Support North Korea

[Kamp]

Hi, can anyone tell me if it is possible to support north korea officially ?

Does anyone know of any groups or organisation working to protect the legitimacy of the nation world wide, or something like that.

I know that organisation like that exists for Cuba, but i have not stumbled on one for north korea..

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There are "Korean Friendship Associations" here and there. The real question is, why in the world would you want to?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think an even bigger question is how an individual could support the DPRK.

[Bala Perdida]

I've heard of a few communist political parties and organizations that support North Korea. I forget which one actually wrote to the leader, I think it was Jong-ill back then, and stated their appreciation of him and his state. Also, what do you mean by supporting them? Supporting their monarchy-like government? Or supporting their sovereignty and condemning military actions against them?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've heard of a few communist political parties and organizations that support North Korea.

The WWP are probably the most enthusiastic when it comes to North Korea, although as far as I know they're exclusively an American group, and there are no Marcyist groups in Scandinavia. Maybe there are local Brezhnevist groups that like the DPRK, who knows?

The Spartacists, the Internationalist Group, and, at least on paper, groups like the IMT and USEC, support the DPRK against imperialism and attempts to dismantle the deformed workers' state, but that's another thing entirely.

[boiler]

Hi, can anyone tell me if it is possible to support north korea officially ?

Does anyone know of any groups or organisation working to protect the legitimacy of the nation world wide, or something like that.

I know that organisation like that exists for Cuba, but i have not stumbled on one for north korea..

Yeah there is a support group in Ireland its called Cumann Cairdeas na Cóiré \ Korean Friendship Association

[The Jay]

Kamp, do you view the DPRK as socialist in nature? If so, what is your reasoning. I myself see no reason to support them at all. By 'them' I mean the government there.

[Bala Perdida]

The WWP are probably the most enthusiastic when it comes to North Korea, although as far as I know they're exclusively an American group, and there are no Marcyist groups in Scandinavia.
WWP Thank You!! That's the one that wrote to whatever Kim was in power at the time. I couldn't put a name on them, and I didn't wanna research on my phone.

[Tim Cornelis]

Motherfucking Tankies maan.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Didn't korea it self remove all the references of socialism in their 2009 constitution?

[Hrafn]

As someone who has been to North Korea, I saw nothing worth supporting other than the people itself.

[Red Commissar]

Groups that concern themselves with DPRK will defend it under principles of anti-imperialism but won't usually commit too much time to presenting the country as their ideal arrangement. There are some of the those weird juche study groups and the friendship societies but they don't have a big clout relative to other left groups.

[Sam_b]

Didn't korea it self remove all the references of socialism in their 2009 constitution?

I didn't think this sounded right so I checked, it mentions socialism in its first sentence and numerous times in the document (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/kn00000_.html).

[The Jay]

I believe that Marxism was the thing removed. Either that or Communism.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

I didn't think this sounded right so I checked, it mentions socialism in its first sentence and numerous times in the document (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/kn00000_.html).

Thanks.Because I have heard it a lot of times I thought it was right as well.My bad.

[Comrade Jacob]

This guy won't last long. Good meeting you, I guess.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Ha once I read it all I understood how wrong I was.Our great leader Kim Il Sung and the father of socialist Korea.

[adipocere]

I believe that Marxism was the thing removed. Either that or Communism.
Throwing shit at the wall is more like it.

[Blake's Baby]

They removed all reference to throwing shit at the wall in the 2009 constitution?

[Sinister Intents]

Well, is there anyway then to directly supported the exploited and suppressed North Korean proletariat directly then?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They removed all reference to throwing shit at the wall in the 2009 constitution?

It was a hard decision, but ultimately the correct line based on Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism and Juche thought prevailed.

I think adipocere meant to say that some of the posters are "throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks", i.e. making a number of accusations and hoping that one of them is true.

[Blake's Baby]

THis is from the wiki article. I don't read Korean so I'll take it on trust for the moment:

"...The new, amended in 2009 version of DPRK Constitution is six articles longer than the previous version adopted in of 1998. Section 2 of Chapter VI “Chairman of the National Defence Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_National_Defence_Commission)” is entirely new. In Articles 29 and 40 (Economy and Culture respectively) the word 공산주의 (“communism”) was dropped.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#cite_note-6)..."

I think it's adipocere flinging shit, by implying those that are making claims about removal of the term 'communism' are lying.


Well, is there anyway then to directly supported the exploited and suppressed North Korean proletariat directly then?

Yeah, by overthrowing capitalism including the corrupt family empire of North Korea.

[Hrafn]

Well, is there anyway then to directly supported the exploited and suppressed North Korean proletariat directly then?

I don't believe in "awareness"-work done here in the west, like so many liberals, so that's hardly an option. As for subverting North Korea directly, there are many South Korean groups engaging in some very interesting work with spreading modern technology and information into the country in some rather ingenious ways, but sadly it tends to be mainly Christian and right-wing organizations that do these types of things, it seems to me.

My dream scenario would, no doubt, be some type of anarchist organization doing the same... sweet dreams.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't believe in "awareness"-work done here in the west, like so many liberals, so that's hardly an option. As for subverting North Korea directly, there are many South Korean groups engaging in some very interesting work with spreading modern technology and information into the country in some rather ingenious ways, but sadly it tends to be mainly Christian and right-wing organizations that do these types of things, it seems to me.

My dream scenario would, no doubt, be some type of anarchist organization doing the same... sweet dreams.

Some reports about North Korean refugees tell that they have a hard time adjusting, and can hardly cope with being so self-directed. Imagine anarchist self-management. The DPRK has ruined the North Korean working class, temporarily, for socialism.

[Hrafn]

Some reports about North Korean refugees tell that they have a hard time adjusting, and can hardly cope with being so self-directed. Imagine anarchist self-management. The DPRK has ruined the North Korean working class, temporarily, for socialism.

I'd say they're no more "ruined" than the rest of the working class, over here and elsewhere. I'd say that a lot of people in the DPRK are very good at "self-directing", as you put it. The tales of brutal survivalism in the 1990's by refugees that I have read points to that, as do the seeming amount of black market capitalist entrepenurs and their work.

Regardless, yes, seeing Anarchist organizing in North Korea is quite the pipe dream at the moment - I can dream, no? - as are most forms of opposition and dissidence.

[Sea]

Support for North Korea is no different and no more or less absurd than support for Canada, or Turkmenistan, or Wales. Nationalism is nationalism is nationalism, no matter what enclave you happen to like.

[Prometeo liberado]

They removed all reference to throwing shit at the wall in the 2009 constitution?

In Albania they would throw frozen balls of shit at the wall. Frozen.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'd say they're no more "ruined" than the rest of the working class, over here and elsewhere. I'd say that a lot of people in the DPRK are very good at "self-directing", as you put it. The tales of brutal survivalism in the 1990's by refugees that I have read points to that, as do the seeming amount of black market capitalist entrepenurs and their work.

Regardless, yes, seeing Anarchist organizing in North Korea is quite the pipe dream at the moment - I can dream, no? - as are most forms of opposition and dissidence.

Come to think of it, that report was about (lifelong) prisoners of prison camps, so I guess that would be different in terms of capability of self-direction.

[The Jay]

Throwing shit at the wall is more like it.

What do you mean?

[revani]

No need to be a tankie to support north korea. If someone defines north korea as "deformed workers' state", he/she is bound to support it against every imperialist attacks (including embargos).

Some trots also support north korea, such as ICL. I haven't searched much but any socialist with a sane mind would protect north korea against imperialists.

ICL: http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/938/korea.html

[Blake's Baby]

We suspect something along the lines of:


...
I think adipocere meant to say that some of the posters are "throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks", i.e. making a number of accusations and hoping that one of them is true.

Though my contention is rather:


...
I think it's adipocere flinging shit, by implying those that are making claims about removal of the term 'communism' are lying...

[RedHal]

There used to be a live stream of DPRK state television, I think streamed by South Korean individuals, but it's been unavailable for a month now.
http://112.170.78.145:50000/chosun

Since the state TV is directed at domestic consumption you can get a good idea of their propaganda. It's basically old school Soviet style, mainly celebrating blue collar workers (miners, factory workers etc..) and building projects. Of course there is heavy emphasis on the military and Kim Jong Un worship. If I were to break it down, I would say 20% on domestic, 20% on military and 60% on Kim dynasty worship, insane.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In Albania they would throw frozen balls of shit at the wall. Frozen.

This is unsubstantiated revisionist slander. As is commonly known, in socialist Albania Enver Hoxha would Enver Hoxha and Enver Hoxha, allowing for Enver Hoxha construction whose main tasks were finished by the seventies.

[Comrade Jacob]

I do not support the DPRK. I will defend it when it comes to people saying 'teh gov' believes in unicorns' because that's just common-sense.

[Ismail]

Since the state TV is directed at domestic consumption you can get a good idea of their propaganda. It's basically old school Soviet style, mainly celebrating blue collar workers (miners, factory workers etc..) and building projects. Of course there is heavy emphasis on the military and Kim Jong Un worship. If I were to break it down, I would say 20% on domestic, 20% on military and 60% on Kim dynasty worship, insane."In Pyongyang, I believe that even Tito will be astonished at the proportions of the cult of his host, which has reached a level unheard of anywhere else, either in past or present times, let alone in a country which calls itself socialist." (Hoxha, Reflections on China Vol. II, 1979, p. 517.)

[Dodo]

I talked to a N.Korean defector who lived in a political prison camp for 10 years.
Wasn't going to say anything about Marxism to not get into emotional territory. He himself talked about it before saying, on Marxian terms, N.Korea is like "feudal cultural supremacist" country. Nothing like socialism, at best "trying to realize socialism" which used to be also the official stance.
Also, Marx&Engels are completely banned from any public thing. The country runs on Kim families laws, books and writings in a religious way. In fact, I think he said the first Kim dude(which was actually a good fella) was a Christian, and from him and on, the country used "religiously" motivated stuff to create their unique regime.



No need to be a tankie to support north korea. If someone defines north korea as "deformed workers' state", he/she is bound to support it against every imperialist attacks (including embargos).

Some trots also support north korea, such as ICL. I haven't searched much but any socialist with a sane mind would protect north korea against imperialists.

ICL: http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/938/korea.html

I am not sure if I would have cared if their regime was over-thrown with an imperialist push. Their isolationism is so much so that people literally have no idea what is going on in the world. Right to information, even if it comes from imperialists, is something I can support in this case.

*wears anti-flame armor*

[Ismail]

Kim Il Sung laid the foundations for a lot of the DPRK's present policies. Also he was raised a Christian and did like to speak of it in somewhat fond terms in the last decades of his life, but there's nothing particularly "Christian" about the personality cult he created, it's clearly based more on traditional Korean motifs. Kim Il Sung looks at least somewhat presentable as a Marxist only because of how obviously shitty and corrupt his son was.

To give one example of a policy which his son and grandson have been developing ever since:

By the 1960s the party line had taken a turn that reminded a Soviet diplomat of Nazi Germany, as citizens who married Europeans were banished to the provinces for "crimes against the Korean race." A diplomatic report translated in the CWIHP bulletin shows how the masses finally got into the spirit of things. In March of 1965 the Cuban ambassador was driving his family and some Cuban doctors around Pyongyang when they stopped to take pictures. Hundreds of adults and children quickly swarmed the diplomatic limousine, pounding it with their fists, tearing the flag off, and ordering the occupants to get out. Their rage and insults, directed mainly at the ambassador "as a black man," abated only when a security force arrived to beat back the mob with rifle butts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am not sure if I would have cared if their regime was over-thrown with an imperialist push. Their isolationism is so much so that people literally have no idea what is going on in the world. Right to information, even if it comes from imperialists, is something I can support in this case.

That's not how it works, though. Imperialists aren't concerned about the "freedom of information" (I really don't see how the average DPRK citizen is less informed than the average American or British or Cameroonian citizen) but plunder. If an imperialist power invaded the DPRK, they would install a puppet regime, probably based on a section of the old bureaucracy, that would be substantially worse than the current WPK regime, but one that would be more receptive to cartels and trusts of that particular imperialist power.

In the case of the DPRK, the new government would dismantle state ownership of the means of production and any semblance of central planning as well.

That is why the DPRK should be defended against imperialism - not because we like the WPK (the ICL certainly doesn't), not because we think the DPRK is socialist, and not because we fetishise national borders, but because an imperialist invasion would set back the proletarian movement, and resolve the contradictions of the DPRK on the basis of private ownership, turning Korea into a neo-colony.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Their isolationism is so much so that people literally have no idea what is going on in the world.

I believe this is mistaken. I think that the people in the DPRK know more than one would assume from the face value, and that there is a deep popular cynicism against the government. Border regions are able to receive foreign broadcasts (radio and television and whatnot) and those are popular, there's extensive distribution of counterfeit video-tapes of foreign films (South Korean and Chinese in particular), so it would be wrong to assume that the people there are uninformed. Those things are obviously illegal but the enforcement is incompetent and corrupt and those things are endemic despite efforts to stop it. Rumours spread like wildfire. I don't think there's much faith in the various fictitious official statements.

[Hrafn]

I believe this is mistaken. I think that the people in the DPRK know more than one would assume from the face value, and that there is a deep popular cynicism against the government. Border regions are able to receive foreign broadcasts (radio and television and whatnot) and those are popular, there's extensive distribution of counterfeit video-tapes of foreign films (South Korean and Chinese in particular), so it would be wrong to assume that the people there are uninformed. Those things are obviously illegal but the enforcement is incompetent and corrupt and those things are endemic despite efforts to stop it. Rumours spread like wildfire. I don't think there's much faith in the various fictitious official statements.

Before the 1990's, the isolation was no soubt rather extreme. Now, not so much, yes.

[Dodo]

That's not how it works, though. Imperialists aren't concerned about the "freedom of information" (I really don't see how the average DPRK citizen is less informed than the average American or British or Cameroonian citizen) but plunder. If an imperialist power invaded the DPRK, they would install a puppet regime, probably based on a section of the old bureaucracy, that would be substantially worse than the current WPK regime, but one that would be more receptive to cartels and trusts of that particular imperialist power.

In the case of the DPRK, the new government would dismantle state ownership of the means of production and any semblance of central planning as well.

That is why the DPRK should be defended against imperialism - not because we like the WPK (the ICL certainly doesn't), not because we think the DPRK is socialist, and not because we fetishise national borders, but because an imperialist invasion would set back the proletarian movement, and resolve the contradictions of the DPRK on the basis of private ownership, turning Korea into a neo-colony.

The problem is, I do not even see N.Korea, from my limited economic knowledge of the country, as in even (state)capitalism. It is an outright backward country where capital is so much concentrated in the hands of a rentier-absentee elite which prevents any form of improvement in productivity and where people are handled more like serfs, not proleterians.
They do not have any significant industrial or even agricultural output.

I do not doubt on how "imperialists" would handle N.Korea. Regardless of their intentions however, I believe it would be good for the Korean population, just as I believe it was good for China to switch to what they called "market socialism".

In conditions of scarcity and such powerful hegemony which prevents any kind of "elasticity" anything that moves the foundations of that system is okay to me.
On more "liberal" terms, the N.Korea dude I talked to actually said that Korea in case of a unification would need a "transitionary" government.
Because otherwise, S.Korean capital would simply exploit the hell out of the poverty of N.Korea without even a need to "wage race to the bottom". It would start off in the bottom.

My anti-imperialist impulse in the Korean case comes from the fact that I believe it was imperialism that led Korea into such a degenerate state. The pressure from South, Japan and USA combined with all CIA work in the region legitimized Korean ruling class to turn the country into this.
In that sense, I believe they became SLAVES to their OWN CREATION. Such behaviour is so human indeed.

But I do not believe in a "socialist" ethic anymore where I need to oppose imperialism because it is imperialism.


I believe this is mistaken. I think that the people in the DPRK know more than one would assume from the face value, and that there is a deep popular cynicism against the government. Border regions are able to receive foreign broadcasts (radio and television and whatnot) and those are popular, there's extensive distribution of counterfeit video-tapes of foreign films (South Korean and Chinese in particular), so it would be wrong to assume that the people there are uninformed. Those things are obviously illegal but the enforcement is incompetent and corrupt and those things are endemic despite efforts to stop it. Rumours spread like wildfire. I don't think there's much faith in the various fictitious official statements.

Okay, I think this is true. The Korean dude also told me that. In fact, he said his motivation for running away was those broadcasts in the border or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_Chol-hwan

He also said that people's belief in regime is declining fast. The first Kim was indeed cherished. But with every new son, their belief declines significantly he said.

What I do not understand is, why China support the situation in N.Korea.

[Leftsolidarity]

^Nothing but sheer liberal imperialist apologism.

You say you "do not doubt how the 'imperialists' would handle" the DPRK (why is imperialists is quotes?) so either 1) You're wrong and you have no idea what they would do or 2) you're a racist pro-imperialist fronting bogus-leftism on the idea that imperialism will "civilize" what you view as such stupid and backwards Asians.

Last time the imperialists went into Korea they raped them, killed them, bombed every building over a story tall, destroyed their country, and set up a fascist puppet in the South. So if that's what you view as "better" for the people in the DPRK than you are seriously fucked in the head.

And uh, yeah you should oppose imperialism solely on it being imperialism. I don't see how any anti-capitalist revolutionary could do anything but. Imperialism is never the friend of the workers and oppressed and it certainly has never brought improvements to the places they bomb and loot.

[Dodo]

^Nothing but sheer liberal imperialist apologism.

You say you "do not doubt how the 'imperialists' would handle" the DPRK (why is imperialists is quotes?) so either 1) You're wrong and you have no idea what they would do or 2) you're a racist pro-imperialist fronting bogus-leftism on the idea that imperialism will "civilize" what you view as such stupid and backwards Asians.

Last time the imperialists went into Korea they raped them, killed them, bombed every building over a story tall, destroyed their country, and set up a fascist puppet in the South. So if that's what you view as "better" for the people in the DPRK than you are seriously fucked in the head.

And uh, yeah you should oppose imperialism solely on it being imperialism. I don't see how any anti-capitalist revolutionary could do anything but. Imperialism is never the friend of the workers and oppressed and it certainly has never brought improvements to the places they bomb and loot.


UUUWW, chil out man. I put "quotation" on imperialism because of a purely "ideological" handling of imperialism, as if there is a law of history on how "imperialism" acts. As if, it is a standard process.
Imperialism can take many forms and it does. And as we all know, rarely are imperialists motivated by "evil intentions" because they simply DO NOT view what they are doing as "evil".
We show its "evilness" through a NEGATIVE Marxian analysis of things and that show its roots in social relations. So thats why it was in quotation.

