production and collective all those fun little things

[Marshal of the People]

Fuck!!! Then how will the fun revolution strangle the forsaken state to death and kill the dynasty ov Kims? They need to organize in the camps and use the camps against the state and sieze the means of production and collective all those fun little things

I don't think that will work unfortunately because they are in camps and the guards are armed and they aren't, they are also malnourished, starving, sick and tired plus if they tried anything they would be instantly mowed down from the watch towers. But most importantly King Kim has read 1984 so knows all about propaganda and population control.

[Leftsolidarity]

I am literally sighing that there's "leftists" patting themselves on the back so much for holding such pro-imperialist garbage positions pretending that they are so smart that they can repeat the bourgeois media's propaganda. It really is amazing.

[Marshal of the People]

I am literally sighing that there's "leftists" patting themselves on the back so much for holding such pro-imperialist garbage positions pretending that they are so smart that they can repeat the bourgeois media's propaganda. It really is amazing.

Even the bourgeois media is more reliable then King Kim's Korean Central "News" Agency.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Have any posters in this thread pointed celticnachos to Escape from Camp 14? I doubt Shin Dong-hyuk made up the story of how he reported his mother and brother to the North Korean government for trying to escape, which led to their execution that he watched. He also said that he was tortured for more information about the escape plan, and he still has the scars from the charcoal fire on his back and the hook that was forced into his skin. (http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/2008-01-shin.htm)

I wonder if it's possible to find the specific legal statute from a DPRK source regarding "generational punishment". That's one of the things commonly brought up in stories about how terrible the DPRK is, and, if it is accurate, it is truly abominable.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I am literally sighing that there's "leftists" patting themselves on the back so much for holding such pro-imperialist garbage positions pretending that they are so smart that they can repeat the bourgeois media's propaganda. It really is amazing.

Behold, ladies and gentlemen - the stalinoid. A pathetic tangle of psychological projection and double standards.

No one was supporting the South you fucking moronic turd. But to rage against inequality in the US but then dismiss or even DEFEND the ridiculously sloped, capitalist, neurotic governance of the DPRK (while simultaneously going the stalinoid extra mile by classing fucking ETHNIC GROUPS AS SINGLE POLITICALLY-MINDED INDIVIDUALS) is absolutely fucking insane.

[celticnachos]

Behold, ladies and gentlemen - the stalinoid. A pathetic tangle of psychological projection and double standards.

No one was supporting the South you fucking moronic turd. But to rage against inequality in the US but then dismiss or even DEFEND the ridiculously sloped, capitalist, neurotic governance of the DPRK (while simultaneously going the stalinoid extra mile by classing fucking ETHNIC GROUPS AS SINGLE POLITICALLY-MINDED INDIVIDUALS) is absolutely fucking insane.

Those claims have already been disproven in the thread. Your impulsive tirade is actually quite amusing.

[Marshal of the People]

Those claims have already been disproven in the thread. Your impulsive tirade is actually quite amusing.

You are really going to go there? You haven't disproved anything! All you have done is post quotes from the DPRK constitution and the KCNA and given you terribly biased opinion.

[Sinister Intents]

Those claims have already been disproven in the thread. Your impulsive tirade is actually quite amusing.

You're rather amusing yourself.

[Leftsolidarity]

Even the bourgeois media is more reliable then King Kim's Korean Central "News" Agency.

Yeah, I think you clearly sum up how those on the "left" fall into national chauvinism and follow the bourgeois line when it comes to a nation trying to reunify, build socialism, and fight the imperialists on the most heavily militarized border on the planet. You are willing to fall into their racist anti-socialist mindset that the DPRK is run by "crazy lying Asians" and all their people are too stupid and brainwashed to know better. The bourgeois media is never reliable.


Behold, ladies and gentlemen - the stalinoid. A pathetic tangle of psychological projection and double standards.

No one was supporting the South you fucking moronic turd. But to rage against inequality in the US but then dismiss or even DEFEND the ridiculously sloped, capitalist, neurotic governance of the DPRK (while simultaneously going the stalinoid extra mile by classing fucking ETHNIC GROUPS AS SINGLE POLITICALLY-MINDED INDIVIDUALS) is absolutely fucking insane.

lol what?

[Marshal of the People]

Yeah, I think you clearly sum up how those on the "left" fall into national chauvinism and follow the bourgeois line when it comes to a nation trying to reunify, build socialism, and fight the imperialists on the most heavily militarized border on the planet. You are willing to fall into their racist anti-socialist mindset that the DPRK is run by "crazy lying Asians" and all their people are too stupid and brainwashed to know better. The bourgeois media is never reliable.



lol what?

Okay....:confused:

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Those claims have already been disproven in the thread. Your impulsive tirade is actually quite amusing.

In a comedy duo, I think the guy who is a complete turncoat and kiss-arse for a slavedriving state would come out on top.

You have proved nothing other than the fact that you are a master interpreter of ambiguous quotes, and that you do not believe anything about the DPRK that does not come from its' government offices. Shut the fuck up.

[celticnachos]

In a comedy duo, I think the guy who is a complete turncoat and kiss-arse for a slavedriving state would come out on top.

You have proved nothing other than the fact that you are a master interpreter of ambiguous quotes, and that you do not believe anything about the DPRK that does not come from its' government offices. Shut the fuck up.

Alright, I'll shut the fuck up. Just promise me that you'll keep ignoring historical fact, ok? Your sheer ignorance is amusing.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Alright, I'll shut the fuck up. Just promise me that you'll keep ignoring historical fact, ok? Your sheer ignorance is amusing.

ok, your historical knowledge is so vast it basically fits within Kim Jong-Il's 12-volume ghost-written 'auto'-biography.

[Lensky]

Imagine talking like to to an American cop and getting away with it, you'd probably get your head smashed in and risk death. Looks like the workers in North Korea have more power and strike more fear into the degenerate bureaucratic sector of DPRK society then we're willing to believe.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, I think you clearly sum up how those on the "left" fall into national chauvinism and follow the bourgeois line when it comes to a nation trying to reunify, build socialism, and fight the imperialists on the most heavily militarized border on the planet. You are willing to fall into their racist anti-socialist mindset that the DPRK is run by "crazy lying Asians" and all their people are too stupid and brainwashed to know better. The bourgeois media is never reliable.

Except your political organization's line is that the DPRK is an existing form of socialism, not that they are trying to build socialism and that is a very important distinction to articulate. Said conviction, in my opinion, is not only completely illogical, but anti-Marxist and extremely problematic.

[FSL]

Except your political organization's line is that the DPRK is an existing form of socialism, not that they are trying to build socialism and that is a very important distinction to articulate. Said conviction, in my opinion, is not only completely illogical, but anti-Marxist and extremely problematic.

Because they'd need a few hundred countries more before they dared to build socialism?
Really, say country A has a revolution in year X. Countries B, C and D won't have a revolution for many years past X. In the meantime, what does the economy look like in country A? Is there private property and to what extent, is employing other people allowed?


But regarding what the person you're talking to said, I think we sometimes get too hang up on words. What if socialism is built but still being developed? The basic things are done, now they need to be done better.




I wonder if it's possible to find the specific legal statute from a DPRK source regarding "generational punishment". That's one of the things commonly brought up in stories about how terrible the DPRK is, and, if it is accurate, it is truly abominable.
Of course it's possible, there are countries with relations with north korea and its penal code is available.
From what I've seen it mentions the death penalty, correctional labor, judgement committees (where the person found guilty of something minor must criticize himself) etc. No mention of generational punishment though.


If there was any, it would certainly be the most quoted part of any dprk literature.
50 years ago people would praise Solzhenitsyn, a well known fascist, czar supporter and admirer of Franco. After that Havel or today Cuba's Yoani Sanchez who can't get enough of Obama's awesomeness.


Isn't it a bit weird how all the "freedom fighters" in socialist states end up being crazed, market loving, imperialism praising reactionaries?
At the same time the majority of the people that say life has worsened under capitalism are dismissed as being nostalgic. Yeah, ok.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nscqhv.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words...

[Per Levy]

I certainly answered your point. How the 0.2% of the labour force is employed doesn't define the mode of production.

well the special economic zones are just the tip of the iceberg of course, that wagelabour, commodity production and exploitation exist outside the zones in NK is a fact. im basing my views on that fact, not on some idealistic bs.


The rigged elections are your opinion, don't care about it, at least not enough to say anything more than what I already said. In your opinion all elections in all socialist countries were always rigged and people remained "apathetic" or "frightened".

of course they were rigged, or why did the ruling partys of the "socialist states" lost almost all support once the east bloc was no more? in your scenario they still should've got like 100% of the votes, or at least 90%, yet they got butchered in elections, how come?


The only real and vibrant democracy as a result has only been found in capitalism, where it's very easy for the two candidates of the super rich to get 100% of the vote between them, give hugs and congratulate each other after the election, say they'll govern "for all the people" and carry on with their lives and with the exact same policies of each and everyone of the previous dozen administrations.
On that concept, the concept where 100% of the people, of the workers, are agreeing on their exploitation you don't seem to show the same amount of scepticism. Only when it comes to socialist countries you become suspicious.

cause the "democracy" of capitalist states is the topic here, right? and you dont even know my views on that, but thats no problem for you not to strawmen what my views could be, right? laughable.


Nepotism is a bad thing but I don't accept that all bad things will be gone by the time there is a revolution.

once the revolution comes nepotism will be the thing, its bad but what can you do. oh hey the ruling family clan enriches themself on the backs of the NK working class, no big deal not all bad thing will be gone by the time there is a revolution. [sarc]


Look at yourself for example.

i did, i wasnt to impressed.


You're reasoning is infested with capitalist ideology (sorry to put it in so bland terms but it is obvious that a lot of the time when you think you're expressing your opinion, you're just repeating things a pundit at the CNN or Fox News would say).

wait what? fox and cnn are calling NK a capitalist dictatorship? i wasnt aware of that, last time i checked the bourgois media still called NK the exact same thing you do, a socialist state or a communist regime. also my views largley come from marx's analysis and critique of capitalism, how could he fooled me so that bourgois swine.


Am I to consider it imperative that you let go of all of it in order for a revolution to happen? No, chances are you'll still believe a lot of that even after a revolution. That's why nothing ends there, it's just a new beginning, a big school if you will.

yeah even after the revolution workers will have no power, will be exploited, alienated and used acording the the ruling party/class. you really make one look forward to a revolution.