What "civilized" means, in western literature, is something imperialism is capable of bringing. The concept of civilizing comes out from the imperialist impulse in fact, of 18th-19th century. Whether they can succeed or not depends on a variety of factors, on their own terms. In fact, I believe Marx himself was talking of what English imperialism was capable of taking to India with his limited knowledge. So in that sense, I try to counter-this leftist-dogma anti-imperialism.
I am an anti-imperialist, but not because of the belief in a leftist etiquette.


I know what happened in the Korean war, and that is like I said in my previous post, is the reason N.Korea became what it did. And when I talk of not minding an "imperialist" push, I am not referring to war-mongering.
Long story short, I am not trying to take any sides or suggest a form of action, whether imperialist or anti-imperialist.
What I am saying is that the status-quo there has to be broken. And I will not oppose that because of a leftist anti-imperialist etiquette.
Imperialism in S.Korea(and in Asia in general) took a very different path and now the country is a top economy in the world with very high living standards. I am NOT SAYING that this is what would happen in North Korea.

All I am saying is this handling of un-breakeable beliefs, or motor left reactions. I will not justify or argue for imperialism, that has not been my point.

[FSL]

UUUWW, chil out man. I put "quotation" on imperialism because of a purely "ideological" handling of imperialism, as if there is a law of history on how "imperialism" acts. As if, it is a standard process.
Imperialism can take many forms and it does. And as we all know, rarely are imperialists motivated by "evil intentions" because they simply DO NOT view what they are doing as "evil".
We show its "evilness" through a NEGATIVE Marxian analysis of things and that show its roots in social relations. So thats why it was in quotation.

Yes, monopolistic capital does have only one way it can act and its actions always favor the capitalist class and are against the working class.

Also, I have never seen and think I will never see a person using the term "marxian" and having politics worth anyone's time.


I like how there are two sort-of-legitimate answers in the thread and then the usual circle-jerk.

[FSL]

What "civilized" means, in western literature, is something imperialism is capable of bringing. The concept of civilizing comes out from the imperialist impulse in fact, of 18th-19th century. Whether they can succeed or not depends on a variety of factors, on their own terms. In fact, I believe Marx himself was talking of what English imperialism was capable of taking to India with his limited knowledge. So in that sense, I try to counter-this leftist-dogma anti-imperialism.
I am an anti-imperialist, but not because of the belief in a leftist etiquette.


Regarding the 2nd opium war:

There is evidently a different spirit among the Chinese now to what they showed in the war of 1840 to '42. Then, the people were quiet; they left the Emperor's soldiers to fight the invaders, and submitted after a defeat with Eastern fatalism to the power of the enemy. But now, at least in the southern provinces, to which the contest has so far been confined, the mass of the people take an active, nay, a fanatical part in the struggle against the foreigners. They poison the bread of the European community at Hong Kong by wholesale, and with the coolest premeditation. (A few loaves have been sent to Liebig for examination. He found large quantities of arsenic pervading all parts of them, showing that it had already been worked into the dough. The dose, however, was so strong that it must have acted as an emetic, and thereby counteracted the effects of the poison). They go with hidden arms on board trading steamers, and, when on the journey, massacre the crew and European passengers and seize the boat.

They kidnap and kill every foreigner within their reach. The very coolies emigrating to foreign countries rise in mutiny, and as if by concert, on board every emigrant ship, and fight for its possession, and, rather than surrender, go down to the bottom with it, or perish in its flames. Even out of China, the Chinese colonists, the most submissive and meek of subjects hitherto, conspire and suddenly rise in nightly insurrection, as at Sarawak; or, as at Singapore, are held down by main force and vigilance only. The piratical policy of the British Government has caused this universal outbreak of all Chinese against all foreigners, and marked it as a war of extermination.

What is an army to do against a people resorting to such means of warfare? Where, how far, is it to penetrate into the enemy's country, how to maintain itself there? Civilizationmongers who throw hot shells on a defenceless city and add rape to murder, may call the system cowardly, barbarous, atrocious; but what matters it to the Chinese if it be only successful? Since the British treat them as barbarians, they cannot deny to them the full benefit of their barbarism. If their kidnappings, surprises, midnight massacres are what we call cowardly, the civilization-mongers should not forget that according to their own showing they could not stand against European means of destruction with their ordinary means of warfare.

In short, instead of moralizing on the horrible atrocities of the Chinese, as the chivalrous English press does, we had better recognize that this is a war pro aris et focis, a popular war for the maintenance of Chinese nationality, with all its overbearing prejudice, stupidity, learned ignorance and pedantic barbarism if you like, but yet a popular war. And in a popular war the means used by the insurgent nation cannot be measured by the commonly recognized rules of regular warfare, nor by any other abstract standard, but by the degree of civilization only attained by that insurgent nation. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/06/05.htm

[Dodo]

Yes, monopolistic capital does have only one way it can act and its actions always favor the capitalist class and are against the working class.
And N.Korea's capital is not monopolized? What's next, N.Korea is a proleterian dictatorship where means of production are socially owned and all oppression is gone(social and economic)?


Also, I have never seen and think I will never see a person using the term "marxian" and having politics worth anyone's time.
Then you should look more, there a lot of valueable non-Marxist scholars who use "marxian" terms.



Regarding the 2nd opium war:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/06/05.htm

What am I to make of this?

[FSL]

Then you should look more, there a lot of valueable non-Marxist scholars who use "marxian" termsValuable as in you should read Mein Kampf to know the crap you're going against?

Because valuable as in "they actually have some pretty great ideas!", no, that's not true.




What am I to make of this?Read it and not repeat nonsense about the civilizing potential of imperialist interventions.




And N.Korea's capital is not monopolized? What's next, N.Korea is a proleterian dictatorship where means of production are socially owned and all oppression is gone(social and economic)? Infinitely closer to the truth compared to what you said.

[Dodo]

Lets establish here something buddy.
I am not pro-imperialism. What I am criticizing here is the "religion" around a socially constructed "left etiquette" which tells us what to think under what circumstances.

I am ANTI-IMPERIALIST because of its general tendencies and the relations-set it comes from. I am not anti-imperialist, because regardless of what I think, as a Marxist I should oppose imperialism.
That sort of a reification leads to dogmatization and creates a set of pre-determined "beliefs" of left.
I am perfectly capable of analyzing a situation. There is no black and white science here, imperialism's form and results can be many.

Therefore, I will not argue for protection of N.Korean regime from imperialism. Nor just because there is going to be an imperialist intervention, there is a GUARANTEED, SCIENTIFIC result of it in N.Korean conditions.
I will be anti-imperialist for what WAR leads to, which is a direct assault on working class.
In Korean case, I will however go as far as this, IF in a hypothetical scenerio, there'd be for instance no war, I would be for establishing of hegemony of CAPITAL under certain circumstances.
Such as land reforms, de-collectivization of agriculture for peasantry and creation of agrarian capitalism with small-independent farmers to deal with the immense rural poverty, not to mention getting rid of the feudal-land-bound-serf situation which comes at a great social as well as economic cost.



Valuable as in you should read Mein Kampf to know the crap you're going against?

Because valuable as in "they actually have some pretty great ideas!", no, that's not true.
Well then obviously you have not done much reading. "Marxian" concepts are literally all-over bourgeouisie social science.

And if you are going to go ahead with your dogma as far as claiming that bourgeouisie science is not capable of coming up with good points, you might as well turn religious and lose yourself in church of Marx.




Read it and not repeat nonsense about the civilizing potential of imperialist interventions. Since when did such black&white perception of history became Marxist?
How familiar are you with Chinese history?
How do you think China would have been today if it was isolated completely for instance? What would China be like if there was no imperialist intervention which opened the way for formation and empowerment of a bourgeouisie(in south and coastal areas) which ultimately lead to destrution of Chinese feudalistic Confucian bureucracy?

You see I am not saying this in a "good" or "bad" way, history is not simply made up of "right" things and "wrong" things that have happened. It does not work on CAUSALITIES. Dialectical analysis requires a whole lot more complicated set of relations.
If there was no imperialism, there would be no bourgeouisie(at least in the given time period), no bourgeouisie no destruction of an ancient out-dated bureucratic-feudalism. Only then the true-faces of landlords had fallen which allowed for progressive peasant rebellions in China and we know there that led to.
This is not to suggest that China would not have been able to create its own bourgeouisie, but under their conditions and set of relations that it was built on it, it did not look like it was coming out any time soon. Especially since they did not need productivity increase within the given relations and hence no proper commercialization.
---

You see my point? This does not make me PRO or ANTI imperialism. My problem here is with your religion and limited grasp of history.




Infinitely closer to the truth compared to what you said.Elaborate please.

[Leftsolidarity]

Are we about to learn about our White Man's Burden to go civilize those damn barbaric Koreans because in your "non-dogmatic Marxist" analysis imperialism can somehow be a good thing? You're no Marxist or anti-imperialist. You think overthrowing a sovereign country that has broken from colonialism and imperialism and letting it be ruled by capital and be a puppet for imperialism (like the South currently is. and how are those workers loving that?) is somehow a good thing. That's pro-imperialist apologism at its finest.

[Dodo]

"Are we about to learn about our White Man's Burden to go civilize those damn barbaric Koreans"
Can you grow up a bit? Do you really have to manipulate what I am saying to make a proper argument?

Since when are Marxists so concerned with "sovereign" countries? Is there a LAW in Marxism that states that:
"thou shalt protect sovereign countries regardless of what is going on

I do not want to go into simplified and reductionist approaches like you here, but I seriously doubt working class in N.Korea is even comparable that of S.Korea in terms of living standards. And yes, that is a result of imperialism if I am to seriously simplify Korean economic history. We are looking at a country that went from having one of the poorest populations in the world just 50 years ago to a country that is now a top economy which turned imperialist itself.

So I would be very careful with the dogmatized anti-imperialist rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously out of the "cult"...surely you'll get pats when you are around comrades for your ideas but when you get out there to defend your ideas against empirically supported counter-arguments they'll give you a nice "de-legitimization" of everything you say.
They do not hold the same "beliefs" you do regarding motorized reactions, you have to speak their language. I am saying this for your own sake.

[Dodo]

Here is Marxism at its best for you: A Marxist DOES NOT base his/her analysis on pre-determined reified, fetishized beliefs. A Marxist bases his/her analysis on critique and destruction of existant "beliefs".

In that sense, even if what you sau sounds progressive, your "starting point" is anti-Marxist in itself. Its not what you are saying, IT IS HOW YOU ARE SAYING that is the problem.

[FSL]

Lets establish here something buddy.
I am not pro-imperialism. What I am criticizing here is the "religion" around a socially constructed "left etiquette" which tells us what to think under what circumstances.

I am ANTI-IMPERIALIST because of its general tendencies and the relations-set it comes from. I am not anti-imperialist, because regardless of what I think, as a Marxist I should oppose imperialism.
That sort of a reification leads to dogmatization and creates a set of pre-determined "beliefs" of left.
I am perfectly capable of analyzing a situation. There is no black and white science here, imperialism's form and results can be many.

Therefore, I will not argue for protection of N.Korean regime from imperialism. Nor just because there is going to be an imperialist intervention, there is a GUARANTEED, SCIENTIFIC result of it in N.Korean conditions.
I will be anti-imperialist for what WAR leads to, which is a direct assault on working class.
In Korean case, I will however go as far as this, IF in a hypothetical scenerio, there'd be for instance no war, I would be for establishing of hegemony of CAPITAL under certain circumstances.
Such as land reforms, de-collectivization of agriculture for peasantry and creation of agrarian capitalism with small-independent farmers to deal with the immense rural poverty, not to mention getting rid of the feudal-land-bound-serf situation which comes at a great social as well as economic cost.



Well then obviously you have not done much reading. "Marxian" concepts are literally all-over bourgeouisie social science.

And if you are going to go ahead with your dogma as far as claiming that bourgeouisie science is not capable of coming up with good points, you might as well turn religious and lose yourself in church of Marx.



Since when did such black&white perception of history became Marxist?
How familiar are you with Chinese history?
How do you think China would have been today if it was isolated completely for instance? What would China be like if there was no imperialist intervention which opened the way for formation and empowerment of a bourgeouisie(in south and coastal areas) which ultimately lead to destrution of Chinese feudalistic Confucian bureucracy?

You see I am not saying this in a "good" or "bad" way, history is not simply made up of "right" things and "wrong" things that have happened. It does not work on CAUSALITIES. Dialectical analysis requires a whole lot more complicated set of relations.
If there was no imperialism, there would be no bourgeouisie(at least in the given time period), no bourgeouisie no destruction of an ancient out-dated bureucratic-feudalism. Only then the true-faces of landlords had fallen which allowed for progressive peasant rebellions in China and we know there that led to.
This is not to suggest that China would not have been able to create its own bourgeouisie, but under their conditions and set of relations that it was built on it, it did not look like it was coming out any time soon. Especially since they did not need productivity increase within the given relations and hence no proper commercialization.
---

You see my point? This does not make me PRO or ANTI imperialism. My problem here is with your religion and limited grasp of history.



Elaborate please.
I am about 4 lines in in what you wrote.
Another grand truth about people is that if they use the word "marxian", they'll also use the word "dogma" to refer to anything that's correct.



Now I'll try to read the rest of what you wrote even though I can very well imagine.

[Art Vandelay]

Are we about to learn about our White Man's Burden to go civilize those damn barbaric Koreans because in your "non-dogmatic Marxist" analysis imperialism can somehow be a good thing? You're no Marxist or anti-imperialist. You think overthrowing a sovereign country that has broken from colonialism and imperialism and letting it be ruled by capital and be a puppet for imperialism (like the South currently is. and how are those workers loving that?) is somehow a good thing. That's pro-imperialist apologism at its finest.

While Dogukan's analysis is troubling, it really isn't anymore confused than the insight into your analysis/methodology revealed in the bolded sentence. Regardless of the WWP/PSL's mind numbing conclusion that the DPRK represents an "existing form of socialism," the fact remains that the DPRK is already under the rule of capital. This becomes all the more confusing when you take into consideration that this conclusion is reached from a ostensible Trotsykist framework.

[Dodo]

First of all, I never said I suggest an imperialist overthrow of whatever is going on in Korea. My main point was that I reject any "motor" reaction of a fethishized "marxist ethic". The reductionism and simplification of things have NOTHING to do with Marxism. Marxism is about an in-depth analysis. Imperialism is not necessarily and negative or a positive thing, IT IS A PROCESS, and like everything in process, it is bad or good in a GIVEN SITUATION, and that is the Marxist take on things.
Because of this dogmatic thinking, these fellas here end up defending N.Korea against the living conditions of S.Korea. I am trying to show that the fallacies in such reasoning. It is the Marxist tradition that gets damaged in the end becaue non-Marxists do not hold the same "ethic" and they will bring up a counter-argument which will turn the tide. A Marxist is not supposed to be bound to a "belief" in my opinion and should be able to critically analyze everything.

Like Marx wrote to Arnold Ruge in his letter
"I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be."

Creation of a leftist rhetoric without any critical backing and just sticking to certain "beliefs" is a dangeorus thing. EVEN if it sounds progressive.

[Art Vandelay]

words

I get what you are trying to say and I think the notion that one should always be highly self reflective and critical is a valuable sentiment; Marxism isn't a static and dusty set of ideas, but rather a ever evolving methodology. That being said, what criteria would need to be met within the modern context, for an act of imperialism to constitute a progressive development? Marx & Engels themselves put forth arguments at times, in which they somewhat championed acts of colonialism, viewing it as being representative of the further expansion and development of the productive forces, thereby hastening capital's downfall. Now an argument could be made that such an analysis was highly eurocentric, but understood in the context of the mid to late 19th century, it is understandable. For you to say that similar material conditions, ones which would make an act of imperialism a progressive occurrence, could arise in the modern context of 2014, is highly confusing.

Are you arguing that the traditional Marxist conclusion of imperialism being the final and highest stage of capitalism, is false? In that case what are the disagreements you have with the notion? In what ways did the analysis break with the Marxist method, ie: dialectical materialism?

I just don't see how you could honestly justify the conclusion that imperialism, in the modern context, has the potential to be progressive. It is a confused analysis and your use of it to undercut and delegitimize the concept of anti-imperialism, is highly problematic.

[FSL]

Marx & Engels themselves put forth arguments at times, in which they somewhat championed acts of colonialism, viewing it as being representative of the further expansion and development of the productive forces, thereby hastening capital's downfall.

When things like that happened (Marx once wrote "in favour of free trade" when the corn laws were debated in the UK), they were taunts and not actually a political stance.

It was as you say a "do that, see where it leads you!" and not a "do that so that we may all prosper".

[Dodo]

I get what you are trying to say and I think the notion that one should always be highly self reflective and critical is a valuable sentiment; Marxism isn't a static and dusty set of ideas, but rather a ever evolving methodology. That being said, what criteria would need to be met within the modern context, for an act of imperialism to constitute a progressive development? Marx & Engels themselves put forth arguments at times, in which they somewhat championed acts of colonialism, viewing it as being representative of the further expansion and development of the productive forces, thereby hastening capital's downfall. Now an argument could be made that such an analysis was highly eurocentric, but understood in the context of the mid to late 19th century, it is understandable.

And this is exactly my point. Imperialism is a process, it is not something measurable by "causality" and reified leftist rhetoric. Just like every process, it is in relations to a lot of things, and what makes imperialism bad or good would again be defined through these relations. I.e, how the working class relates to imperialist expansion in conditions of N.Korea. It is not for instance, the same for the working class conditions relating to imperialism in Venezeula.







For you to say that similar material conditions, ones which would make an act of imperialism a progressive occurrence, could arise in the modern context of 2014, is highly confusing. And that should, under normal circumstances, as Marxists be the nature of our debate here. Unfortunately, I have to deal with the teenage "communist manifesto" pamphlet giver fetishism here.


Are you arguing that the traditional Marxist conclusion of imperialism being the final and highest stage of capitalism, is false?

In that case what are the disagreements you have with the notion? In what ways did the analysis break with the Marxist method, ie: dialectical materialism?
I would not stick to it at 100%. Lenin wrote his work for conditions of Russia in 1910s-20s. Imperialism took a different shape at different times in history.
Expansion of capital can be progressive or regressive. It depends on specific case analysis, not an "absolute theory" that works everywhere. In East Asian economies, cooperation with imperialism has carried them to the level of top economies. I am mainly referring to S.Korea and Taiwan. Later comers such as philippines, indonesia, malaysia, thailand got into perihphery of Japan,Korea and Taiwanese "imperialism". These countries heavily invest in China today as well contributing to the expansion of capital.