[FSL]

that wagelabour, commodity production and exploitation exist outside the zones in NK is a fact
Again, would you ask that everyone in north korea, even the farmer who uses an ox, immediately starts working solely for rations? Because that is what stopping all commodity production means.
Is your answer yes? That's what it'd take for you to accept an economy as socialist?
You might want to look more into Cambodia then, I think theirs is an example you'll finally be able to approve of.

If you reject Cambodia as well, then you simply have no idea what "commodity production" and "wage labor" is, they're just catch phrases you use to demonstrate your utter -and inexplicable- indignation.



of course they were rigged, or why did the ruling partys of the "socialist states" lost almost all support once the east bloc was no more? in your scenario they still should've got like 100% of the votes, or at least 90%, yet they got butchered in elections, how come?
The rulling parties in many cases were refounded as social-democratic ones without changing much of what they were saying (they were already pretty messed up by the 80s) and did gain a large share of the vote, in many countries they formed the government.


What I won't look past though ia that in these countries in that period there was a change of social system. People in 1914 all over Europe were supporting their governments and enthusiastically approving the war. Socialist parties that did vote in favor of the war, each claiming their country was on the right, used the war's popular approval as an argument. A few years ago, the situation was very different.
The late eighties was also a period where things became very different. Hence, the result.



once the revolution comes nepotism will be the thing, its bad but what can you do.
It will be one of the things, along with religion, sexism, racism etc.
You're mistaken if you think these will magically disappear without effort.

That the Kims are stealing I don't know and in any case that is not what nepotism means.
If they are stealing, that's called corruption. I should have added corruption to the previous list of things that won't magically disappear come-the-revolution.


And lastly, Fox News say 99% of the things you say (exploiting bureaucrats, all socialist countries are the epitome of evilness, all the people there are slaves yearning for freedom etc).
You just add that they're somehow capitalists but the whole world will ignore that last thing you say because they know that capitalism has something to do with private property.

[Thirsty Crow]

Again, would you ask that everyone in north korea, even the farmer who uses an ox, immediately starts working solely for rations? Because that is what stopping all commodity production means.

Yes, this precisely is the alternative to continued commodity production within the borders of an isolated nation-state (something internationalists claim will present itself as a material necessity even if one deals with larger territories with more developed productive capacities), but that is not all there is to it - this would need to be coupled with continued political alienation in the form of a state structure disconnected from the base, the working class, acting as a decisive instance of determining patterns or distribution (rationing), which still leaves us within the circle of processes characteristic of class domination.

The point is not to advocate such measures - to state "yeah Koreans should adopt a rationing system", but rather to critically unearth the real social relations which predominate and examine the tendencies, or a lack of those, towards the constitution of communism.

Apologia for various forms of exploitation and class domination, often coupled with "creativity" in dealing with revolutionary theory (meaning, butchering the useful and positive legacy in order better to make it serve as a tool of ideological legitimization of the status quo), can't be said to even resemble anything like what I briefly described above.

[FSL]

Yes, this precisely is the alternative to continued commodity production within the borders of an isolated nation-state (something internationalists claim will present itself as a material necessity even if one deals with larger territories with more developed productive capacities), but that is not all there is to it - this would need to be coupled with continued political alienation in the form of a state structure disconnected from the base, the working class, acting as a decisive instance of determining patterns or distribution (rationing), which still leaves us within the circle of processes characteristic of class domination.

The point is not to advocate such measures - to state "yeah Koreans should adopt a rationing system", but rather to critically unearth the real social relations which predominate and examine the tendencies, or a lack of those, towards the constitution of communism.

Apologia for various forms of exploitation and class domination, often coupled with "creativity" in dealing with revolutionary theory (meaning, butchering the useful and positive legacy in order better to make it serve as a tool of ideological legitimization of the status quo), can't be said to even resemble anything like what I briefly described above.
I'm sorry, you might need to talk more simply.

So you're advocating that everyone in north korea should be working solely for rations and that there should only be socialist property and nothing else and you're also saying that there should be a "democratization process" or a workers' empowerment process" that would make the rationing fair?


If I'm correct and that's what you are saying, I'll say that the first part seems like volontarism to me. That you want it to happen or that we can agree it's nice, doesn't mean the actual people will accept it. There is a different mentality to people working in industries or large companies, there are able to recognize themselves as parts of a common effort. That's what makes workers the revolutionary class and puts them in the forefront of the socialism.

People working in backward conditions don't recognize themselves as parts of whole so easily. They might fetishize their land or their shops, they have individualism still ingrained in them. Collectivization was a very tough undertaking in the ussr and in the end of it people would still be able to sell commodities. Imagine telling all those people that all of their products are state property and they get in return what every other worker gets. That would almost certainly put them in an antagonizing position to the working class.
You can't ignore the mentality of each stratum and the material reality that formed it.



Now, past that, how is rationing in the dprk (I imagine you have the same opinion regarding other socialist states) expressing "class domination".

We know that in these countries there can't be inequality in the distribution of wealth, it's commonly owned. But "income" or its equivalent?
The 1% in the US gets almost 25% of the country's annual income.
Does the "equivalent 1%" (upper ranking officials) in socialist countries also get 25% of the annual rations (as I said before most of the products in north korea are being distributed)?