In other cases, imperialism can take a whole lot more regressive stance. In countries of East Asia where labor was poor and weak, it had a progressive role(therefore I am assuming that it can have a similar role in N.Korea under similar conditions). In Latin America and Africa where there was alread relative industrialization and an urban proletriat it had the opposite effect. An effect of destroying capital to reduce international capitalist competition and create an army of cheap "global" working class.
So as you can see, it "depends" in its relation. For East Asia, it was a great source of growth drive, for Africa and Latin America it had been destructive. There a lot of factors to keep in mind here from the existing modes of production, the form of labor both urban and rural(agricultural and industrial), the role of the state and what it represents(its motivations) even natural resource endowment and how and when a country integrates into global economy.

Such complex relations cannot be dismissed based on "beliefs".
I still believe global expansion of capital will bring the end of capitalism faster by pushing its contradictions to rushed clash.

The problem with imperialism for me remains the same. It can prevent non-core capital from arising which can take a comprador-corrupt-crony shape depending on the conditions such as the institutional framework or existing class relations. That would mean there would be an un-ending cycle where 5 billion suffer and 1 billion is facing the contradiction of capitalism a lot less. Imperialism however IS NOT THE ONLY thing that matters.

Therefore, defending of N.Korean ruling class and it's established hegemony because it is a "sovereign" country and because our "religion" which somehow says we have to protect that sounds like to me rather silly/irrelevant.
It DEPENDS on the circumstances and that is what we should be debating. In a country like Korea where capital is so weak and productivity levels are so low that any expansion of capital could be useful for the working class within a, less predatory, proper-framework.


I just don't see how you could honestly justify the conclusion that imperialism, in the modern context, has the potential to be progressive. It is a confused analysis and your use of it to undercut and delegitimize the concept of anti-imperialism, is highly problematic.The further we go into this, we would have to define imperialism clearly. What if for instance, my reference to imperialism was only in the sense that it would remove the regime from power? And after that capital could expand either under control of bourgeouisie or even the working class.
There is no "standard" situation...

[FSL]

And that should, under normal circumstances, as Marxists be the nature of our debate here. Unfortunately, I have to deal with the teenage "communist manifesto" pamphlet giver fetishism here.

To correct you, that's the debate marxians or philosophers and thinkers employing marxian tools would have.

And them being undogmatic, 10 times out of 10 they'd all agree that yes, in fact imperialism, if such a thing still exists, can be good because human rights, democracy, wmd etc.

[Dodo]

To correct you, that's the debate marxians or philosophers and thinkers employing marxian tools would have.

Just wondering, what is this based on?

[Art Vandelay]

Dogukan, the only context within which imperialism could be seen as some sort of progressive development (or perhaps a 'lesser evil') would be if capitalism had a further progressive role to play as a mode of production. This isn't the case and has not been since the early 20th century.

What tasks do you see the bourgeoisie as still having to accomplish, before their historic and progressive role as a socio-economic class has been accomplished? In what ways did Lenin's conception of imperialism, that of it being the highest stage of capitalism and being characterized by the development of finance capital, fail to grasp the true nature of capitalism/imperialism? You can't simply dismiss this question with hand waving about Lenin writing with the conditions of early 20th century Russia in mind. Not only is this false, Lenin's analysis was internationalist in scope, but even if it were an accurate statement, it would still not be a substitute for proper argumentation.

You made a statement, one which is demonstrably false, that imperialism could potentially play a progressive role under late and decaying capitalism. This is why people have been jumping at you and as much as I may disagree with portions of their posts, they do have a point; I don't think you made that statement because you are some awful 'pro-imperialist apologist' but rather due to a political analysis which possibly lacks a certain nuance and maturity. So I feel I can only repeat my question, which is under what conditions (using relatively concrete examples, not historic ones) could imperialism play a progressive role in the context of 2014?

[Dodo]

Ice Pick,

Before I proceed, I need you to define imperialism and what you consider "progressive".

[Leftsolidarity]

While Dogukan's analysis is troubling, it really isn't anymore confused than the insight into your analysis/methodology revealed in the bolded sentence. Regardless of the WWP/PSL's mind numbing conclusion that the DPRK represents an "existing form of socialism," the fact remains that the DPRK is already under the rule of capital. This becomes all the more confusing when you take into consideration that this conclusion is reached from a ostensible Trotsykist framework.

First, I would say it's false that capital and global capitalist markets really dictate the production and economy in the DPRK. It will obviously have an influence on it and there will be concessions and limitations based on the fact that they are isolated and don't have other socialist countries to lean on.

That, though, doesn't really have to do with defending the DPRK against imperialism. You can disagree with my position and my party's view of the DPRK but I don't see why that should be a point of relentless attack and focus. I wasn't in here going "yeah the DPRK is the best place ever and is a socialist paradise". I was pointing out that there's a poster here cheerleading imperialism as a way to advance oppressed countries (which are underdeveloped because of imperialism) and that should be countered whether you think the DPRK is socialist or not.

[Art Vandelay]

Ice Pick,

Before I proceed, I need you to define imperialism and what you consider "progressive".

Re imperialism: I'm working with the traditional Marxist conception of the term, that of imperialism being a natural by product of the process of developed capitalist nations transitioning/having transitioned into monopoly capitalism, that of it being represented by a shift away from commodity production and to finance capital, that of it being characterized by continual military conflicts between competing 'empire nations,' that of it being the highest stage of late and decaying capitalism.

Re progressive: All modes of production have a dual character (progressive and reactionary), depending on the point in development of the forces of production. For you to make the claim that imperialism can have a beneficial effect on the state of the working class, you must uphold the analysis that capitalism has yet to gain a reactionary character, ie: it still has a historic role to play in the further development of the forces of production. I'm unsure as to the source of your confusion, I am using the term 'progressive' in the commonly used sense.

[Dodo]

@leftsolidarity
Ah, so now I have made a premise

imperialism as a way to advance oppressed countriesso much honesty here

[Art Vandelay]

First, I would say it's false that capital and global capitalist markets really dictate the production and economy in the DPRK.

Which is indicative of your analysis being centered on the assumption that socialism is possible within the confines of a country. Not only does this carry with it the confused stalinist baggage that socialism represents a transitional stage (one in which classes continue to exist) on the road from capitalism to communism, but yet again makes the claim to the lineage of Trotskyism all the more confusing.


That, though, doesn't really have to do with defending the DPRK against imperialism. You can disagree with my position and my party's view of the DPRK but I don't see why that should be a point of relentless attack and focus.

Trotsky makes the point in 'In Defense of Marxism' that whether or not common ground political stances (in this case the anti-imperialist defense of the DPRK) can be reached between competing factions/organizations, is ultimately of secondary importance to the class interests and resulting methodology, motivating differences in analysis/program. That is ultimately why I consider relentless attack on the political program of any group which upholds the DPRK as an existing form of socialism, as being necessary. It stems from the fact that these sorts of confused political convictions, are not representative of the dialectical materialist methodology, as well as not being representative of proletarian class interests.


I wasn't in here going "yeah the DPRK is the best place ever and is a socialist paradise". I was pointing out that there's a poster here cheerleading imperialism as a way to advance oppressed countries (which are underdeveloped because of imperialism) and that should be countered whether you think the DPRK is socialist or not.

And I've engaged with this individual on the matter at hand, expressing why I think that analysis is horribly confused. The fact that an individual here has some contradictory political stances however, does not address the contradiction in the politics of the Marcyites who uphold the dprk as an existing form of socialism, under the guise and facade of Trotskyism.

[Dodo]

Re imperialism: I'm working with the traditional Marxist conception of the term, that of imperialism being a natural by product of the process of developed capitalist nations transitioning/having transitioned into monopoly capitalism, that of it being represented by a shift away from commodity production and to finance capital, that of it being characterized by continual military conflicts between competing 'empire nations,' that of it being the highest stage of late and decaying capitalism.
So far so good. But in the context of this debate, you need to expand and tell me how "imperialism" relates to an under-developed country. I.e, how the capital of the core country "interacts" with the periphery countries.


Re progressive: All modes of production have a dual character (progressive and reactionary), depending on the point in development of the forces of production. For you to make the claim that imperialism can have a beneficial effect on the state of the working class, you must uphold the analysis that capitalism has yet to gain a reactionary character, ie: it still has a historic role to play in the further development of the forces of production. I'm unsure as to the source of your confusion, I am using the term 'progressive' in the commonly used sense.I was confused because I consider DPRK as feudalistic, incapable of producing a proleteriat due to such low-productivity.
If we are to go by the "classic" concepts in Marxism, such as that of the "scientific" historical materialism, the driving force of history is the transformation of the productive forces, i.e technological improvement which brings the contradictions of a given system out, causing what is called "class conflict".
In the Marxian economic debates, as far as I am aware so far, there are TWO main groups debating over this(The Brenner debate).

That of the 3rd worldist Marxists, such as A.G Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein and various "dependency theory" thinkers mainly from L.America.
Their take on capitalist development is "external". Capitalism was created urban areas by empowerment of the burghers, they claim. There were bourgeouisie in towns and eventually their way of life become more of a necessity to rulers, making the aristocrats go down.
This school of thinking, is also the creator of what is called "development of underdevelopment". There are some very valuable stuff here and I would not say it is true or wrong.

The Brenner stance is more dialectical, they say that capitalism developed from the "inner dynamics" in the rural areas. It had met a bunch of conditions in England(capitalism came as a result of enclosures and commercialization of land by the aristocracy and not the towns-folk). From there on, through a "dialectical" interaction and not some form of "stagist" understanding of history, it created dynamic for transformation. Within the given conditions, the earlier a country got into capitalism the more adventageous it became in the "international imperialist" context.

-------------
so even if I am to go by the "scientific" stagist notion of history that came from Leninist school(and has its roots in Engels and his obsession with "dialectical laws of nature") , DPRK remains a feudal country where bourgeouisie definetly has, imo a progressive role to play.
That is, in a certain framework just like the border country, S.Korea.

I am curious as to how you explain S.Korean development, a country that was in the same conditions with North in 1950s +they lack all the natural resources the north has(such as coal so crucial to industrialization) becoming a top economy in just 50 years and North not even industrializing, literally remaining in feudalism. Thats so much for claiming that bourgeouisie have "no progressive" role to play in DPRK's -mode of production-.

[Leftsolidarity]

Which is indicative of your analysis being centered on the assumption that socialism is possible within the confines of a country. Not only does this carry with it the confused stalinist baggage that socialism represents a transitional stage (one in which classes continue to exist) on the road from capitalism to communism, but yet again makes the claim to the lineage of Trotskyism all the more confusing.


Ok.



Trotsky makes the point in 'In Defense of Marxism' that whether or not common ground political stances (in this case the anti-imperialist defense of the DPRK) can be reached between competing factions/organizations, is ultimately of secondary importance to the class interests and resulting methodology, motivating the differences in opinion. That is ultimately why I consider relentless attack on the political program of any group which upholds the DPRK as an existing form of socialism, as being necessary. It stems from the fact that these sorts of confused political convictions, are not representative of the dialectical materialist methodology, as well as not being representative of proletarian class interests.


Well I'd disagree with him on that. That's just a defense of pointless sectarianism. I don't really care too much on Trotsky's/Stalin's positions on this or that. I think it's mindless and counter-productive to not ally with people in which you have common ground with for some idealized ideological purity. Have you never worked with other organizations that you don't have the same tendency but worked together on a common issue that you could both support? I think the DPRK should be defended against imperialist attack and you think the DPRK should be defended against imperialist attack. If all I'm doing is voicing that view why is it needed for you to then attack me for my unmentioned stance that the DPRK is a workers state and a socialist-based economy.




And I've engaged with this individual on the matter at hand, expressing why I think that analysis as horrible confused. The fact that an individual here has some contradictory political stances however, does not address the contradiction in the politics of the Marcyites who uphold the dprk as an existing form of socialism, under the guise and facade of Trotskyism.

lol 'Marcyites'

you're too hung up on phrases and labels that don't really mean anything in the real world

[Dodo]

I thought of it as an insult to Marxism after spending years among various Trotskyist and -all-trotsky hating groups- in Turkey.
Nothing good ever comes out of it, it ends up being a fight of cultists.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

lol 'Marcyites'

you're too hung up on phrases and labels that don't really mean anything in the real world

It means something in the real world. It means having dinners with representatives of capitalist states and sucking up to them and apologising for their actions, it means being a joke of a reporter for Press TV, it means loving anyone who says they are anti-imperialist just because, it means being a bigger joke than Chairman Bob, it means taking anti-imperialist folly to the most laughable extreme. I say that is a very concrete thing. And not a good thing at all.

[Art Vandelay]

Well I'd disagree with him on that. That's just a defense of pointless sectarianism.

It really isn't, not within the context of the work in question, or within the context of this discussion. 'In defense of Marxism' is a collection of polemical essays/letters concerning the debate surrounding the nature of the USSR in the American SWP. His entire argument was that it would be futile to split over points of contention where common political ground can be reached, and rather that the methodology/class interests which produce competing organizations/factions must be exposed for what they are and what they represent. How this could be derided as sectarianism, which in the Marxist cannon refers to placing the importance/standing of one's organization above principled political criticism, alludes me.


I don't really care too much on Trotsky's/Stalin's positions on this or that.

Which is, again, highly confusing and no doubt leads to the sorts of politics (so riddled with contradictions) which leads individuals and organizations into convictions which simultaneously uphold permanent revolution and socialism in one country, all without being aware of the cognitive dissonance at play.


I think it's mindless and counter-productive to not ally with people in which you have common ground with for some idealized ideological purity. Have you never worked with other organizations that you don't have the same tendency but worked together on a common issue that you could both support? I think the DPRK should be defended against imperialist attack and you think the DPRK should be defended against imperialist attack. If all I'm doing is voicing that view why is it needed for you to then attack me for my unmentioned stance that the DPRK is a workers state and a socialist-based economy.

Of course I've worked with organizations, on a temporary basis, which don't uphold the same tendency as myself, it is what is referred to as a united front. The only reason I mentioned your political stance that the dprk is an existing form of socialism, was to point out that the issues with this analysis are as confused, as the ones which motivated the stance you were attacking.


lol 'Marcyites'

you're too hung up on phrases and labels that don't really mean anything in the real world

The reason I use the term, is because I know of no other term which accurately describes the politics of the PSL/WWP. I've yet to come across another term which can succinctly describe the politics of organizations which simultaneously uphold such unique and contradictory positions.


I was confused because I consider DPRK as feudalistic, incapable of producing a proleteriat due to such low-productivity.

Well then I've obviously misjudged the source of your statement. I'm really at a loss for words to be honest, wasn't even aware that there were folks on the forum who upheld the notion of 'feudalism in one country.'

[Dodo]

Well then I've obviously misjudged the source of your statement. I'm really at a loss for words to be honest, wasn't even aware that there were folks on the forum who upheld the notion of 'feudalism in one country.'

Not sure I get what you mean?

[Dodo]

Is this fucking serious? Like ignoring an actual proper debate that is so fiercely going on in academia and carries so much meaning in the day, for the sake of Stalinist vs Trotskyist who's party is right bs?
How do you consider yourselves as students of Marx?

All I see is people "capable" of speaking party "teachings". HELLOOOOOO, there is a whole world out there. Stick your head out of your "dogmatic" cults and the party pamphlet politics.

[Art Vandelay]

Is this fucking serious? Like ignoring an actual proper debate that is so fiercely going on in academia and carries so much meaning in the day,

Not sure what 'debate' you are referring to (regardless of the fact that by taking place within academia, does not give it any credence on its own), or what this comment has to do with the discussion at hand.


for the sake of Stalinist vs Trotskyist who's party is right bs?

It was merely a tangential discussion taking place, no reason to get upset over it.


How do you consider yourselves as students of Marx?

I can't help but point out the irony of this comment following on the footsteps of you claiming that it is possible for feudal property relations to exist within the confines of a isolated nation-state, under the capitalist mode of production.

[Dodo]

I can't help but point out the irony of this comment following on the footsteps of you claiming that it is possible for feudal property relations to exist within the confines of a isolated nation-state, under the capitalist mode of production. I see. So you not only ignored the whole point I made in my post but also mis-judged what I even said. I said "feudalistic. Believe me, as a student of economic history, I'd be careful when it comes to use of such words.

And the fact that you believe that there cannot be "feudalistic" relations in a "nation-state" can only be explained by your "whole understanding of history" being based on "party pamphlet dogma", which is why I am here insisting on my devil's advocacy.
In fact, you don't even sound like you are familiar with Marxian economist's take on economic history and yet you are lecturing me here on imperialism, nature of capital and how it "interacts".
Not claiming you do not know, its just so far you presented nothing.

Long story short: So far what I see is not a person who is genuinely interested in digging history and understanding our world, capitalism and where it is heading better. What I see is someone who repeats what they teach in parties. I was a member(and still am, loosely) of a Trotskyist party, for a long time. For so long, my view on history was based on what I heard there.And oh boy they repeated their "reifications" proudly as absolute truths, revelations of "laws of history".
It is when you get into actual academic search(in my case in university) you realize the true nature and complexity of such debates.

History is not moving in "stages" as you seem to understand. Not even Marx claims that there cannot be "feudalistic" relations in a nation-state. That is not only euro-centrism but an outright ignorance of all the empirical evidence available....not even referring to "new" data here.

You cannot bring up a good argument here for the N.Korea-Imperialism issue if you do not know these things.

for the record, check this review out:
http://louisproyect.org/2011/12/13/hurrah-jairus-banaji-wins-2011-isaac-and-tamara-deutscher-memorial-prize/
This scholar is as far as I know closer to Trotskyist tendency. He is a Marxist professor who would have a A LOT say on your "rigid" stagist conceptions where multiple modes of production/forms of labor cannot co-exist.
He even have cases where SERFS works factories...go ahead and figure.

[Art Vandelay]

I see. So you not only ignored the whole point I made in my post but also mis-judged what I even said. I said "feudalistic. Believe me, as a student of economic history, I'd be careful when it comes to use of such words.

What you said was this:

I was confused because I consider DPRK as feudalistic, incapable of producing a proleteriat due to such low-productivity.

There are only two conclusions, as far as I can tell, someone could deduce from this comment. Either (1) you think that feudal property relations dominate the dprk, or (2) you believe that capitalism can exist while the proletariat does not.


And the fact that you believe that there cannot be "feudalistic" relations in a "nation-state" can only be explained by your "whole understanding of history" being based on "party pamphlet dogma", which is why I am here insisting on my devil's advocacy.

How compelling. You know nothing of me, or I'm going to venture my politics, or my reasoning for being involved with the political organization that I am, so I'm going to interpret these accusations of 'party patriotism' as being merely another example of you ducking and dodging the issue that sparked this exchange, ie: that you have made the claim that imperialism can still play a historically progressive role within the context of decaying capitalism.


In fact, you don't even sound like you are familiar with Marxian economist's take on economic history and yet you are lecturing me here on imperialism, nature of capital and how it "interacts". Not claiming you do not know, its just so far you presented nothing.

Again how compelling. I've yet to really delve into much substance with my posts, because I didn't see a need to in the beginning. I felt that you merely had stuck your foot in your mouth and had potentially misrepresented yourself. The more you post, however, the more I realize that this is not the case and that your politics most likely have more issues than I originally assumed.


Long story short: So far what I see is not a fella who is genuinely interested in digging history and understanding our world, capitalism and where it is heading better. What I see is someone who repeats what they teach in parties. I was a member(and still am, loosely) of a Trotskyist party, for a long time. For so long, my view on history was based on what I heard there.And oh boy they repeated their "reifications" proudly as absolute truths, revelations of "laws of history". It is when you get into actual academic search(in my case in university) you realize the true nature and complexity of such debates.

You've yet again to reveal to me what the nature of this debate is your keep alluding to? Perhaps I'll prove incapable of understanding it, as it seems that according to you my politics have been spoon fed to me by various trots, but if you do feel compelled to enlighten me, I can comment on whether or not it is a debate I'm familiar with from my time spent on university campuses.


History is not moving in "stages" as you seem to understand. Not even Marx claims that there cannot be "feudalistic" relations in a nation-state. That is not only euro-centrism but an outright ignorance of all the empirical evidence available....not even referring to "new" data here.


What you said was this:

I was confused because I consider DPRK as feudalistic, incapable of producing a proleteriat due to such low-productivity.

There are only two conclusions, as far as I can tell, someone could deduce from this comment. Either (1) you think that feudal property relations dominate the dprk, or (2) you believe that capitalism can exist while the proletariat does not.

I've never made any claims about history moving in 'stages' or whatever other words you wish to put in my mouth.


You cannot bring up a good argument here for the N.Korea-Imperialism issue if you do not know these things.

for the record, check this review out:
http://louisproyect.org/2011/12/13/hurrah-jairus-banaji-wins-2011-isaac-and-tamara-deutscher-memorial-prize/
This scholar is as far as I know closer to Trotskyist tendency. He is a Marxist professor who would have a A LOT say on your "rigid" stagist conceptions where multiple modes of production/forms of labor cannot co-exist.
He even have cases where SERFS works factories...go ahead and figure.

I'll check out the review, but regardless I'll just repeat that your assumptions about my politics are completely false. Nevertheless this is all entirely off topic by this point. You made the comment you did, which was clearly reactionary, if at best confused. If you wish to stand by it, than so be it.

[Dodo]

Alright, I'll gear down. TBH, for obvious reasons I got quiet upset when you completely ignored the whole post I made on the famous "Brenner Debate", picked one thing out of the text, taking that out of its context as well and ignored(ignorance is such a powerful tool sometimes) me dismissing everything I said with one reductionist sentence and put your whole effort into what appeared to me as a really unnecessary debate.

That was my rant and why I got upset. I am sorry if I took it too far. My motivations always tend to be playing devil's advacocy and breaking all sorts of dogma, initiating a dialogue. And I sincerely hope to get the cause to a better place by doing this.
This is a forum, mostly full of "young" leftists who are very open to what goes around. From my experience, I have seen how much people can get stuck in the realities that is created around party cults when it comes to "theory", which will inevitably lead to practical problems as well.

The reason why the debate on imperialism is so important, is not for the sake of Korea or the concept of imperialism but on perception of Marxism and dialectical analysis of capital. Even the Trotskyist school which claims to "reject" the dogma of Stalinism and official USSR diamat swims in the same sea. A sea of where they have created a so-called "scientific" backing of their theory, the stages, that the history is on our side...etc
That is IMO a big misconception of Marxism. A Marxist has to be very careful when he/she deals with the concept of science and shoul really check into "epistomology" before jumping to any conclusions based on hearsay and classical literature from Engels to Kautsky to Lenin to Trotsky.
Surely, like what happened here, people will pat each other's back. All that is fine in isloation, but the movement of the working class has to have mass implications. That goes through defeating and winning debates against bourgeouisie science.
That does not happen when people here base their analysis on "motor reactions" of a constructed "left ethic" as if it is our religious book if you know what I mean.

There is nothing absolute in dialectics and it is literally a war against dogma. Even scientific dogma.

I hope you understand my concerns.
I would be civil in all my debating as long as the other side approaches the issue scholarly and in a questioning manner and not mean any disrespect.



As a bonus, I would urge anyone who self-proclaims to be a Marxist to at least read this bit from Ollman:
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/di_ch08.php

[synthesis]

Well then I've obviously misjudged the source of your statement. I'm really at a loss for words to be honest, wasn't even aware that there were folks on the forum who upheld the notion of 'feudalism in one country.'

Look up the history of Bhutan when you get a chance; still a completely feudal paradigm that has gone to great lengths to insulate itself from global capital. I wouldn't argue that this applies to the DPRK, but it's not unheard of.

[Orange Juche]

(I really don't see how the average DPRK citizen is less informed than the average American or British or Cameroonian citizen)

Really? Really?

Look, I'm not saying the information is put right out in front of our faces - but just by looking at this forum or the access those of us in America, Britain, etc have to the internet... theres a hell of a lot of information available to us. We might have to do the work toward finding and learning it, but it's available.

To actually say what you said, you either have to be willfully blind for some obtuse political reason or are just trolling, honestly.

In North Korea, what we do know, they have no access to information. They are truly living the "I love Big Brother" nightmare scenario of a fictional reality presented for them. Reality, itself, is constructed because information is so contained and controlled.

I'm not saying in the west consent isn't manufactured, that the media isn't a powerhouse of propaganda. But it isn't North Korea. North Korea is the west's propaganda machine, run by a pseduo-theocratic despotic juche state, on nitrous oxide.

[Five Year Plan]

Whatever your opinion on the DPRK, it is clearly not feudal in any sense. Feudalism was the form of economic exploitation predominant throughout western Europe in the Middle Ages, in which a landlord extracted rent on the basis of the land he tenurially controlled. This means he, and only he, exercised a kind of title to that land, to which serfs were bound.

This is in contrast to the tributary mode, where the state extracts tax from a peasantry, but also potentially from local landowners who exercise a kind of tenurial control, albeit a control circumscribed by the higher exploiting authorities.

Is anybody here suggesting that the DPRK ruling class is tributary and is extracting tax from a peasantry, rather than exploiting their citizens through exchanges of labor power for money?

[Art Vandelay]

Look up the history of Bhutan when you get a chance; still a completely feudal paradigm that has gone to great lengths to insulate itself from global capital. I wouldn't argue that this applies to the DPRK, but it's not unheard of.

You're going to have to elaborate on this. I took a cursory look at the wiki page, not a the best source I know, and from what I read Bhutan certainly hasn't insulated itself from global capital. It appears as if it has long standing economic ties with India. Simply because Bhutan is a constitutional monarchy, does not mean that it somehow circumvents the laws of the capitalist mode of production. I mean by that logic, not saying necessarily that is what you meant, the same could be said for Canada, since it is also a constitutional monarchy.

[synthesis]

You're going to have to elaborate on this. I took a cursory look at the wiki page, not a the best source I know, and from what I read Bhutan certainly hasn't insulated itself from global capital. It appears as if it has long standing economic ties with India. Simply because Bhutan is a constitutional monarchy, does not mean that it somehow circumvents the laws of the capitalist mode of production. I mean by that logic, not saying necessarily that is what you meant, the same could be said for Canada, since it is also a constitutional monarchy.

Ah, okay, apparently it's been about a decade since I updated myself on the subject. Still one of the more recent entries into the global market, and about 80% of the population lives off subsistence farming. (Very little waged labor, very little industry.) But I must have conflated that with what I knew about the economy before the 50's; I'd still stipulate that feudal countries had foreign relations with direct neighbors, but that doesn't prove that it's immune to global capital. It's only been a constitutional monarchy since 2008, I guess, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, but I'd never posit that as a primary reference point for modes of production, although I'd argue that it's generally correlated with the transition out of the feudal mode of production.

[Comrade Raymund]

Well North Korea is kind of by itself and tries to keep isolated from the world (except with China) but i really don't think they have one... look at the missile threats it gave America last year...

[Dodo]

Whatever your opinion on the DPRK, it is clearly not feudal in any sense. Feudalism was the form of economic exploitation predominant throughout western Europe in the Middle Ages, in which a landlord extracted rent on the basis of the land he tenurially controlled. This means he, and only he, exercised a kind of title to that land, to which serfs were bound.

This is in contrast to the tributary mode, where the state extracts tax from a peasantry, but also potentially from local landowners who exercise a kind of tenurial control, albeit a control circumscribed by the higher exploiting authorities.

Is anybody here suggesting that the DPRK ruling class is tributary and is extracting tax from a peasantry, rather than exploiting their citizens through exchanges of labor power for money?

I am not particularly well-read on North Korean economy. I used the word feudalistic for the sake of the argument. If we are to go by your definition of feudalism, it has only existed in Europe and to an extend in Japan.

The word feudalism in economic history is used in a way larger context than it is in Europe. Either you accept that, or you have to take feudalism as a particularly unique phenomena to Europe.

Anyhow, the reason I called N.Korea feudalistic is because their economy have not transformed any significantly since 1950s. As far as I know, 1.Kim dude pushed some land-reforms. The same process for instance happened in South Korea where they created an "independent peasantry" whereas they turned the ex-landowners into urban entrepreneurs by the hand of a -coercive- American backed state. By today, S.Korean economy has transformed into a highly industrialized economy where a few portion of the population is employed in the agricultural sector.

In contrast, N.Korea is not industrialzied at all. A LARGE portion of the population still lives in rural areas whereas cities like Pyongyang tend to have rather more privileged people(I am referring to the N.Korean dude here).
THe reason I used the word feudal-istic is because
1)In N.Korea, people are bound to the land they live in. They CANNOT leave the land without special permission. In that sense it is similar to the serfdom relations. IT IS NOT AN INSTITUTION OF SERFDOM like in Europe, but the world is not like Europe. So we are making a connection and that is about it.
2) The peasantry's surplus is extracted the sameway a landlord does it. Kind of like in the form of share-cropping
In any case, the peasant is not "independent" despite the so called landreforms.

So in a sense, my use of the word feudalistic is to show the lack of an agricultural transformation in North Korean case. In "historical materialist" terms, this means that they have no had a transformation of productive forces, the technology, the way of doing things which would supply an industrialization effort.

HENCE, my insistance that capital still have a progressive role to play there. AFAIK, they did not have any transformation of capital.

[FSL]

Really? Really?

Look, I'm not saying the information is put right out in front of our faces - but just by looking at this forum or the access those of us in America, Britain, etc have to the internet... theres a hell of a lot of information available to us. We might have to do the work toward finding and learning it, but it's available.

To actually say what you said, you either have to be willfully blind for some obtuse political reason or are just trolling, honestly.

In North Korea, what we do know, they have no access to information. They are truly living the "I love Big Brother" nightmare scenario of a fictional reality presented for them. Reality, itself, is constructed because information is so contained and controlled.

I'm not saying in the west consent isn't manufactured, that the media isn't a powerhouse of propaganda. But it isn't North Korea. North Korea is the west's propaganda machine, run by a pseduo-theocratic despotic juche state, on nitrous oxide.
How do they have no access to information? Are you claiming they don't have news over there or are you claiming there are no international news?
Because I'm pretty sure they have both.


You might of course say they're portrayed subjectively or whatever but what I'm more interested is that you can first make a case about the apparent wealth of available info here and then continue with a very misinformed -to say the least- statement: "In North Korea, what we do know, they have no access to information."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Really? Really?

Look, I'm not saying the information is put right out in front of our faces - but just by looking at this forum or the access those of us in America, Britain, etc have to the internet... theres a hell of a lot of information available to us. We might have to do the work toward finding and learning it, but it's available.

To actually say what you said, you either have to be willfully blind for some obtuse political reason or are just trolling, honestly.

In North Korea, what we do know, they have no access to information. They are truly living the "I love Big Brother" nightmare scenario of a fictional reality presented for them. Reality, itself, is constructed because information is so contained and controlled.

I'm not saying in the west consent isn't manufactured, that the media isn't a powerhouse of propaganda. But it isn't North Korea. North Korea is the west's propaganda machine, run by a pseduo-theocratic despotic juche state, on nitrous oxide.

Isn't nitrous oxide an anaesthetic in large concentrations? As for my position - I neither particularly like the DPRK (although I certainly don't consider it feudal - pardon, feudalistic - on which more later), nor am I trolling. But the notion that the citizens of the DPRK are a passive, brainwashed mass is not based on anything other than Cold War propaganda, to put it mildly (and people used to say the same things about the citizens of the SU, the Chinese, even Yugoslavs).

Of course the North Korean government restricts access to the Internet (but then again, so do most Western governments and their puppets). But the country isn't hermetically sealed.

And Dogukan, for all of your "anti-dogmatic" posturing, you seem to have picked up quite a few Cold War social-democratic dogmas yourself. As for your assertions that North Korea is "feudalistic", well:


Anyhow, the reason I called N.Korea feudalistic is because their economy have not transformed any significantly since 1950s.

In the sense that the relations of production have remained substantially the same as they were in the fifties? Sure. The same goes for America (in fact the relations of production in America have been substantially the same since the end of the Civil War, with the exception of the disappearance of sharecropping).

In the sense that there has been no technological innovation? That is simply incorrect.

And before the fifties, Korea wasn't a feudal or "feudalistic" state, but a colony of Japanese imperialism. There was extensive capitalist development in North Korea during the Japanese occupation.


As far as I know, 1.Kim dude pushed some land-reforms. The same process for instance happened in South Korea where they created an "independent peasantry" whereas they turned the ex-landowners into urban entrepreneurs by the hand of a -coercive- American backed state. By today, S.Korean economy has transformed into a highly industrialized economy where a few portion of the population is employed in the agricultural sector.

In contrast, N.Korea is not industrialzied at all.

With due respect, you don't appear to have any knowledge of North Korea. Industry makes up around 80% of the total output of the North Korean economy.


A LARGE portion of the population still lives in rural areas

(1) Rural areas aren't necessarily devoid of industry; and
(2) do you think this has something to do with the massive famine caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, imperialist encirclement, and natural disasters?


1)In N.Korea, people are bound to the land they live in. They CANNOT leave the land without special permission. In that sense it is similar to the serfdom relations. IT IS NOT AN INSTITUTION OF SERFDOM like in Europe, but the world is not like Europe. So we are making a connection and that is about it.

Restrictions on movement aren't necessarily feudal or "feudalistic", which apparently means whatever is convenient for you at the moment. The RSFSR also had restrictions on movement and employment.


2) The peasantry's surplus is extracted the sameway a landlord does it. Kind of like in the form of share-cropping

You'll have to explain how you think the agricultural surplus is extracted and what the similarities to sharecropping are.


In any case, the peasant is not "independent" despite the so called landreforms.

The independence of the peasantry is not a prerequisite for either capitalism (obviously in an advanced capitalist agriculture the countryside is dominated by agricultural trusts) nor socialism (as the peasantry can't exist in socialism).


HENCE, my insistance that capital still have a progressive role to play there. AFAIK, they did not have any transformation of capital.

And hence, your Shachtmanite conclusion that an imperialist intervention into the DPRK should be welcomed. Quite an apt illustration of the value of bourgeois "Marxianism".

[Five Year Plan]

I am not particularly well-read on North Korean economy. I used the word feudalistic for the sake of the argument. If we are to go by your definition of feudalism, it has only existed in Europe and to an extend in Japan.

The word feudalism in economic history is used in a way larger context than it is in Europe. Either you accept that, or you have to take feudalism as a particularly unique phenomena to Europe.

Anyhow, the reason I called N.Korea feudalistic is because their economy have not transformed any significantly since 1950s. As far as I know, 1.Kim dude pushed some land-reforms. The same process for instance happened in South Korea where they created an "independent peasantry" whereas they turned the ex-landowners into urban entrepreneurs by the hand of a -coercive- American backed state. By today, S.Korean economy has transformed into a highly industrialized economy where a few portion of the population is employed in the agricultural sector.

In contrast, N.Korea is not industrialzied at all. A LARGE portion of the population still lives in rural areas whereas cities like Pyongyang tend to have rather more privileged people(I am referring to the N.Korean dude here).
THe reason I used the word feudal-istic is because
1)In N.Korea, people are bound to the land they live in. They CANNOT leave the land without special permission. In that sense it is similar to the serfdom relations. IT IS NOT AN INSTITUTION OF SERFDOM like in Europe, but the world is not like Europe. So we are making a connection and that is about it.
2) The peasantry's surplus is extracted the sameway a landlord does it. Kind of like in the form of share-cropping
In any case, the peasant is not "independent" despite the so called landreforms.

You are posting on a board with a lot of Marxists, some of whom are quite knowledgeable about things like modes of production, forms of exploitation, and all that stuff. You need to understand that "feudalism" has a specific meaning, a meaning different than the one you want to attribute to it, which seems to be "rural" or "rustic" or "subsistence agriculture." I explained what the meaning is above, and the forms of agriculture practiced by North Koreans has absolutely nothing to do with feudalism except in the sense I mention above: both are involve agricultural production, mostly for subsistence, in rural areas.

You claim, "2) The peasantry's surplus is extracted the sameway a landlord does it. Kind of like in the form of share-cropping." I've already explained how both of these comparisons are off base. Unless you can show how specific members of the North Korean ruling bureaucracy control and have a claim to specific portions of land in North Korea, they are not "like landlords."

At best, the relationship is one of tributary taxation by a central bureaucracy of a rural peasantry. But even here, I am highly skeptical that this is taking place: do the peasants in North Korea pay their taxes to the bureaucracy in kind, in the form of their agricultural surplus? Is there a fixed quantity of agricultural produce they owe that central bureaucracy?


So in a sense, my use of the word feudalistic is to show the lack of an agricultural transformation in North Korean case. In "historical materialist" terms, this means that they have no had a transformation of productive forces, the technology, the way of doing things which would supply an industrialization effort.

HENCE, my insistance that capital still have a progressive role to play there. AFAIK, they did not have any transformation of capital.

Your problem is that you fail to understand capitalism as an international world-historical phenomenon, and violently abstract the conditions in North Korea from that context. The way you talk about the country and its people, they have been (mostly) left behind as a some sort of 19th century relic that hasn't gone through capitalist development and exists independent of it.