That isn't something that wouldn't absolutely and positively show. It's not a matter of the president or the ministers being given a car. That kind of inequality is extremely visible. I haven't seen it, I haven't seen any studies pointing to it and from what I've read, the best homes, the best lifestyle wasn't even reserved for officials but for artists, decorated generals and the like.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm sorry, you might need to talk more simply.Point out what exactly seems to be the problem.


So you're advocating that everyone in north korea should be working solely for rations
No.

The reason for this misinterpretation might be your obsession with advocating stuff. I didn't write anything of the sort, in fact what I wrote was:


The point is not to advocate such measures - to state "yeah Koreans should adopt a rationing system", but rather to critically unearth the real social relations which predominate and examine the tendencies, or a lack of those, towards the constitution of communism.

It's really curious, is that not simple enough for you? I can't see how anyone would interpret a statement "the point is NOT to X" as that person actually doing that. Maybe I'm just confused and doing something which I say is not the point?

But the quoted part shows that this is not the case.

To spell it out:


to critically unearth the real social relationsMeaning, to examine (this expression "unearth" is indeed unnecessary) what really goes on with the help of the theoretical model of capital and the bourgeois state provided by Marx, and subsequently developed by later generations of Marxists.


examine the tendencies, or a lack of those, towards the constitution of communism
Within the latter, to look for specific tendencies which can help us decide whether there is a continued process of establishing communist social relations.

It is completely ridiculous to pose as an advisor to the NK ruling class through "advocating" anything on the internet.


and you're also saying that there should be a "democratization process" or a workers' empowerment process" that would make the rationing fair?
I'm saying that concrete tendencies which operate in the context of an isolated nation-state make these processes of workers' empowerment improbable. That is another reason for claiming that advocating stuff is ridiculous.

[FSL]

These are also your words, right?


Yes, this precisely is the alternative to continued commodity production within the borders of an isolated nation-state (something internationalists claim will present itself as a material necessity even if one deals with larger territories with more developed productive capacities), but that is not all there is to it

So according to this, you are advocating that and more. It's not my fault if you're trying to over-present your thoughts and end up making little sense.



concrete tendencies which operate in the context of an isolated nation-state make these processes of workers' empowerment improbable
I asked before: An "isolated nation-state" should do what? And, please, do advocate something in this case.

Should they keep private property intact? Should they ban it?
How would you call their economy if they chose door number 2 if not socialist?


And if they choose to do away with private property, should they do away with collectives and just have everyone be workers, ergo no one being a worker? That is how you do away with all commodity production. Not many more ways. Are you advocating that?


Because if you're not advocating anything, why did you even bother to write?
In that case, it's obvious that to you there is no point in bothering about socialism until the whole world is ...communist and we can escape the harsh realities of isolated nation-states.
But by then I guess bothering about anything won't really be needed either.

[Prof. Oblivion]

These are also your words, right?



So according to this, you are advocating that and more. It's not my fault if you're trying to over-present your thoughts and end up making little sense.



I asked before: An "isolated nation-state" should do what? And, please, do advocate something in this case.

Should they keep private property intact? Should they ban it?
How would you call their economy if they chose door number 2 if not socialist?


And if they choose to do away with private property, should they do away with collectives and just have everyone be workers, ergo no one being a worker? That is how you do away with all commodity production. Not many more ways. Are you advocating that?


Because if you're not advocating anything, why did you even bother to write?
In that case, it's obvious that to you there is no point in bothering about socialism until the whole world is ...communist and we can escape the harsh realities of isolated nation-states.
But by then I guess bothering about anything won't really be needed either.

I believe this is where your thinking utterly fails.

[FSL]

I believe this is where your thinking utterly fails.

How so?

[Brotto Rühle]

How so?
What makes property private is not whether a private individual person "owns" it, but the fact that the "property" (and I mean this as a whole, encompassing the relations of production itself) is alienated from the direct producer. This notion of "banning" private property and "public ownership" via nationalization as eliminating private property is nothing but juridical hogwash.

You need to actually read Marx, so does every other Stalinite/Trot/Balkanized Maoist/Kaut on this forum.

[thc]

What makes property private is not whether a private individual person "owns" it, but the fact that the "property" (and I mean this as a whole, encompassing the relations of production itself) is alienated from the direct producer. This notion of "banning" private property and "public ownership" via nationalization as eliminating private property is nothing but juridical hogwash.

You need to actually read Marx, so does every other Stalinite/Trot/Balkanized Maoist/Kaut on this forum.


You bring up an interesting point Subvert, but I think we should relate the DPRK's crusade for socialism to the main economic tasks in the transitional period. When the working class has seized political power it will utilize it's political dominance in order to abolish capitalism. The abolition of man by man exploitation is a very complex process, and requires prepense efforts by the working class. Undermining the economic might of the bourgeoisie requires that we install the primary duties in the national economy directly into the proletarian grip. We observe this with the Soviet Union when the entirety of substantial industry was nationalized in 1918. Nationalization assists small commerce and industry, but it lays down the foundation of the socialist sector of the economy, so whose interests does it serve?