The reality is that North Korea's underdevelopment, the relatively backward state of its forces of production, and all the rest are the result of the pressures imposed by international capitalism. The ruling bureaucracy of the DPRK refuse to open their country fully to the flows of international capital (cannot "develop" as you might say) precisely because if they did so, they would be politically neutered, and rule within the country would effectively devolve to an economic base outside of their control (and under the control of international capital). And if they were ever topped by western capitalism, the DPRK would continue to be underdeveloped, its natural resources pillaged, its labor exploited for the production of commodities for foreign consumers, etc.

In the final analysis, the workers of the DPRK have only three choices on the table: (1) exploitation by an indigenous state bureaucracy, (2) exploitation by international capital, or (3) proletarian rule.

Of these three options, only one of these is politically and economically progressive. I'll leave it to you to guess which.

[Dodo]

And Dogukan, for all of your "anti-dogmatic" posturing, you seem to have picked up quite a few Cold War social-democratic dogmas yourself. As for your assertions that North Korea is "feudalistic", well:
You see, you are still trying to "categorize" me in a tendency due to your rigid partisan views. This is at the core of our debate the way I see it so far.



In the sense that the relations of production have remained substantially the same as they were in the fifties? Sure. The same goes for America (in fact the relations of production in America have been substantially the same since the end of the Civil War, with the exception of the disappearance of sharecropping).Again, you are trying to categorize the world rigidly in
primitive communism-slavery-feudalism-capitalism
So for you, N.Korea being beyond its feudal past must have been in capitalism since 50s, therefore they are the same.
The Marxist view is not this rigid categorization but the driving force of change. There is nothing "in motion" and dialectical about this "static" understanding of the world.


In the sense that there has been no technological innovation? That is simply incorrect.

And before the fifties, Korea wasn't a feudal or "feudalistic" state, but a colony of Japanese imperialism. There was extensive capitalist development in North Korea during the Japanese occupation.*Transformation of productive forces refers to something a whole lot more than "tehnical change".

Additionally, capitalist development is not identical either. In fact, this view is held by the groups that you are without-being aware siding with right now such as that of I.Wallerstein.
There is a difference between the nature of capital's development and that is why we are having this debate here(with me claiming that capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea).
Capital can be organized in an "extractive" way, like under Japanese colonialism, in Africa(even after colonialism) and S.America.
However, capital can also be organized progressively, like that of in S.Korea or in Taiwan.

How do you make the difference between North and South? I asked the same question to icepick which he avoided.
Both of them were under similar conditions in the late 40s, wtih North holding the more valuable natural resources in the mountains such as coal and south literally having nothing but peasants.
50 years have passed, North Korea is at the exact same spot. South Korea is a top 15 economy. The African and South American countries that were ages ahead of S.Korea are now under South Korean capitalist-imperialism.
How do you explain this?




With due respect, you don't appear to have any knowledge of North Korea. Industry makes up around 80% of the total output of the North Korean economy.For the record, not even classical historical materialists look at structural transformation based on output.
First of all, that output can still be "agricultural" output, i.e primary products and not consumer goods.
Secondly and more importantly, a country's developedness is measured by its distribution of labor-force. While I doubt anyone has clear data on this, this is what I came across in wiki:

Labor force (20 million) - by occupation:[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea#cite_note-55)


Agricultural: 37%
Industry and services: 63%

---------------


By contrast, South Korea:
Labour force
by occupation Agriculture: 6.4%, industry: 24.2%, services: 69.4% (2011 est.)





(1) Rural areas aren't necessarily devoid of industry; andTrue


(2) do you think this has something to do with the massive famine caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, imperialist encirclement, and natural disasters?It has to do with everything. However, the fact of the matter remains that it did not see the face of progressive capital since its feudal times.




Restrictions on movement aren't necessarily feudal or "feudalistic", which apparently means whatever is convenient for you at the moment. The RSFSR also had restrictions on movement and employment.
You can play with words as much as you want. Restriction of movement is not a unique phenomena of feudalism. The point is, within the context of production relations, in classical European feudalism and later Eastern European serfdom, a serf is bound to the land by contract. This is a direct result of hegemony and a restriction for transformation as it prevents social mobility.
There is a good reason during the French revolution peasants literally smashed these instituions and signed it with blood.

The point remains that there are feudalistic tendencies left from feudal times due to lack of capital transformation.


You'll have to explain how you think the agricultural surplus is extracted and what the similarities to sharecropping are.To be honest, I am not as familiar with N.Korean economy.
Fact of the matter remains that I do not say N.Korea is "feudal" but feudalistic and therefore capital has a progressive role to play.

But for the record, in many parts of the world, share-cropping, wage labour, independent peasant, tenancy who pays part of income...etc still exists(add the list outright slavery in its various forms, even chattel slavery) and sometimes even co-exists. Under what you would rigidly categorize as capitalism. What is my point in this? Under capitalism, there is no standard "production relation" that is universal.
There is an immense difference between the enclosed English rural areas(from feudal serfdom to large-capitalist landowner) and French rural areas where peasantry(as in aristocrats are pretty dead since the insisted in not transforming to commercial ways) remains a significant group.




The independence of the peasantry is not a prerequisite for either capitalism (obviously in an advanced capitalist agriculture the countryside is dominated by agricultural trusts) nor socialism (as the peasantry can't exist in socialism).I know. The reason I said the peasant is not independent was to show you that there are feudalistic tendencies. Not that peasant cannot exist under capitalism. Slavery can exist under capitalism as well. Does that make a capitalist mode of production, a slave mode of production?




And hence, your Shachtmanite conclusion that an imperialist intervention into the DPRK should be welcomed. Quite an apt illustration of the value of bourgeois "Marxianism".:laugh: come at me dogma
Or should I call OUTRIGHT LIES?

Apparently now I
*support imperialist intervention by my logic
*am a Shachtmanite because tendency accusation solves all the problems
*Am a bourgeouisie Marxianist, I assume something like Barrington Moore Jr? Nothing says you are not a Marxist liek throwing around the word "bourgeouisie". Such cheap shots.

Do you honestly believe this is the right attitude?

[Dodo]

You are posting on a board with a lot of Marxists, some of whom are quite knowledgeable about things like modes of production, forms of exploitation, and all that stuff.

That is all fine and well. However when it is not combined with a general knowledge of contemporary knowledge, people end up repeating things like parrots.
In addition, I challenge that notion of "Marxists" who try to explain the world rigidly through a static historical materialism. That is not what Marx did at all anyways. It has a lot to do with the "scientific tradition" that formed through Engels. Marx was not creating a positive science, Marxism is literally a negative reading of the world an up-side down one. I'll make a thread about this soon to make my point better.


You need to understand that "feudalism" has a specific meaning, a meaning different than the one you want to attribute to it, which seems to be "rural" or "rustic" or "subsistence agriculture." I explained what the meaning is above, and the forms of agriculture practiced by North Koreans has absolutely nothing to do with feudalism except in the sense I mention above: both are involve agricultural production, mostly for subsistence, in rural areas.I do not know why you guys keep doing the same thing but I never claimed N.Korea is feudalism. My point is, you cannot RIGIDLY seperate feudalism and capitalism as two distant stages. There is always a transitioning period of motion.
There is no static, year 5 we are in feudalism, year 6 we are in capitalism therefore everything feudal is gone.
Anyone who does that, is either not a Marxist, or seriously misunderstood Marxism.



You claim, "2) The peasantry's surplus is extracted the sameway a landlord does it. Kind of like in the form of share-cropping." I've already explained how both of these comparisons are off base. Unless you can show how specific members of the North Korean ruling bureaucracy control and have a claim to specific portions of land in North Korea, they are not "like landlords."Like I told to Vincent, multiple forms of extraction can co-exist under a certain mode of production. There were capitalistic relations in feudal England just as there was slavery under capitalist America.

The point here is, N.Korean peasants, despite being "independent" give away their surplus/or a portion of it, just as a landlord takes it away.
Whether it is tenancy with sharecropping or paying a part of income which you call "tributary".


At best, the relationship is one of tributary taxation by a central bureaucracy of a rural peasantry. But even here, I am highly skeptical that this is taking place: do the peasants in North Korea pay their taxes to the bureaucracy in kind, in the form of their agricultural surplus? Is there a fixed quantity of agricultural produce they owe that central bureaucracy?If you want to delve further into these relations I am up for a more in-depth analysis of Korean mode of production and its relations.
You have to understand that so far my whole claim is that it is "feudalistic"


Your problem is that you fail to understand capitalism as an international world-historical phenomenon, and violently abstract the conditions in North Korea from that context. The way you talk about the country and its people, they have been (mostly) left behind as a some sort of 19th century relic that hasn't gone through capitalist development and exists independent of it.

The reality is that North Korea's underdevelopment, the relatively backward state of its forces of production, and all the rest are the result of the pressures imposed by international capitalism. The ruling bureaucracy of the DPRK refuse to open their country fully to the flows of international capital (cannot "develop" as you might say) precisely because if they did so, they would be politically neutered, and rule within the country would effectively devolve to an economic base outside of their control (and under the control of international capital). And if they were ever topped by western capitalism, the DPRK would continue to be underdeveloped, its natural resources pillaged, its labor exploited for the production of commodities for foreign consumers, etc.I do not know what makes you say that, that I am unaware of effects of imperialism. In the development program I am in, I read more about effects of colonialism and imperialism than anything else.
However, transformation is not something solely external. In fact there is not much dialectics about looking for reasons that are external. Thats what bourgeouisie does(analytical, external reasoning: so not dialectical), Brenner calls these "Marxists" neo-Smithian even.
http://newleftreview.org/I/104/robert-brenner-the-origins-of-capitalist-development-a-critique-of-neo-smithian-marxism
Not that I am pro-Brenner but he makes a very good point here:

The appearance of systematic barriers to economic advance in the course of capitalist expansion—the ‘development of underdevelopment’—has posed difficult problems for Marxist theory.
(http://newleftreview.org/I/104/robert-brenner-the-origins-of-capitalist-development-a-critique-of-neo-smithian-marxism#_edn*) There has arisen, in response, a strong tendency sharply to revise Marx’s conceptions regarding economic development. In part, this has been a healthy reaction to the Marx of the Manifesto, who envisioned a more or less direct and inevitable process of capitalist expansion: undermining old modes of production, replacing them with capitalist social productive relations and, on this basis, setting off a process of capital accumulation and economic development more or less following the pattern of the original homelands of capitalism. In the famous phrases of the Communist Manifesto: ‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in an altered form was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty, and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. The bourgeoisie . . . draw all, even the most barbarian nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls . . . It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, to become bourgeois themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its own image.’

Capitalist development is not something solely external. One has to have a serious look at internal class relations as well.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN however that I say imperialism and effect of global capital is irrevelant, not at all.
It is a COMBO.






In the final analysis, the workers of the DPRK have only three choices on the table: (1) exploitation by an indigenous state bureaucracy, (2) exploitation by international capital, or (3) proletarian rule.

Of these three options, only one of these is politically and economically progressive. I'll leave it to you to guess which.I'd say that is a reductionist approach. I doubt there is going to be a proleterian rule in N.Korea anytime soon within the given context.

In fact, it is likely that, just as in China, USSR and other "socialist" regimes of 20th century, the economic scarcity will most likely lead to totaltiarian tendencies, bureucratizations of production relations and a one big massive failure.

[Five Year Plan]

That is all fine and well. However when it is not combined with a general knowledge of contemporary knowledge, people end up repeating things like parrots.
In addition, I challenge that notion of "Marxists" who try to explain the world rigidly through a static historical materialism. That is not what Marx did at all anyways. It has a lot to do with the "scientific tradition" that formed through Engels. Marx was not creating a positive science, Marxism is literally a negative reading of the world an up-side down one. I'll make a thread about this soon to make my point better.

I'll keep this in mind if I ever become interested in the Dogukan opinion on Marxism. It just so happens that understanding your view of Marxism is not the reason I am in this discussion. It's to talk about North Korea.


I do not know why you guys keep doing the same thing but I never claimed N.Korea is feudalism. My point is, you cannot RIGIDLY seperate feudalism and capitalism as two distant stages. There is always a transitioning period of motion.
There is no static, year 5 we are in feudalism, year 6 we are in capitalism therefore everything feudal is gone.
Anyone who does that, is either not a Marxist, or seriously misunderstood Marxism.

You are conflating two separate issues: the definition of feudalism, and the transition between feudalism and other modes of production. If you can't define feudalism properly in terms of what Brenner (whom you quote so approvingly below) calls "social property relations," there's no way you can shed any light on the more complex question of transitional forms.

You never claimed North Korea "is feudalism" (I guess you mean "has a feudal mode of production"), but what you did say was that it is "feudalistic." Since you haven't elucidated what you mean by this term, I can only guess it means it shares certain attributes with feudalism like the ones I mentioned in my previous post. Those attributes ("rustic," "being tied to the land," etc.) are not specific to feudalism, as Vincent West has also pointed out, but exist across multiple modes of production, including feudalism, the tributary mode, and even small-scale capitalist agriculture. "Feudalistic" as an analytic description does not clarify any important issues, and actually obscures important differences by foregrounding abstract similarities without understanding how those similarities might function differently as a result of the completely different contexts in which they are situated.


Like I told to Vincent, multiple forms of extraction can co-exist under a certain mode of production. There were capitalistic relations in feudal England just as there was slavery under capitalist America.

Nobody is disputing that multiple forms of surplus extraction can co-exist. What we're disputing is that a feudal mode of extraction exists in North Korea at all.


The point here is, N.Korean peasants, despite being "independent" give away their surplus/or a portion of it, just as a landlord takes it away.
Whether it is tenancy with sharecropping or paying a part of income which you call "tributary".

North Korean farmers giving away a portion of their surplus to the state is not sufficient for there to be a tributary mode of production, anymore than my paying an income tax to the national government in the US means that I am being exploited by a non-bourgeois tributary state. The tributary mode exists when the ruling class relies for its reproduction on the extraction of that tribute for its own reproduction. In the DPRK, the ruling class relies overwhelmingly on the extraction of surplus value from workers. The state may tax farmers, but that does not make it a tributary mode. It's another example of you using bad abstractions and being unable to think dialectically by relating parts to a whole.


If you want to delve further into these relations I am up for a more in-depth analysis of Korean mode of production and its relations.
You have to understand that so far my whole claim is that it is "feudalistic"

A claim that you have not explained at all, instead falling back on vague proclamations about what Marxist theory is or isn't.


I do not know what makes you say that, that I am unaware of effects of imperialism. In the development program I am in, I read more about effects of colonialism and imperialism than anything else.
However, transformation is not something solely external. In fact there is not much dialectics about looking for reasons that are external. Thats what bourgeouisie does(analytical, external reasoning: so not dialectical), Brenner calls these "Marxists" neo-Smithian even.
http://newleftreview.org/I/104/robert-brenner-the-origins-of-capitalist-development-a-critique-of-neo-smithian-marxism
Not that I am pro-Brenner but he makes a very good point here:

The appearance of systematic barriers to economic advance in the course of capitalist expansion—the ‘development of underdevelopment’—has posed difficult problems for Marxist theory.
(http://newleftreview.org/I/104/robert-brenner-the-origins-of-capitalist-development-a-critique-of-neo-smithian-marxism#_edn*) There has arisen, in response, a strong tendency sharply to revise Marx’s conceptions regarding economic development. In part, this has been a healthy reaction to the Marx of the Manifesto, who envisioned a more or less direct and inevitable process of capitalist expansion: undermining old modes of production, replacing them with capitalist social productive relations and, on this basis, setting off a process of capital accumulation and economic development more or less following the pattern of the original homelands of capitalism. In the famous phrases of the Communist Manifesto: ‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in an altered form was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty, and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. The bourgeoisie . . . draw all, even the most barbarian nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls . . . It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, to become bourgeois themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its own image.’

Capitalist development is not something solely external. One has to have a serious look at internal class relations as well.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN however that I say imperialism and effect of global capital is irrevelant, not at all.
It is a COMBO.

You devote multiple paragraphs to explaining that capitalist development is not something solely external, when my entire point was that your analysis does not account for the international context at all. I hope you are discerning enough to be able to grasp this distinction. You have a mechanistic understanding of capitalist development as always and for all time conforming to the Western European model of steady and progressive growth. This is why you, oddly, insert Brenner's remarks about the transition from feudalism to capitalism in 16th century England in a discussion about a country that made such a transition hundreds of years later.

You do not show any indication that you understanding the concept of uneven development, which is that capitalism in North Korea cannot and will not (ever) look like capitalist development as it occurred very early on, when much the world actually was still dominated by tributary and feudal regimes. The DPRK was a relative late-comer to capitalism. No independent progressive path of capitalist development exists for it, in the way that it existed for the UK when capitalism was a breakthrough that outstripped the productive capacities of all extant modes of production. Capitalism in the DPRK has always meant, and will always mean, being poached by the bigger capitalist fish in the global ocean that we call "international capitalism."


I'd say that is a reductionist approach. I doubt there is going to be a proleterian rule in N.Korea anytime soon within the given context.

In fact, it is likely that, just as in China, USSR and other "socialist" regimes of 20th century, the economic scarcity will most likely lead to totaltiarian tendencies, bureucratizations of production relations and a one big massive failure.

If you characterize China and the USSR as "socialist," then there's no wonder why you're failing to grasp basic points your interlocutors are making in this thread.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You see, you are still trying to "categorize" me in a tendency due to your rigid partisan views. This is at the core of our debate the way I see it so far.

No, "at the core" of our debate is your nonsensical assertion that the DPRK is "feudalistic". Your one-man crusade against "dogmatism", which you seem to define as anything other than reverent deference to the "Marxians" you like, is quite frankly besides the point.


Again, you are trying to categorize the world rigidly in
primitive communism-slavery-feudalism-capitalism

No, I'm not. In fact you're the one who would like to subsume every mode of production between the slave-owning society and capitalism under the label "feudalistic", which ignores the differences between feudalism (in its Western European form, the Byzantine pronoia system, Japanese feudalism etc.), the Asiatic mode of production and so on.


So for you, N.Korea being beyond its feudal past must have been in capitalism since 50s, therefore they are the same.

Actually - and in this case I suppose I am in disagreement with comrade aufheben - I view the DPRK as a transitional society undergoing extreme bureaucratic degeneration.


The Marxist view is not this rigid categorization but the driving force of change. There is nothing "in motion" and dialectical about this "static" understanding of the world.

What a boringly pedestrian objection. Of course no one thinks the North Korean society hasn't changed at all, or that American society hasn't changed at all, but this change hasn't resulted in a change of the mode of production. Of course, some people are politically invested in ignoring modes of production as social configurations that are stable over an extended period of time - if we do away with the notion of a mode of production, we can present any slight change to how capitalism functions as an epochal breakthrough.


*Transformation of productive forces refers to something a whole lot more than "tehnical change".