I do not deny the multiplicity of the economic forms in the DPRK. However, elimination of the multiplicity is a task of the party. Small commodity production and private capitalism cannot be disposed of by political measures, but rather, but they will be disposed through the process of economic steps. Consolidating extreme national economic positions in the DPRK state is a vital step, and we evidently see this. If the decisive divisions of the national economy are in the hands of the proletarian dictatorship then it can cautiously develop market relations, we see this with the DPRK and have seen in with the Soviet Union. Capitalist elements are gradually ousted through economic means to complete the victory of socialist forms in all realms of the economy. This period of transition yields tremendous results for the working class, and it was in the main completed in the Soviet Union. The collective farms and state owned production facilities accounted for 99.8 and 98.5 percent of industrial and agricultural output respectively. By 1937 the capitalist class had completely dissolved. The Soviet Union has confirmed that the construction of socialism is necessary, in a state led by a revolutionary vanguard party. It is essential that we do not skip phases, for the progression of society is captivated in socialist transformation. We can not hasten the withering away of the state that is already in the transitional period. The economic tasks of the DPRK are not hogwash.

[reb]

How so?

It shows how idealist you are. You think that it all it takes is to pass a decree to end property.

thc above is also showing the same stalinist idealist streak, just in a longer form

[FSL]

It shows how idealist you are. You think that it all it takes is to pass a decree to end property.

thc above is also showing the same stalinist idealist streak, just in a longer form

No, what this shows is how afraid some people are to answer a perfectly simple question.



What makes property private is not whether a private individual person "owns" it, but the fact that the "property" (and I mean this as a whole, encompassing the relations of production itself) is alienated from the direct producer. This notion of "banning" private property and "public ownership" via nationalization as eliminating private property is nothing but juridical hogwash.

You need to actually read Marx, so does every other Stalinite/Trot/Balkanized Maoist/Kaut on this forum.
Direct producers are alienated from private property because it's not theirs, they're not in control of what or how mcch is produced, they're not having any inputs and they're not owners of the end product.



Now, how is this related to my question? It isn't. And why isn't it at all related to my question?
Because some people, quite a few actually, are afraid to express their opinion on what I asked.

I'm sure we all agree that for something to qualify as socialist property, workers need to take part in the decision making.
Back to what I asked though, should a country outlaw all private property without any special policies for sectors where production is not concentrated? Is that what some people argue? Because I've seen a ton of them moaning about "commodity production" but no one actually proposing the necessary step in stopping it.


As a sidenote, don't hate on "decrees" because it's exactly how the socialization of property will take place.
It's also exactly how workers will stop being alienated from it, by establishing with another decree a democratic way of planning the economy.

So when we are examining socialist policies, we will have to look at the laws enacted and criticize them, much like we'd do if we examined capitalist policies.
The idea that we can somehow look past that kind of thing, that is idealism since it would mean that a part of the superstructure, ie alienation, could stop without the economic reality (ownership of property by a few people) actually changing.

[motion denied]

I'm sure we all agree that for something to qualify as socialist property, workers need to take part in the decision making.

No. Workers taking part in decision making occurs even now - check out toyotism's quality control circles. Socialised property is property owned by society as a whole.


As a sidenote, don't hate on "decrees" because it's exactly how the socialization of property will take place.
It's also exactly how workers will stop being alienated from it, by establishing with another decree a democratic way of planning the economy.

I'm not tendency bashing here, but a lot of marxist-leninists seem to perceive socialism as something to be established by decree, from the top to bottom. Some old Prussian might help us:


But whether the idea of a social revolution with a political soul is paraphrase or nonsense there is no doubt about the rationality of a political revolution with a social soul. All revolution – the overthrow of the existing ruling power and the dissolution of the old order – is a political act. But without revolution, socialism cannot be made possible. It stands in need of this political act just as it stands in need of destruction and dissolution. But as soon as its organizing functions begin and its goal, its soul emerges, socialism throws its political mask aside.

That is, the socialist revolution needs decrees and political crap as long as it needs to wash out shit. It is, by all means, negative. However, as soon as it needs to overcome capitalism positively, the 'political mask' falls.

It doesn't mean that the two things couldn't happen simultaneously.


So when we are examining socialist policies, we will have to look at the laws enacted and criticize them, much like we'd do if we examined capitalist policies.
The idea that we can somehow look past that kind of thing, that is idealism since it would mean that a part of the superstructure, ie alienation, could stop without the economic reality (ownership of property by a few people) actually changing.

Idealism is thinking that outlawing private property makes it disappear. Even worse, that it makes property social!

[Prof. Oblivion]

No, what this shows is how afraid some people are to answer a perfectly simple question.


The problem is obvious. You're asking the question "well if it's not capitalist then what else could it be besides socialist?" You're basically just trying to fit everything into heterogeneous boxes, which isn't how the world works.

There is no evidence whatsoever that property is socialized in the DPRK, yet you keep claiming it to be so because to you it must be. Confirmation bias.

[FSL]

The problem is obvious. You're asking the question "well if it's not capitalist then what else could it be besides socialist?" You're basically just trying to fit everything into heterogeneous boxes, which isn't how the world works.

There is no evidence whatsoever that property is socialized in the DPRK, yet you keep claiming it to be so because to you it must be. Confirmation bias.

It's exactly how the world works, there may not be "pure" examples of a capitalist or a socialist economy, but there are certainly examples where the capitalist or the socialist mode of production are the dominant ones. I already mentioned Lenin finding 5 different types of property in early Soviet Russia (and identifying one of them as especially dangerous).

There are public parks in capitalist economies and there might private plots of land or property owned by collectives in a socialist economy. We need to find the dominant mode of production and worry less about "purity" as if an actual economy can be as straight-forward as a lab experiment.