Except you said that the lack of "transformation of the economy" makes North Korea "feudalistic". "The economy" isn't the means of production. Not to mention how nonsensical the notion is - and the means of production did grown under the WPK regime, up to the catastrophic famine of the nineties.


Additionally, capitalist development is not identical either. In fact, this view is held by the groups that you are without-being aware siding with right now such as that of I.Wallerstein.

And what does that have to do with anything? It seems like you've realised your argument makes no sense, so now you're just name-dropping.


There is a difference between the nature of capital's development and that is why we are having this debate here(with me claiming that capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea).
Capital can be organized in an "extractive" way, like under Japanese colonialism, in Africa(even after colonialism) and S.America.
However, capital can also be organized progressively, like that of in S.Korea or in Taiwan.

That is the old fantasy of a "progressive" "national" capitalism. What is so "progressive" about South Korea or the GDM remnant on Taiwan?


How do you make the difference between North and South? I asked the same question to icepick which he avoided.
Both of them were under similar conditions in the late 40s, wtih North holding the more valuable natural resources in the mountains such as coal and south literally having nothing but peasants.
50 years have passed, North Korea is at the exact same spot. South Korea is a top 15 economy. The African and South American countries that were ages ahead of S.Korea are now under South Korean capitalist-imperialism.
How do you explain this?

If you look at most of that period, North Korea systematically out-preformed the South Korean regime. The South Korean government itself was shored up by senior imperialist powers, particularly the United States. A similar process happened with the weakened Japanese state. Eventually the periodic re-division of the global market enabled the South Korean and Japanese states to emerge as minor imperialist powers.


For the record, not even classical historical materialists look at structural transformation based on output.
First of all, that output can still be "agricultural" output, i.e primary products and not consumer goods.
Secondly and more importantly, a country's developedness is measured by its distribution of labor-force. While I doubt anyone has clear data on this, this is what I came across in wiki:

Labor force (20 million) - by occupation:[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea#cite_note-55)


Agricultural: 37%
Industry and services: 63%

---------------


By contrast, South Korea:
Labour force
by occupation Agriculture: 6.4%, industry: 24.2%, services: 69.4% (2011 est.)

The output percentage demonstrates that the DPRK has a sizable industry (or alternately an agriculture that couldn't feed seven people, which is beyond the most sensationalist reports about the situation in the country). As for the labour force composition, you're making my point. Your claim that North Korea "isn't industrialised" is nonsensical.

Now it seems that you're talking about something else again (you have an irritating habit of doing this); it seems you are faulting the DPRK for not having a significant service sector. What you haven't explained is why this is regressive (of course, it's regressive if you assume every region will follow the West European development model, but that's an indefensible assumption).


It has to do with everything. However, the fact of the matter remains that it did not see the face of progressive capital since its feudal times.

So you keep asserting without any sort of evidence.


You can play with words as much as you want. Restriction of movement is not a unique phenomena of feudalism. The point is, within the context of production relations, in classical European feudalism and later Eastern European serfdom, a serf is bound to the land by contract. This is a direct result of hegemony and a restriction for transformation as it prevents social mobility.

This is just more "Marxian" verbiage that hides an essentially liberal, abstractly libertarian analysis. Feudalism (manorialism might be a better term) was defined by relations of production and the mode of extraction of surplus value. In fact, feudal relations were possible with (restricted) mobility of the peasants, as in certain Russian principalities, in the shoen system if I'm not mistaken etc.


The point remains that there are feudalistic tendencies left from feudal times due to lack of capital transformation.

Ha, for all your proclamations about dialectics, you seem to have forgotten the negation of the negation - of course specific configurations of capitalism will retain certain features of the previous periods. Much of property law in England, for example, is feudal. Is England "feudalistic", then?


To be honest, I am not as familiar with N.Korean economy.

Well, it's nice to admit that you have no substantial knowledge of the DPRK.


But for the record, in many parts of the world, share-cropping, wage labour, independent peasant, tenancy who pays part of income...etc still exists(add the list outright slavery in its various forms, even chattel slavery) and sometimes even co-exists. Under what you would rigidly categorize as capitalism. What is my point in this? Under capitalism, there is no standard "production relation" that is universal.

Of course wage labour still exists, wage labour defines capitalism. The point is that the existence of survivals of previous periods of economic development, particularly in the periphery of the imperialist system, doesn't make the primary, global mode of production - capitalism - disappear.


I know. The reason I said the peasant is not independent was to show you that there are feudalistic tendencies.

How is the nonexistence of independent peasants "feudalistic"? According to you, socialism must be "feudalistic" as well.



:laugh: come at me dogma
Or should I call OUTRIGHT LIES?

Apparently now I
*support imperialist intervention by my logic

Well, you have said so yourself.



*am a Shachtmanite because tendency accusation solves all the problems

No, but because you think imperialism is "more progressive" than the economic configuration of the former glacis states and their equivalents, which is the defining characteristic of Shachtmanism, along with the anti-theory of "bureaucratic collectivism".


*Am a bourgeouisie Marxianist, I assume something like Barrington Moore Jr? Nothing says you are not a Marxist liek throwing around the word "bourgeouisie". Such cheap shots.

Given that you defend social-democracy and imperialism, yeah, your ideology is bourgeois. If that offends you, perhaps you should rethink your position.

[Dodo]

I'll keep this in mind if I ever become interested in the Dogukan opinion on Marxism. It just so happens that understanding your view of Marxism is not the reason I am in this discussion. It's to talk about North Korea.
Your condescending attitude here aside, it is at the core of the debate. There are tons of explanations for economic transformation, the common notion here is that we all claim we all represent the true Marxist way.

And my motivation here is the breaking of the dogmatic, static and positive history of the world.
The Trotskyist tradition(I had been in a Trotskyist party for more than 5 years now) is not free of this "scientific tradition". This misconception of Marxism is not even rooted in Lenin but at the time of German Marxists where they created the concept of "historical materialism" as a science.
That is not to say that historical materialism is wrong or anything.
The point is, it is not CENTRAL to Marxism or Marx's own framework.
That and there are serious flaws with it, especially if people insist on making it a rigidified social science which Marx was on a crusade to destroy.



You are conflating two separate issues: the definition of feudalism, and the transition between feudalism and other modes of production. If you can't define feudalism properly in terms of what Brenner (whom you quote so approvingly below) calls "social property relations," there's no way you can shed any light on the more complex question of transitional forms.


There is no single definition of feudalism. If we define feudalism based on what it was in Europe than feudalism ONLY existed in Europe. Not even whole of Europe. There is a massive difference between Junkers of Germany, powerful aristocratic landowners of England and absolutist French monarchy.
I am not trying to define feudalism here, I am pointing out to common themes of feudal relations and showing you the similarities to it in North Korea.
My point in quoting Brenner does not come from his definition of feudalism but the group he represents. He is actually an important Trotskyist economic historian who was dealing against more USSR-close economic historians.


You never claimed North Korea "is feudalism" (I guess you mean "has a feudal mode of production"), but what you did say was that it is "feudalistic." Since you haven't elucidated what you mean by this term, I can only guess it means it shares certain attributes with feudalism like the ones I mentioned in my previous post. Those attributes ("rustic," "being tied to the land," etc.) are not specific to feudalism, as Vincent West has also pointed out, but exist across multiple modes of production, including feudalism, the tributary mode, and even small-scale capitalist agriculture. "Feudalistic" as an analytic description does not clarify any important issues, and actually obscures important differences by foregrounding abstract similarities without understanding how those similarities might function differently as a result of the completely different contexts in which they are situated.
Yeah but what do you mean by tributary mode of production? The hell did that come from? What kind of scholarly attitude is this? Its either in the rigid historical materialist group, if it does not fit that it is "asiatic mode of production" it is "tributary"....a massive and ridiculous generalization which does not say ANYTHING about the economic relations.

In addition, by taking the debate out of its context, it is you who is running this debate into a pointless discussion of abstraction.

My point is, N.Korea carries with it a feudalistic tendency, or lets say a "tributary mode of production"...the point is, capital can easily have a progressive role to play there.





Nobody is disputing that multiple forms of surplus extraction can co-exist. What we're disputing is that a feudal mode of extraction exists in North Korea at all.
I am not so sure about that.
The moment I said that Korea had feudalistic relations I was attacked by a"stagist" understanding of history, particularly by icepick who seems to really like your posts here.
Vincent also argued that outdated modes of production of feudalism has no place in Korea.

I argue that there had been so little transformation in N.Korea. Instead there had been feudal period followed by Japanese colonialism and extractive-colonial capital followed by a progressive revolution which turned totalitarian under conditions of scarcity and imperialism due to obsession with self-sufficiency. But capital still can play a progressive role. And my proof is the East Asian economic take-off, mainly S.Korea for it is such an identical case that allows us for a clear empirical comparison. Same insitutional framework, same history of feudalism and colonialism, 60 years, mountains apart economic transformation.





North Korean farmers giving away a portion of their surplus to the state is not sufficient for there to be a tributary mode of production, anymore than my paying an income tax to the national government in the US means that I am being exploited by a non-bourgeois tributary state. The tributary mode exists when the ruling class relies for its reproduction on the extraction of that tribute for its own reproduction. In the DPRK, the ruling class relies overwhelmingly on the extraction of surplus value from workers. The state may tax farmers, but that does not make it a tributary mode. It's another example of you using bad abstractions and being unable to think dialectically by relating parts to a whole.

Like I said above, if you take the debate out of its context this is going to be a pointless debate of abstraction.
My point is, Korean production relations have changed little for a large-chunk of the population. We judge economies by its transformation, particularly by its "structural transformation" which have happened so little in N.Korea.
The mode of production taken over from feudal times by Japanese had been touched little, while it turned it into a more "extractive" of primary sources for imperialist expansion.
Post-Japan there was progressive leadership in a backwards economy which failed to transform under imperialism and economic scarcity, which ended up being a totalitarian dictatorship.
THEREFORE, it carries with it a lot of what remains from the feudal period due to lack of a strong transformation. In such conditions, the ruling itself takes the form of "feudalistic" relations. That does not make it a feudal kingdom of serfdom. Aye?


A claim that you have not explained at all, instead falling back on vague proclamations about what Marxist theory is or isn't.

I explained further above in this post now. I explained earlier as well the main points.
The peasantry's capital extraction is similar to the feudalism or absentee landlordism which had been built upon feudalism. Capital does not change from one stage to another, it dialectically moves from ITS PRECONDITIONS to ITS POTENTIAL.

In that sense, Korean capital, which is land here has still carries the obvious mark of its preconditions.




You devote multiple paragraphs to explaining that capitalist development is not something solely external, when my entire point was that your analysis does not account for the international context at all. I hope you are discerning enough to be able to grasp this distinction. You have a mechanistic understanding of capitalist development as always and for all time conforming to the Western European model of steady and progressive growth. This is why you, oddly, insert Brenner's remarks about the transition from feudalism to capitalism in 16th century England in a discussion about a country that made such a transition hundreds of years later.

There are a lot of claims here that have nothing to do with what I said. I did not even quote Brenner to point to English capitalism but to "internal logic" of capital.

That, and you can refer to the more clear point I made above.



You do not show any indication that you understanding the concept of uneven development, which is that capitalism in North Korea cannot and will not (ever) look like capitalist development as it occurred very early on, when much the world actually was still dominated by tributary and feudal regimes. The DPRK was a relative late-comer to capitalism. No independent progressive path of capitalist development exists for it, in the way that it existed for the UK when capitalism was a breakthrough that outstripped the productive capacities of all extant modes of production. Capitalism in the DPRK has always meant, and will always mean, being poached by the bigger capitalist fish in the global ocean that we call "international capitalism."

While I am not in disagreement with the imperialist pulse. I wonder how you explain S.Korean development if you love to rigidify your view so much?
You seem to be sure of "and will always mean, being poached by the bigger capitalist fish in the global ocean", why was not the case in Asia?
In Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and to an extend Philippines? And how do you explain REALLY LATE Chinese and Vietnamese integration into world-economy?
How am I to explain the immense Chinese and Vietnamese growth rates when they started to employ capital progressively?

By referring uneven development you do not solve any of the issues here. While I do not have big problems with the concept, Trotsky died long-ago. You cannot take this theory as an absolute analysis which gives you answers to everything.



If you characterize China and the USSR as "socialist," then there's no wonder why you're failing to grasp basic points your interlocutors are making in this thread.
check the quotatian signs around "socialism"

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

We judge economies by its transformation, particularly by its "structural transformation" which have happened so little in N.Korea.

No, we don't. Your "Marxians" might, but Marxists, those who have remained in contact with the class struggle and the political practice that forms the only criterion of truth, instead of shutting themselves in the academia, don't.

[Five Year Plan]

Dancing around the points.

You keep crying out that people are misrepresenting your use of the term "feudalistic," but haven't explained what you mean by the term even after being asked multiple times.

I will repeat myself yet again: what do you mean by "feudalistic"? And how does this differ from a part of a social formation with feudalism as a mode of production?

[Dodo]

No, "at the core" of our debate is your nonsensical assertion that the DPRK is "feudalistic". Your one-man crusade against "dogmatism", which you seem to define as anything other than reverent deference to the "Marxians" you like, is quite frankly besides the point.
I used Marxian ages ago on something else. Here in this debate I am debating through straight Marxists. It seems to me that your Marxism ends at Trotsky in 1940s. The debates around a lot of core concept had been far deepened for a long time. Around 1970s actally, Marxism had reached its peak in scholarly debates both in West and "East".

You do not have to stick with the concept of feudalistic. My main argument is not that N.Korea is "feudal" or even "feudalistic", my main point is that capital can easily have a progressive role to play in conditions of such backwardness which I linked to "feudalistic" connections of the capital.





No, I'm not. In fact you're the one who would like to subsume every mode of production between the slave-owning society and capitalism under the label "feudalistic", which ignores the differences between feudalism (in its Western European form, the Byzantine pronoia system, Japanese feudalism etc.), the Asiatic mode of production and so on.
Where did I do that? I have no intention of categorizing modes of production in stages. The whole reason this debate took off is because icepick to a rather ridiculing attitude where he claimed that there cannot be "feudalism in one country" in 21st century and whatever that means.



Actually - and in this case I suppose I am in disagreement with comrade aufheben - I view the DPRK as a transitional society undergoing extreme bureaucratic degeneration.
Which is fine by me.




What a boringly pedestrian objection. Of course no one thinks the North Korean society hasn't changed at all, or that American society hasn't changed at all, but this change hasn't resulted in a change of the mode of production. Of course, some people are politically invested in ignoring modes of production as social configurations that are stable over an extended period of time - if we do away with the notion of a mode of production, we can present any slight change to how capitalism functions as an epochal breakthrough.

My whole objection is that capital cannot be viewed in this stage or that stage in rigid forms. At some point one becomes dominant, that is about it.
More than this, I did not claim .




Except you said that the lack of "transformation of the economy" makes North Korea "feudalistic". "The economy" isn't the means of production. Not to mention how nonsensical the notion is - and the means of production did grown under the WPK regime, up to the catastrophic famine of the nineties.
It kept changing, it never stopped changing. The point is it never made that qualitative leap into industrialization. It is not an "industrial" society, it is a society that is in high need of squezing agriculture for making any industry. There is still a large portion of population employed in agriculture just to keep people at subsistance. It has so much low productivity yet it tries to maintain an industry. Thats one of the reason people are seriously hungry and poor.



And what does that have to do with anything? It seems like you've realised your argument makes no sense, so now you're just name-dropping.
It means a whole lot more than you think. Its just you people do not seem to be aware of it since Marxism stops at Trotsky's uneven-development in 40s for you whereas Marxist ebates have deepened and expanded way too much after that. The Brenner debate represents an important divergance in Marxian analysis of history which is here with us right now as well without your awareness of it.



That is the old fantasy of a "progressive" "national" capitalism. What is so "progressive" about South Korea or the GDM remnant on Taiwan?
What is progressive since quiet relative since I tried to establish that before. My reference point is the living standards available to working class and level of freedom that comes with it, or lets say abundance of consumer goods under capitalism.
That is not my measure of "progress" btw, but living stds is a standard of measuring under capitalism.
Under historical materialism, Marxist's measure development by "producitivty levels" for economy since Marx himself.

Taiwan and S.Korea are productive countries now, producing for the whole world and labor conditions are far better than N.Korea.
That happened through capitalism.




If you look at most of that period, North Korea systematically out-preformed the South Korean regime. The South Korean government itself was shored up by senior imperialist powers, particularly the United States. A similar process happened with the weakened Japanese state. Eventually the periodic re-division of the global market enabled the South Korean and Japanese states to emerge as minor imperialist powers.
And N.Korea was shored up by China and USSR.
The fact of the matter is, the STRUCTURAL CHANGE in these countries ended up skyrocketing productivity levels making them imperialists of East Asian Periphery.

However your answer comes nowhere clear to explaining why South Korea skyrocketted so much with progressive transformation of capital(for the record, S.Korea was not capitalism in the western sense, it was a technocratic state with high state intervention) whereas N.Korea remains where it is.

If you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this divergence, your argument that capital has no progressive role to play in the conditions of Korea fails.




The output percentage demonstrates that the DPRK has a sizable industry (or alternately an agriculture that couldn't feed seven people, which is beyond the most sensationalist reports about the situation in the country). As for the labour force composition, you're making my point. Your claim that North Korea "isn't industrialised" is nonsensical.

And whose definition is this based on? N.Korea is an OBVIOUS case of lack of agricultural transformation which is a key-stone to industrialization. Literally, NO COUNTRY ON EARTH(except for the city states of singapore and hong kong) industrialized without an agricultural transformation.
MARX HIMSELF based his definition of capitalism around this. An agricultural transformation where peasantry migrates to cities and creates the proleteriat due to increased productivity in agriculture.

Do not dispute history for the sake of argument here. You are not debating here for the truth anymore, yours is now a personal issue with me. Do admit that please.


Now it seems that you're talking about something else again (you have an irritating habit of doing this); it seems you are faulting the DPRK for not having a significant service sector. What you haven't explained is why this is regressive (of course, it's regressive if you assume every region will follow the West European development model, but that's an indefensible assumption).
It is not out of context. If we get into a philosophical debate over progress, we might end up saying we do not even need production and life is about other things..etc.

We are trying to establish a common language here for the sake of a proper debate. Fortunately for us, Marxists have had no trouble with measuring of progress by positive terms like productivity growth.
And that is what I am referring to.

Additionally, my reference point when dealing with N.Korea's backward situation is not how large the service sector is,but how much of its population is employed in the traditional agricultural sector.