The disagreement I had with others was that since commodity production to an extent survives in north korea, it is by definition not socialist. I'd like to settle that first before jumping into a new one.




But whether the idea of a social revolution with a political soul is paraphrase or nonsense there is no doubt about the rationality of a political revolution with a social soul. All revolution – the overthrow of the existing ruling power and the dissolution of the old order – is a political act. But without revolution, socialism cannot be made possible. It stands in need of this political act just as it stands in need of destruction and dissolution. But as soon as its organizing functions begin and its goal, its soul emerges, socialism throws its political mask aside.

This is an early take on the idea of the withering away of the state. It has been explained better later on by Marx, Engels and Lenin.

How is this opposing the need for decrees (certainly among many other things)?
The new state, the workers' state will need to destroy the previous production relations. In doing so a state will act as all states act. It will legislate.

[Per Levy]

Again, would you ask that everyone in north korea, even the farmer who uses an ox, immediately starts working solely for rations? Because that is what stopping all commodity production means.
Is your answer yes? That's what it'd take for you to accept an economy as socialist?
You might want to look more into Cambodia then, I think theirs is an example you'll finally be able to approve of.

If you reject Cambodia as well, then you simply have no idea what "commodity production" and "wage labor" is, they're just catch phrases you use to demonstrate your utter -and inexplicable- indignation.

you dont get, you really dont get it. i want to show you with stuff like commodity production that NK is a capitalist state, it operates on the laws of capitalism. and commodity production is a part of that. NK isnt able to be anything else but capitalist, it cant be socialist. that is the whole argument. wich you will of course completly ignore and just label NK as socialist anyway and attack strawmen argument that no ones actualy made.


The rulling parties in many cases were refounded as social-democratic ones without changing much of what they were saying (they were already pretty messed up by the 80s) and did gain a large share of the vote, in many countries they formed the government.

wait what? in your scenario the elections in the east bloc wernt rigged, and the ruling partys got like 99% of the votes, after the fall of the east bloc they didnt got anything near that number, why? because they were to social democratic? how can a "socialist state" be social democratic in your view?


It will be one of the things, along with religion, sexism, racism etc.
You're mistaken if you think these will magically disappear without effort.

That the Kims are stealing I don't know and in any case that is not what nepotism means.
If they are stealing, that's called corruption. I should have added corruption to the previous list of things that won't magically disappear come-the-revolution.

i know what nepotism means, i just put the part about the kims enriching themselfs on the backs of the north korean working class as a nother proof of how redicilous the claim is that NK is socialist. and lets be honest if nepotism and corruption is growing more and more after 50 years then someone should say that something did go terribly wrong right? and not defend corrupt family clans that exploit workers, like you do.


And lastly, Fox News say 99% of the things you say (exploiting bureaucrats, all socialist countries are the epitome of evilness, all the people there are slaves yearning for freedom etc).

first of all, you really have a problem with reading comprehension right? cause in none of my posts you will find this: "exploiting bureaucrats, all socialist countries are the epitome of evilness, all the people there are slaves yearning for freedom etc" you want to read that into my posts but it isnt there and you just attack your own created strawmen.

second, i dont watch fox or cnn, cause i cant get them, i dont live in the usa, and still i belive that my critique of NK is very much different then that of fox news, not that you care. since you are more on the line of fox news in that you label NK as being socialist.


You just add that they're somehow capitalists but the whole world will ignore that last thing you say because they know that capitalism has something to do with private property.

if it operates on the laws of capitalism, if the state and the rulers over the state behave like the bourgoisie then yes i call it capitalism, cause capitalism has many forms as you should know.

[Prof. Oblivion]

It's exactly how the world works, there may not be "pure" examples of a capitalist or a socialist economy, but there are certainly examples where the capitalist or the socialist mode of production are the dominant ones. I already mentioned Lenin finding 5 different types of property in early Soviet Russia (and identifying one of them as especially dangerous).

There are public parks in capitalist economies and there might private plots of land or property owned by collectives in a socialist economy. We need to find the dominant mode of production and worry less about "purity" as if an actual economy can be as straight-forward as a lab experiment.


The disagreement I had with others was that since commodity production to an extent survives in north korea, it is by definition not socialist. I'd like to settle that first before jumping into a new one.




This is an early take on the idea of the withering away of the state. It has been explained better later on by Marx, Engels and Lenin.

How is this opposing the need for decrees (certainly among many other things)?
The new state, the workers' state will need to destroy the previous production relations. In doing so a state will act as all states act. It will legislate.

The problem that you don't even see is that nationalized property is not the same as socialized property, and the reason you don't see it is because you consider them to be the same thing. They are clearly not. Of course, one cannot argue against this logic because, to you, any state which has nationalized property has therefore socialized it and must be socialist. If private property is state owned, it must be worker-controlled, because there is no other explanation for it in your mind. It is an a priori assumption rather than a cold review of the empirical evidence.

But what if there were a case where the state has nationalized private property yet the workers do not maintain collective control over it, due to the nature of the state? What would you call this scenario?

[FSL]

you dont get, you really dont get it. i want to show you with stuff like commodity production that NK is a capitalist state, it operates on the laws of capitalism. and commodity production is a part of that. NK isnt able to be anything else but capitalist, it cant be socialist. that is the whole argument. wich you will of course completly ignore and just label NK as socialist anyway and attack strawmen argument that no ones actualy made.
There is nothing to get. That a factory gets raw materials and turns them into a product isn't a law of capitalism but a law of physics.