So you keep asserting without any sort of evidence.
The whole argument is on this, what do you mean no evidence?
The size of agricultural labor itself is enough to show how backwards N.korean economy is.
Please do take a moment to think. For the sake of beating me in argument, you are making **** up you would have never did under different circumstances about N.Korea.
I have both my evidence that N.Korea economy is backwards and an amazing empirical case of South Korea to prove the progressive role of capital.
I don't know why you are fo fixated in dogma here. Even Marx was approving of historically progressive role of capital. In fact his analysis of the progressive capitalism was based on relations created by capitalism.

The moment you identify yourself as a socialist without this framework you are in dogmatic territory and it would mean that I'm debating with an Al Qaida dude on Sharia Law.




This is just more "Marxian" verbiage that hides an essentially liberal, abstractly libertarian analysis. Feudalism (manorialism might be a better term) was defined by relations of production and the mode of extraction of surplus value. In fact, feudal relations were possible with (restricted) mobility of the peasants, as in certain Russian principalities, in the shoen system if I'm not mistaken etc.

This has nothing to do with liberalism, this is outright based on empirical evidence. Throwing around accusations of bourgeouisie or liberal is nothing of a scholarly way to debate. You could be calling me an infidel to discredit my authority on an issue, it'd be the same thing.

I do not see the point in this quote. Am I rejecting this?



Ha, for all your proclamations about dialectics, you seem to have forgotten the negation of the negation - of course specific configurations of capitalism will retain certain features of the previous periods. Much of property law in England, for example, is feudal.

Is that not my *whole point* here? The preconditions are always ingrained in now and future is engrained in today, therefore future is in the past.
Hence my insistance that N.Korea carries clear conditions of its feudal past in "feudalistic" relations.

Is England "feudalistic", then?
Nope, we both know that is not my reasoning here.



Of course wage labour still exists, wage labour defines capitalism. The point is that the existence of survivals of previous periods of economic development, particularly in the periphery of the imperialist system, doesn't make the primary, global mode of production - capitalism - disappear.
Erm, is that what I claim?
I view N.Korea as STATE-CAPITALISM.

Actually now that it got to this, I noticed that you might think I mean that North Korea's dominant mode of production is a made-up "feudalistic" mode of production.
I'd go with the more classical notion of a state-capitalism with feudalistic tendencies due to its lack of transformation.




How is the nonexistence of independent peasants "feudalistic"? According to you, socialism must be "feudalistic" as well.

Thats not what I meant. Why the manipulation of words? An independent peasant is a small-holder, a small capitalist. It is no feudalism in this setting.
But when peasant's relation to land is not direct, there is a form of exploitatian that is beyond the "self".
Now, in Korean case, this is not "voluntary" tenancy like under capitalist landlordism.
The coercive-extractive force is the state itself. Call it feudalistic, tributary or degenerate worker's state. Does not matter what name you give to it as long as you are clear on the relations. To me, the reason for this is clear, Korea's lack of transformation and low productivity and the hegemony of the ruling class.



Well, you have said so yourself.

Come on, be more mature than that.


No, but because you think imperialism is "more progressive" than the economic configuration of the former glacis states and their equivalents, which is the defining characteristic of Shachtmanism, along with the anti-theory of "bureaucratic collectivism".
I never said imperialism is more progressive. I said capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea. And imperialism has a potential of bringing it like in the case of S.Korea. Or it can be the opposite like with in Japanese case. However imperialism had never been central to my argument. Capital is.




Given that you defend social-democracy and imperialism, yeah, your ideology is bourgeois. If that offends you, perhaps you should rethink your position.

I neither defend imperialism nor social democracy. Please go ahead and prove me that this had been my argument.
Just because I take an objective stance of these relations does not mean I support them. It is because of your puritan understanding you get defensive even when I make a relatively objective analysis.

[Dodo]

You keep crying out that people are misrepresenting your use of the term "feudalistic," but haven't explained what you mean by the term even after being asked multiple times.

I will repeat myself yet again: what do you mean by "feudalistic"? And how does this differ from a part of a social formation with feudalism as a mode of production?

Alright lets settle this.
As I was writing to Vincent I realized that you might be thinking that I believe N.Korea's dominating mode of production is the made-up concept of "feudalistic". I'd rather stick with the more classic saying of state-capitalism though I would not have any particular trouble with the concept of "degenerate workers state". The point is, these names do not mean anything as what matters are the relations. The debate over abstracted concepts seems to lead to a lot of trouble.

This confusion is understanable if you did not get my argument that capital has a progressive role to play in N.Korea.

The feudalistic relations I refer to are relations that remain in N.Korean capital's backwards structure, i.e "unproductive" . How I got to that?

Korea was a feudal kingdom colonized by Japan which did not bother to "transform" the Korean economy but rather deepen the extractive primary-good sector for imperial expansion.
Korea did not go through a capitalist transformation under Japan. In the post-war period, there was a progressive impulse with the first Kim and his land-reforms. Within the context of war, imperialism, isolated self-sufficieny under economic scarcity led to the totalitarian dictatorship we are faimilair with today.
Does not matter what you name it as long as we agree on the relations that exists. Peasantry is bound to the land by a form of coercive "contract", and surplus is extracted by the ruling class in someway. But not through independent peasant system nor a capitalist landlordism where there is a volutanry contract.
That is what I refer to as feudalistic. You call it tributary. Does not matter.
The fact remains that this is a product of -ruling class production organization- for "industrializing" under low-productivity and ecenomic scarcity. Which is also a failure.

Therefore I argue, capital, NOT IMPERIALISM, has a progressive role to play in N.Korea. And my proof is South Korea which is coming from excatly same conditions and even lacking the natural resource endowment of the North.

So I ask, if it is impossible for capital to play a progressive role in North Korea, what happened in SOuth Korea?
OR, lets say there is a big relativity here, would you rather be a citizen of North Korea of South Korea?

[Five Year Plan]

Let's take this one step at a time, Dogukan. You're quite the slippery fellow.


The feudalistic relations I refer to are relations that remain in N.Korean capital's backwards structure, i.e "unproductive."

Unproductive of what? Capital? The term for such labor that exists within the capitalist circuit is "unproductive labor within capitalism." Labor to produce essentials, and which doesn't produce capital because it isn't taking place within the capitalist circuit is labor constituting a different mode of production.

Neither of these options has anything to do directly with feudalism. In the first option, it's obvious: it labor under capitalism. In the second option, it should be almost as obvious: there are a variety of different modes of production that exist besides capitalism. So to use that as the criterion for calling something "feudalistic" does exactly what I said earlier. It obscures more than it clarifies. You might as well be calling monopoly capitalism "corporate feudalism," as some liberals do.


How I got to that?

Korea was a feudal kingdom colonized by Japan which did not bother to "transform" the Korean economy but rather deepen the extractive primary-good sector for imperial expansion.
Korea did not go through a capitalist transformation under Japan. In the post-war period, there was a progressive impulse with the first Kim and his land-reforms. Within the context of war, imperialism, isolated self-sufficieny under economic scarcity led to the totalitarian dictatorship we are faimilair with today.This is a lovely history, but it doesn't explain at all how existing economic relations in North Korea are "feudalistic." One reason is that you still have no provided a definition of "feudalistic" besides "labor outside of capitalism."


Does not matter what you name it as long as we agree on the relations that exists. Peasantry is bound to the land by a form of coercive "contract", and surplus is extracted by the ruling class in someway. But not through independent peasant system nor a capitalist landlordism where there is a volutanry contract.It has been explained to you multiple times that agricultural laborers being tied to the land by an exploiter is not specific to feudalism. Using that as a warrant for calling North Korea's current relations "feudalistic" is ridiculous.

And you might want to read up, by the way, on how capitalism doesn't require a "voluntary contract." Unfree labor is perfectly compatible with capitalism, so long as capitalists are able to expel laborers from the workforce when those workers are no longer needed due to productivity improvements, downturns in the business cycle, etc. You are operating with a highly abstract and idealized understanding of what capitalism is, just as you seem thoroughly confused about what feudalism is.


Therefore I argue, capital, NOT IMPERIALISM, has a progressive role to play in N.Korea. And my proof is South Korea which is coming from excatly same conditions and even lacking the natural resource endowment of the North.Your proof is a country that has managed to acquire the relative economic power it has precisely because of its role the global imperialist-capitalist system, as an outpost against the Kims and China. The same thing has occurred in Israel. This coincides 100% with the analysis provided in response to your claims, which you don't seem to comprehend: there is no indepenendent, progressive pathway to economic development. To develop economically means having to subject yourself to the pressures, both political and economic of the larger powers. It's not that difficult to understand if you take a moment to consider it.

I suppose your answer would be, "Who cares about 'independence' as long as the people in North Korea get to eat the way their South Korean neighbors do?!" Which means, of course, North Korea enlisting in the camp of some imperialist power, and (to the extent that it is permitted breathing room for substantial domestic development) cooperating in fucking over some other late-developing country.

[Klaatu]

Support of North Korea is kind of like supporting WalMart.

While I wholly support Walmart's workers, I do not support the billionaires that own the place.

[Dodo]

Do read it all before you start a motor-reaction will ya?



Let's take this one step at a time, Dogukan. You're quite the slippery fellow.

Listen buddy, there is one thing I hate so much in this world, and that is unjust, baseless accusations. I challenge you to stand behind your word, for I am a SLIPPERY fellow and prove your point here.
Literally, NOTHING has changed in my stance since I first started posting in this thread. The proof is out there, all those posts you can go back and read.

And for the bit below, I will reply to your intentionally dishonest, take-out-fo-context posts. Please do not make me lose more time on this if you have nothing constructive and honest to add.





Unproductive of what? Capital? The term for such labor that exists within the capitalist circuit is "unproductive labor within capitalism." Labor to produce essentials, and which doesn't produce capital because it isn't taking place within the capitalist circuit is labor constituting a different mode of production.I have NEVER disputed capitalist relations in N.Korea. I took it for granted in fact. What I did was to connect the capitalist relations in Korea to "feudalistic" structures. Not feudal structures, feudalistic structure which I have described MULTIPLE times.
Your problem is your insistance on the word "feudalistic" which is not the point of this debate. Whatever the hell you call it does not matter because "feudalistic" IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TERM. It does not clearly define anything. The whole reason I used the word feudalistic was to point out to the obvious lack of transformation in rural N.Korea, and therefore its industrialization.
I have no problem in you calling N.Korea capitalist. Capitalism's relations itself are not clear, it varies in its effect everywhere.
My thesis here is that "capital has a progressive role to play in Korea", I have never tried to prove that Korea is a feudal kingdom.
And I have my empirical case evidences to support my point. From S.Korea to China.

If you dispute that I am clarifying my point one more time, there is not much I can do. I have repeated this shit over and over again.


Neither of these options has anything to do directly with feudalism.Never claimed a "direct" connection with feudalism or whatever that constitutes.


In the first option, it's obvious: it labor under capitalism. In the second option, it should be almost as obvious: there are a variety of different modes of production that exist besides capitalism.Have I disputed that?
What I said is labor's handling has feudalistic themes to it which I described(which you keep disputing) right fucking here:

Peasantry is bound to the land by a form of coercive "contract", and surplus is extracted by the ruling class in someway. But not through independent peasant system nor a capitalist landlordism where there is a volutanry contract.
That is what I refer to as feudalistic. You call it tributary. Does not matter.The peasant connection to capital here has clear feudalistic similarities. That does not mean it is feudalism.
These abstractions are social constructs. THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THE NATURE. Your mind is so boggled by a stagist rigid understanding that you cannot see the connection of "feudalistic relations" under capitalism.

I repeat, my point here had never been to settle whether Korean mode of production is a made up term of "feudalistic". If "feudalistic" was an official term I would have no used it. In fact, I have not come across a single literature on defining "feudalisticism".
The only definition I came across is this:

"based on a system in which only a few people have all the power in a way that seems very old-fashioned"

Which is quiet in line with what I am saying. A capital, mainly rural that has not transformed which requires coercion of labor in a "feudalistic" or "old fashioned" or "tributary" sense even if the general set of relations constitute capitalism. The strongest link to capitalism we have is the classical definition of "wage labor" which I did not dispute here. Though if you really want to dig it, thats not impossible either because there are significant problems with defining capitalism simply by "wage labor" in history.



So to use that as the criterion for calling something "feudalistic" does exactly what I said earlier. It obscures more than it clarifies. You might as well be calling monopoly capitalism "corporate feudalism," as some liberals do.I guess that would have been a problem if the debate's nature was defining N.Korea's relations, which had never been the thing I pointed at. In fact the whole reason we are still debating feudalistic is because of what ice-pick said and you and vincent getting stuck around fitting that somewhere in your "scientific" stages of history.


This is a lovely history, but it doesn't explain at all how existing economic relations in North Korea are "feudalistic." One reason is that you still have no provided a definition of "feudalistic" besides "labor outside of capitalism."Look who is being condescending again.
I think I have made it clear to you in my above quotes what I think about this.
Though if you will insist on this made-up concept, I will have to ask you: What do you think feudalistic means?


It has been explained to you multiple times that agricultural laborers being tied to the land by an exploiter is not specific to feudalism. Using that as a warrant for calling North Korea's current relations "feudalistic" is ridiculous.A quiet feudalistic connection of labor to land under capitalism sounds to you ridiculous eh?


That goes to show that you do not even understand classical Marxist historical materialism.
What is the question Marxists ask themselves when they try to explain the way the labor is organized?
Why was there for instance slavery and not wage labor at some point in history? Why was it that there was serfdom at some point? What caused wage-labor to become a dominant organization of labor?

Let me answer that question for you the all knowing guy who is quiet liberal in his accusations of other people with his superior Trotskyist concepts from 1930s who solves his debate problems by calling others infide....liberal/bourgeouisie.

Transformation of productive forces remain the main driving force of history in the dialectical understanding of historical materialism. The change in productive forces, which brings two ways of doing something into a clash(it is not enough how much I should emphasize this for you to get internal dynamics of dialectics as opposed to external dynamics of analytical analysis) within the given hegemony, presenting itself as class struggle.
In that sense, the organization of labor, whether openly coerced or not(but you actually are forced into such as in wage labor under capitalism) has strong connections to avaiable technology.

Under EXTREME SCARCITY OF LABOR, in an un-productive economy due to low "technology-productive forces", slavery was the popular mode of labor.
Under relative abundance of labor and technological change(which includes the social relations), serfdom became the accepted mode of production, class struggle is important here. Slavery was not as accepted anymore or was something for people of different religion..etc.
The transformation of productive forces and extreme decline of need for labor in agriculture, gave rise to the new form of labor, wage labor under capitalism in the most "classical" understanding of Marxism.

So how does this relate to the "ridiculous" case of feudalistic relations in N.Korea? If so far, you have not been able to deduce it, let me explain it to you in simple terms.

A lack of transformation of productive forces in N.Korea( technical technology, know-how, way to do things...etc) leaves us with low productivity. Low productivity means that labor has to be organized under similar themes to old modes of production.

*The statistics that show that almost 40% of labor remains employed in agriculture is my empirical evidence. The labor, through a -coercive- ruling class is being forced to be bound to land, which carries with it the feudalistic themes which I keep referring to.

I have not pushed for the thesis that N.Korea is feudalism or not capitalism. The hell, feudalism is not even a universal phenomena.
This is all because of your lack of education over the matter.

But I hope you see the connection there between "productive forces" and the "mode of labor" and why it carries "feudalistic" themes with it. This is in fact even in direct parallel with the "scientific" stagist historical materialism.




And you might want to read up, by the way, on how capitalism doesn't require a "voluntary contract." Unfree labor is perfectly compatible with capitalism, so long as capitalists are able to expel laborers from the workforce when those workers are no longer needed due to productivity improvements, downturns in the business cycle, etc. You are operating with a highly abstract and idealized understanding of what capitalism is, just as you seem thoroughly confused about what feudalism is.I think what I have written so far represents my stance on this.
It is you who is lost in abstraction because you are obssesed with defining N.Korea's mode of production and contradict yourself by saying that there can be "unfree labor" under capitalism and try to define your argument through "wage labor" in another bit.
This is from Vincent I assume you refer to when you say "we try to explain to you"

Of course wage labour still exists, wage labour defines capitalism.Either that or you should give a your clear definitions rather than accusing me of being un-clear.


Your proof is a country that has managed to acquire the relative economic power it has precisely because of its role the global imperialist-capitalist system, as an outpost against the Kims and China.Yes


The same thing has occurred in Israel.Okay

This coincides 100% with the analysis provided in response to your claims, which you don't seem to comprehend: there is no indepenendent, progressive pathway to economic development.Sorry but did not know you were a nationalist. Where in Marxism did you come across to an obsession with a "national-self-sufficient capitalist development as a must have"?
And how does this somehow dodge the problem of S.Korea putting literally ages between itself and N.Korea? Or Taiwan? Or even Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand? Not going to mention Singapore and Hong Kong since they are unique city-state-finance cases.

Or how does it explain the recent Chinese turn to capital for high-rates of growth? Or if you think China a too big fish to swallow how do you explain Vietnam?

Where is the uneven development there? Why are these countries growing at such high rates?



To develop economically means having to subject yourself to the pressures, both political and economic of the larger powers. It's not that difficult to understand if you take a moment to consider it.So much Marxism here, a lot of "nation-based" understanding of the world.
If I were you I would stick to a term like "big capital" or core capital or international bourgeouisie or something.
Age of national competition in capitalism is a thing of 1920s-30s. We are in the age of regionalist market/bourgeouisie(NAFTA, EU, BRIC, The Asian union thingy, latin american union thingy...etc)...do update yourself. There is even capital beyond these which is completely global.

For the record, there is not a standard outcome. Again, your "analytical" formal logic based application of "theoretical formula" leads you to such limited analysis which Marx loved to rub in the faces of bourgeouisie scientists.
Capitalist development can take multiple paths depending on a lot of factors, some we might not even know. The point of dialectics is to know that you cannot know all the factors, but LOOK AT TODAY and do a backwards reading of history to see how you got there.
Not a formal-logic analytical analysis through application of mathmatical like formula to make absolute claims on what will happen or not.
GOSH....am I even talking to Marxists here?



I suppose your answer would be, "Who cares about 'independence' as long as the people in North Korea get to eat the way their South Korean neighbors do?!"As a theoretician of the working class interests, a pretty straight-forward yes to that question buddy.



Which means, of course, North Korea enlisting in the camp of some imperialist power, and (to the extent that it is permitted breathing room for substantial domestic development) cooperating in fucking over some other late-developing country.N.Korea is so underdeveloped that it will have a lot of room to fuck itself to get over subsistance levels. And here I refer to "fuck-itself" no more than they are fucking-themselves right now.
The more capital develops globally, the stronger the contradictions will become and the faster will system come crumbling down. If you get obsessed with national-self-sufficient development however, scarcity and therefore surplus will keep capitalism functioning.
--------

After writing this, I realized I went quiet aggressive in my attitude. Just so you know, that is not the way I am under normal circumstances.
But against an unjust attack where there is an obvious circle-jerking of ignorance, I cannot keep a civil attitude. Just so you know, my attitude is an only a reaction to yours. I have no interest in an aggressive attitude someone I do not know of in real life.