Laws of capitalism are private property, the maximization of profit, that markets determine the distribution of resourses and products.

In capitalism there are private owners, companies are isolated entities that need to be profitable to survive and there are two sides in each trade leading to imbalances. Unemployment is an imbalance in the labor market, a housing bubble an imbalance in the housing market etc. Capitalism is defined by competition and by the falling rate of profit, leading to periods where investment stops and capital depreciates.
Not one of these laws of capitalism applies to the situation in the socialist countries. The closest there is to that is farmers' collectives who own their products (but not the land or the seeds) and sell part of it in a market. But that is a small part of the economy.


If you are determined to call socialism capitalism that's fine of course and I have little further interest in trying to stop you.




The problem that you don't even see is that nationalized property is not the same as socialized property, and the reason you don't see it is because you consider them to be the same thing. They are clearly not. Of course, one cannot argue against this logic because, to you, any state which has nationalized property has therefore socialized it and must be socialist. If private property is state owned, it must be worker-controlled, because there is no other explanation for it in your mind. It is an a priori assumption rather than a cold review of the empirical evidence.

But what if there were a case where the state has nationalized private property yet the workers do not maintain collective control over it, due to the nature of the state? What would you call this scenario?

Is the state a bourgeois state? Then your question is a very easy one. Bourgeois states often "nationalize" part of the economy but only to help capitalism. One example is the nationalization of the car industry in the US. The government took it, took care of all the losses and is now reselling it to the private sector. Sometimes, a bourgeois government will nationalize companies to push forward with expensive investment plans that no capitalist would want to be responsible for, this happens in less developed capitalist countries that need a fast increase in electricity production or improvements in infrastructure.
So it is possible for nationalized property to not be social property. In a context of a bourgeois state, where the laws of capitalism, mentioned above, still play the most important role.

In the context of a workers' state though, were there are no capitalists to gain, where markets have a limited to non-existant role, where the products are distributed and not sold, then in that context property can be socialized.

[thc]

you dont get, you really dont get it. i want to show you with stuff like commodity production that NK is a capitalist state, it operates on the laws of capitalism. and commodity production is a part of that. NK isnt able to be anything else but capitalist, it cant be socialist. that is the whole argument. wich you will of course completly ignore and just label NK as socialist anyway and attack strawmen argument that no ones actualy made.



Interesting that you allude to commodity production Per Levy, perhaps I can provide some insight.

Commodity-money relations do not necessarily contradict the principles of socialism, instead commodity production brings light to the capabilities of socialism. It is important to note that in socialist society the commodity-money relations have a unique composition, contrary to capitalist commodity production.

Production in the DPRK, in the main, is carried out by state enterprises and agricultural cooperatives. The commodity producers are joined in a singularity through collective property, with joint planning of the economy. If this is the case then how do workers sell their labor power to themselves?

Yes, the Law of Value still is operating, however it's role in socialist society is different from that under capitalism. It is no longer a spontaneous regulator of the means of production and the distribution of labor, that function ceases to exist in socialist society, because of the law of planned development of the national economy. Instead it is utilized as a measure of labor disbursement and as an incentive to economize social labor. This way the national economic plans are fulfilled with the maximum labor capacity obtained.

[Remus Bleys]

Some words about how socialism has become synonymous with capitalism, the law of value and commodities exist in socialism, socialism is capitalism with a government in charge, we need this capitalism because why else would people work, you darn ultralefts!
welcome back RadicalRambler/Celticnachos

[reb]

Interesting the you allude to commodity production Per Levy, perhaps I can provide some insight.

Funniest introduction to a post. Ever.


Commodity-money relations do not necessarily contradict the principles of socialism

First, you allude to a vague notion of "principals of socialism" without really saying what they are. It is not only absolutely against the marxian understanding of the lowest phase of communism, which I have to assume you are referring to because stalinists like to be extremely vague about this, it is also against communism as a movement where we are looking to abolish the wages system. Commodity production, no matter which way you slice (even if you haven't even tried to slice it at all here) is incompatible with the emancipation of the proletariat.


, instead commodity production brings light to the capabilities of socialism. It is important to note that in socialist society the commodity-money relations have a unique composition, contrary to capitalist commodity production.

Again, vague hand waving. This concept that you are presenting dovetails perfectly with the marxian understanding of what stalinists mean when they say "socialism", that is, capitalism. It is certainly the case that capitalism breeds within itself the means to end itself in the form of communism. Come on, just come out and declare your love for capitalism.


Production in the DPRK, in the main, is carried out by state enterprises and agricultural cooperatives. The commodity producers are joined in a singularity through collective property, with joint planning of the economy. If this is the case then how do workers sell their labor power to themselves?

More vague hand waving in an attempt to divert the argument. If commodity production exists as with wage labor, and the state owns the industry in which they are employed, who do you think they are selling their ability to labor, for a wage expressed in money, to?


Yes, the Law of Value still is operating, however it's role in socialist society is different from that under capitalism. It is no longer a spontaneous regulator of the means of production and the distribution of labor, that function ceases to exist in socialist society, because of the law of planned development of the national economy. Instead it is utilized as a measure of labor disbursement and as an incentive to economize social labor. This way the national economic plans are fulfilled with the maximum labor capacity obtained.

It's role in socialist society is that it does not exist, but of course, you're just another capitalist apologist dressing up this fact with a thin veneer of marxist rhetoric. You sound pretty much like every other bourgeois ideologue with all of this incoherent clap trap. Every time a stalinist tries to wedge the law of value in with the lowest phase of communism, they are in effect attempting to cram a square peg into a round hole.

[Prof. Oblivion]

There is nothing to get. That a factory gets raw materials and turns them into a product isn't a law of capitalism but a law of physics.

Laws of capitalism are private property, the maximization of profit, that markets determine the distribution of resourses and products.

In capitalism there are private owners, companies are isolated entities that need to be profitable to survive and there are two sides in each trade leading to imbalances. Unemployment is an imbalance in the labor market, a housing bubble an imbalance in the housing market etc. Capitalism is defined by competition and by the falling rate of profit, leading to periods where investment stops and capital depreciates.
Not one of these laws of capitalism applies to the situation in the socialist countries. The closest there is to that is farmers' collectives who own their products (but not the land or the seeds) and sell part of it in a market. But that is a small part of the economy.


If you are determined to call socialism capitalism that's fine of course and I have little further interest in trying to stop you.




Is the state a bourgeois state? Then your question is a very easy one. Bourgeois states often "nationalize" part of the economy but only to help capitalism. One example is the nationalization of the car industry in the US. The government took it, took care of all the losses and is now reselling it to the private sector. Sometimes, a bourgeois government will nationalize companies to push forward with expensive investment plans that no capitalist would want to be responsible for, this happens in less developed capitalist countries that need a fast increase in electricity production or improvements in infrastructure.
So it is possible for nationalized property to not be social property. In a context of a bourgeois state, where the laws of capitalism, mentioned above, still play the most important role.

In the context of a workers' state though, were there are no capitalists to gain, where markets have a limited to non-existant role, where the products are distributed and not sold, then in that context property can be socialized.

You've proven my point. Here is the question posed:




But what if there were a case where the state has nationalized private property yet the workers do not maintain collective control over it, due to the nature of the state? What would you call this scenario?

This question is unanswerable to you because nationalization of property (in the general sense, i.e. all private property) in your view cannot be labeled "capitalist", so it must be socialist, even though workers do not maintain collective control over it. Which is, of course, a fundamental tenet of socialism.

[thc]

Funniest introduction to a post. Ever.



First, you allude to a vague notion of "principals of socialism" without really saying what they are. It is not only absolutely against the marxian understanding of the lowest phase of communism, which I have to assume you are referring to because stalinists like to be extremely vague about this, it is also against communism as a movement where we are looking to abolish the wages system. Commodity production, no matter which way you slice (even if you haven't even tried to slice it at all here) is incompatible with the emancipation of the proletariat.



Again, vague hand waving. This concept that you are presenting dovetails perfectly with the marxian understanding of what stalinists mean when they say "socialism", that is, capitalism. It is certainly the case that capitalism breeds within itself the means to end itself in the form of communism. Come on, just come out and declare your love for capitalism.



More vague hand waving in an attempt to divert the argument. If commodity production exists as with wage labor, and the state owns the industry in which they are employed, who do you think they are selling their ability to labor, for a wage expressed in money, to?



It's role in socialist society is that it does not exist, but of course, you're just another capitalist apologist dressing up this fact with a thin veneer of marxist rhetoric. You sound pretty much like every other bourgeois ideologue with all of this incoherent clap trap. Every time a stalinist tries to wedge the law of value in with the lowest phase of communism, they are in effect attempting to cram a square peg into a round hole.

You left coms are very assertive, maybe you should go to the DPRK and smoke some weed to calm yourself down a bit. It's very clear that you are being utterly incoherent, perhaps if you actually understood what I was saying you wouldn't respond with such sectarianism. It is imperative that we interpret these subjects in accordance to reality, however, with your tone I assume that your foolish attempts of criticism aim directly towards the upkeep of your ideology. It's okay if you want to live in a vacuum, the revolution is not going to be harmed without you, if you want to be reactionary then be reactionary. As reality is constantly changing the bourgeoisie weaken as a class, and your reactionary ideology is extraneous to the real revolutionary struggles of today.

Marx writes in his Theories of Surplus Value,

"Even when exchange-value has disappeared, labour-time will always remain the creative essence of wealth and the standard of the cost required to produce it."

When private property no longer exists Engels pointed out,

"The practical application of the concept of value will then be increasingly confined to the decision about production, and that is its proper sphere."

Production itself becomes the leading sphere of operation of the law of value, not the market. How is that capitalist?

When the means of production are concentrated into the grip of a socialist state then labor will lose its private character. We directly see this with moral and material incentives. The will of the worker develops consciously as his personal interests are in his labor. Workers are no longer linked together through a market.

In socialist society there are no restraints to the growth of wages other than the level of productivity of social labor. The rise of wages is a catalyst in expanding labor productivity, ultimately bringing out reductions in the cost of the output. If the rate of labor productivity is always exceeding the growth of wages then wages will not be reduced and the expansion of production will not be reduced. Public funds and distribution according to work are the forms of circulating material. Tell me, how is this capitalist if the level of wages in capitalist society are limited. Capitalists administer the price of labor power in efforts to appropriate surplus value.