[Art Vandelay]

Listen buddy, there is one thing I hate so much in this world, and that is unjust, baseless accusations.[B]

Oh the irony is palpable.


The whole reason this debate took off is because icepick to a rather ridiculing attitude where he claimed that there cannot be "feudalism in one country" in 21st century and whatever that means.


The moment I said that Korea had feudalistic relations I was attacked by a"stagist" understanding of history, particularly by icepick who seems to really like your posts here.

No that is not why this exchange took off, in fact it was already well under way before I entered into the conversation and my primary reason for doing so was not even to engage with you. Secondly the only sense that my views are 'stagist' are from the view point of someone who has been demonstrated to favor eclecticism over consistent methodology. I'm not sure how during my shift at work, we went from you apologizing for your tone, to then calling me out in your responses to other people, but between that and your assumption that those you discuss topics with on the forum are young and incapable of thinking for themselves, doesn't leave me wanting to invest much time in this discussion. Cheers.

[Dodo]

I had geared down my tone and then got re-attacked by an attitude which views me as bourgeouisie/liberal and not Marxist. Pretty much all those posts that dealt with me that way was "thanked" by you. So as I dealt with vincent and aufheben, I had no other option but to think of you as supportive of their position.

As I told to you before and told to aufheben a few minutes ago, my attitude is only a reaction to ridicule and condescending. I know I can take it to extremes when I take the same attitude.

That is why I have a special focus on what I consider to be Marxist dogma. It might look to you like eclecticism, in fact I am not even sure if I have a problem with that concept as opposed to a "consistent methodology" as recently my beliefs in the "scientific" tradition of Marxism had declined significantly due to the obvious confirmation bias.
Anyways, I know that underlying this attitude that I am getting from posters here is essentially linked to dogma. As a guy who had been in the exact same position they are in not so long ago, I can relate to them more than they think(the fact that they are Trotskyists makes it even more understanble because they automatically think they are free of the dogma because they are critical of stalinism). An attack such as coming from myself is like an attack to sacred beliefs, they defend it religiously within their conceptual frameworks. Never ever in their posts they had an attitude of questioning of whether they might be wrong , they only further attacked with with concepts from their sacred tendency(Trotsky's theories in this case)

What I am trying to show is that, even if being left is considered as being "progressive", that establishing this as a belief system is essentially the same thing as being a religious zealot.
And that is a core theme in Marxism. This letter of Marx I think everyone should read:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm

"The internal difficulties seem to be almost greater than the external obstacles. For although no doubt exists on the question of “Whence,” all the greater confusion prevails on the question of “Whither.” Not only has a state of general anarchy set in among the reformers, but everyone will have to admit to himself that he has no exact idea what the future ought to be. On the other hand, it is precisely the advantage of the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world through criticism of the old one. Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had only to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute knowledge to fly into it. Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally. But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be."

[Five Year Plan]

Do read it all before you start a motor-reaction will ya?




Listen buddy, there is one thing I hate so much in this world, and that is unjust, baseless accusations. I challenge you to stand behind your word, for I am a SLIPPERY fellow and prove your point here.
Literally, NOTHING has changed in my stance since I first started posting in this thread. The proof is out there, all those posts you can go back and read.

And for the bit below, I will reply to your intentionally dishonest, take-out-fo-context posts. Please do not make me lose more time on this if you have nothing constructive and honest to add.




I have NEVER disputed capitalist relations in N.Korea. I took it for granted in fact. What I did was to connect the capitalist relations in Korea to "feudalistic" structures. Not feudal structures, feudalistic structure which I have described MULTIPLE times.
Your problem is your insistance on the word "feudalistic" which is not the point of this debate. Whatever the hell you call it does not matter because "feudalistic" IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TERM. It does not clearly define anything. The whole reason I used the word feudalistic was to point out to the obvious lack of transformation in rural N.Korea, and therefore its industrialization.
I have no problem in you calling N.Korea capitalist. Capitalism's relations itself are not clear, it varies in its effect everywhere.
My thesis here is that "capital has a progressive role to play in Korea", I have never tried to prove that Korea is a feudal kingdom.
And I have my empirical case evidences to support my point. From S.Korea to China.

If you dispute that I am clarifying my point one more time, there is not much I can do. I have repeated this shit over and over again.

Never claimed a "direct" connection with feudalism or whatever that constitutes.

Have I disputed that?
What I said is labor's handling has feudalistic themes to it which I described(which you keep disputing) right fucking here:
The peasant connection to capital here has clear feudalistic similarities. That does not mean it is feudalism.
These abstractions are social constructs. THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THE NATURE. Your mind is so boggled by a stagist rigid understanding that you cannot see the connection of "feudalistic relations" under capitalism.

I repeat, my point here had never been to settle whether Korean mode of production is a made up term of "feudalistic". If "feudalistic" was an official term I would have no used it. In fact, I have not come across a single literature on defining "feudalisticism".
The only definition I came across is this:

"based on a system in which only a few people have all the power in a way that seems very old-fashioned"

Which is quiet in line with what I am saying. A capital, mainly rural that has not transformed which requires coercion of labor in a "feudalistic" or "old fashioned" or "tributary" sense even if the general set of relations constitute capitalism. The strongest link to capitalism we have is the classical definition of "wage labor" which I did not dispute here. Though if you really want to dig it, thats not impossible either because there are significant problems with defining capitalism simply by "wage labor" in history.


I guess that would have been a problem if the debate's nature was defining N.Korea's relations, which had never been the thing I pointed at. In fact the whole reason we are still debating feudalistic is because of what ice-pick said and you and vincent getting stuck around fitting that somewhere in your "scientific" stages of history.

Look who is being condescending again.
I think I have made it clear to you in my above quotes what I think about this.
Though if you will insist on this made-up concept, I will have to ask you: What do you think feudalistic means?

A quiet feudalistic connection of labor to land under capitalism sounds to you ridiculous eh?


That goes to show that you do not even understand classical Marxist historical materialism.
What is the question Marxists ask themselves when they try to explain the way the labor is organized?
Why was there for instance slavery and not wage labor at some point in history? Why was it that there was serfdom at some point? What caused wage-labor to become a dominant organization of labor?

Let me answer that question for you the all knowing guy who is quiet liberal in his accusations of other people with his superior Trotskyist concepts from 1930s who solves his debate problems by calling others infide....liberal/bourgeouisie.

Transformation of productive forces remain the main driving force of history in the dialectical understanding of historical materialism. The change in productive forces, which brings two ways of doing something into a clash(it is not enough how much I should emphasize this for you to get internal dynamics of dialectics as opposed to external dynamics of analytical analysis) within the given hegemony, presenting itself as class struggle.
In that sense, the organization of labor, whether openly coerced or not(but you actually are forced into such as in wage labor under capitalism) has strong connections to avaiable technology.

Under EXTREME SCARCITY OF LABOR, in an un-productive economy due to low "technology-productive forces", slavery was the popular mode of labor.
Under relative abundance of labor and technological change(which includes the social relations), serfdom became the accepted mode of production, class struggle is important here. Slavery was not as accepted anymore or was something for people of different religion..etc.
The transformation of productive forces and extreme decline of need for labor in agriculture, gave rise to the new form of labor, wage labor under capitalism in the most "classical" understanding of Marxism.

So how does this relate to the "ridiculous" case of feudalistic relations in N.Korea? If so far, you have not been able to deduce it, let me explain it to you in simple terms.

A lack of transformation of productive forces in N.Korea( technical technology, know-how, way to do things...etc) leaves us with low productivity. Low productivity means that labor has to be organized under similar themes to old modes of production.

*The statistics that show that almost 40% of labor remains employed in agriculture is my empirical evidence. The labor, through a -coercive- ruling class is being forced to be bound to land, which carries with it the feudalistic themes which I keep referring to.

I have not pushed for the thesis that N.Korea is feudalism or not capitalism. The hell, feudalism is not even a universal phenomena.
This is all because of your lack of education over the matter.

But I hope you see the connection there between "productive forces" and the "mode of labor" and why it carries "feudalistic" themes with it. This is in fact even in direct parallel with the "scientific" stagist historical materialism.



I think what I have written so far represents my stance on this.
It is you who is lost in abstraction because you are obssesed with defining N.Korea's mode of production and contradict yourself by saying that there can be "unfree labor" under capitalism and try to define your argument through "wage labor" in another bit.
This is from Vincent I assume you refer to when you say "we try to explain to you"
Either that or you should give a your clear definitions rather than accusing me of being un-clear.

Yes

Okay
Sorry but did not know you were a nationalist. Where in Marxism did you come across to an obsession with a "national-self-sufficient capitalist development as a must have"?
And how does this somehow dodge the problem of S.Korea putting literally ages between itself and N.Korea? Or Taiwan? Or even Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand? Not going to mention Singapore and Hong Kong since they are unique city-state-finance cases.

Or how does it explain the recent Chinese turn to capital for high-rates of growth? Or if you think China a too big fish to swallow how do you explain Vietnam?

Where is the uneven development there? Why are these countries growing at such high rates?


So much Marxism here, a lot of "nation-based" understanding of the world.
If I were you I would stick to a term like "big capital" or core capital or international bourgeouisie or something.
Age of national competition in capitalism is a thing of 1920s-30s. We are in the age of regionalist market/bourgeouisie(NAFTA, EU, BRIC, The Asian union thingy, latin american union thingy...etc)...do update yourself. There is even capital beyond these which is completely global.

For the record, there is not a standard outcome. Again, your "analytical" formal logic based application of "theoretical formula" leads you to such limited analysis which Marx loved to rub in the faces of bourgeouisie scientists.
Capitalist development can take multiple paths depending on a lot of factors, some we might not even know. The point of dialectics is to know that you cannot know all the factors, but LOOK AT TODAY and do a backwards reading of history to see how you got there.
Not a formal-logic analytical analysis through application of mathmatical like formula to make absolute claims on what will happen or not.
GOSH....am I even talking to Marxists here?


As a theoretician of the working class interests, a pretty straight-forward yes to that question buddy.


N.Korea is so underdeveloped that it will have a lot of room to fuck itself to get over subsistance levels. And here I refer to "fuck-itself" no more than they are fucking-themselves right now.
The more capital develops globally, the stronger the contradictions will become and the faster will system come crumbling down. If you get obsessed with national-self-sufficient development however, scarcity and therefore surplus will keep capitalism functioning.
--------

After writing this, I realized I went quiet aggressive in my attitude. Just so you know, that is not the way I am under normal circumstances.
But against an unjust attack where there is an obvious circle-jerking of ignorance, I cannot keep a civil attitude. Just so you know, my attitude is an only a reaction to yours. I have no interest in an aggressive attitude someone I do not know of in real life.

Now that you have at least conceded that by "feudalistic" you mean "agricultural labor" (about which I have nothing more to say, since it is so clearly ridiculous of a label), I will move on to pointing out how you once more miss the point entirely.

You claim your interest is in supporting the working class, yet the working class has no national boundaries. Why then "support" the working class of the DPRK at the expense of the working class in another part of the world, which is the only possible "development" under the epoch of imperialist decay? (This, btw, has consistently been my argument when pointing out how progressive independent development is impossible now.)

Yet you then have the audacity, after taking that bold stand of endorsing the idea of imperialism-driven growth, to accuse me of being a "nationalist."

I am beginning to detect a lame trolling effort. And as a side note, you know who else used the word "buddy" a lot in his discussions? A pretty nasty racist and fascist troll by the name of "RealYehuda." Gee, I wonder if there is a connection.

[Dodo]

I do not mean agricultural labor by "feudalistic". I mean the nature of the relations in agricultural labor having feudalistic tendencies due to low productivity and a need for ruling class to use -coercive- power to organize labor.
I have never stated anything more than this. I have challenged you above to prove that I have said more than this. I will not try to corner you more on that as it is simply going to lead to further disagrement based on isolated views.
----
You have to understand the context I support the working class in DPRK in. DPRK is soo undeveloped that capital has a progressive role to play there. That country would experince a "sudden" elevation of economic conditions if it adapts to a model like in China or Vietnam. There is a long time before DPRK can be involved in "imperialist" exploitation. Besides, imperialism is already all over the world. De-monopolization of imperialism would either lead to war(a problem) or a quicker end to capitalism.
----
I have never supported imperialist-led growth or whatever that means.
All I said it, just because it comes through the stick of imperialism does not guarantee that it will result bad.
S.Korean economy developed through imperialist intervention but through a strong-developmental state technocratic state.
It depends on the context. Therefore I say, N.Korea can benefit highly from letting loose of some capital. At least for instance going back to independent peasantry, or capitalism at small-holder level. Like China and Vietnam in 1980s. But the hegemony would be so smashed by that, so they cannot even attempt this.
-
I'd view your attempt to relate me to a troll with a new account as a pathetic last-call attempt. I will not take that seriously.

How old are you btw?

[Five Year Plan]

I do not mean agricultural labor by "feudalistic". I mean the nature of the relations in agricultural labor having feudalistic tendencies due to low productivity and a need for ruling class to use -coercive- power to organize labor.
I have never stated anything more than this. I have challenged you above to prove that I have said more than this. I will not try to corner you more on that as it is simply going to lead to further disagrement based on isolated views.

Low productivity exists in essentially all non-capitalist relations of production. And coercion exists in all class-based relations of production, even direct political coercion, and (as has been pointed out to you multiple times here) even under capitalism. Neither of these criteria is specific to feudalism, so invoking "feudalistic" as a way of capturing the nature of these characteristics is highly problematic.


You have to understand the context I support the working class in DPRK in. DPRK is soo undeveloped that capital has a progressive role to play there. That country would experince a "sudden" elevation of economic conditions if it adapts to a model like in China or Vietnam. There is a long time before DPRK can be involved in "imperialist" exploitation. Besides, imperialism is already all over the world. De-monopolization of imperialism would either lead to war(a problem) or a quicker end to capitalism.Yes, capital has a "progressive role to play" in relation to the people of the DPRK ... by turning them into outposts enforcing the super-exploitation and deteriorating conditions of the victims of the imperialist hegemon. It is progressive for the quality of life of DPRK workers ... by destroying the quality of life of workers in other countries. Capitalism as an international system is an epoch of decay; this is what imperialism is. Growth in any sector of the globe comes at the cost of deterioration in other sectors.

This has been explained again and again to you. You refuse to get it, and just keep parroting nonsense about how imperialism and capitalism can be good for the DPRK. Your framework is not one of a revolutionary socialist, as can also be deduced from your touting Swedish social democracy in another thread.


I have never supported imperialist-led growth or whatever that means.If you are supporting the developing of the DPRK along capitalist lines, that is the only option open for you to support, whether you are aware of it or not. You think we can magically set the time machine back hundreds of years to a time when the DPRK can experience capitalist growth that is progressive in an all-around way for humanity. This is the stuff of liberal la-la land.


How old are you btw?Why? Do you want to ask me out on a date? No thanks.

[Dodo]

Low productivity exists in essentially all non-capitalist relations of production. And coercion exists in all class-based relations of production, even direct political coercion, and (as has been pointed out to you multiple times here) even under capitalism. Neither of these criteria is specific to feudalism, so invoking "feudalistic" as a way of capturing the nature of these characteristics is highly problematic.
oh god
I have made my point, I do not want to further repeat it. Our dealing with abstraction here is not meant to be solved. I explained you the relations and I told you why I called it "feudalistic". Honestly, I do not care what you call that. Feudalistic sits fine by me due to extreme similarity when it comes to organization of labor which coincides very well enough with central theme of productive force development.



Yes, capital has a "progressive role to play" in relation to the people of the DPRK ... by turning them into outposts enforcing the super-exploitation and deteriorating conditions of the victims of the imperialist hegemon. It is progressive for the quality of life of DPRK workers ... by destroying the quality of life of workers in other countries. Capitalism as an international system is an epoch of decay; this is what imperialism is. Growth in any sector of the globe comes at the cost of deterioration in other sectors.

I have made my point in this as well. N.Korea has a lot of room in its internal market before it gets to a stage of imperialism. In the worst case scenerio it can become a producer and exporter of goods.
I do not see why DPRK should be excluded in that sense even from the other underdeveloped countries.
There are tons of underdeveloped countries which export stuff.
Also, the N.Korean labor already lives at subsistance.

Under a proper leadership and policy, there is no guarantee that Korea will be worse-off than it is now. The way DPRK is right now is a blessing to global capital both politically and economically.



This has been explained again and again to you. You refuse to get it, and just keep parroting nonsense about how imperialism and capitalism can be good for the DPRK. Your framework is not one of a revolutionary socialist, as can also be deduced from your touting Swedish social democracy in another thread.

Do you even know what imperialism is you keep blaming me of being a supporter of it?
You are like that Muslim dude who tells women to not take of their hijabs or something.
There is nothing good about the way DPRK is right now and it will benefit millions of people to change the situation. I am not even talking about outright capitalism but more of a model like China and Vietnam, or if they can a model like that of in S.Korean developmental state.

The only actual open policy implication I made was "de-collectivization" and land-reforms for distributing land to peasantry to make them small-holders and give them some room to maneuver. Which can be the "progressive capital" I refer to for instance. How is that an evil imperialistic plan?


deduced from your touting Swedish social democracy in another thread

I do not know how much you would care. But it seems to me like you are a liar. As an individual that is quiet offensive if it comes to me from a friend. It is okay I guess on the internet, but in real life it can be quiet problematic.



If you are supporting the developing of the DPRK along capitalist lines, that is the only option open for you to support, whether you are aware of it or not. You think we can magically set the time machine back hundreds of years to a time when the DPRK can experience capitalist growth that is progressive in an all-around way for humanity. This is the stuff of liberal la-la land.

Can you PROVE to me that capital has no progressive role to play in the last decades?
I have the whole case of East Asian economic growth, hell even the recent African growth(since 90s) that I would not really rely on. Or Brazil, Chile or Mexico....I don't know. How do you explain the recent development in these countries? I am not claiming they will "catch-up" or anything, but capital seems to have changed things quiet a bit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Dogukan, with all due respect, your posts are extremely confused. I don't see how anyone could simultaneously claim that:

(1) the DPRK is "state capitalist" (this is, by the way, extremely vague, since obviously people like Cliff and people like Mao don't mean the same by "state capitalism");
(2) the DPRK could be deformed workers' state;
(3) the DPRK is "feudalistic".

And in particular, it isn't clear what you mean by "feudalistic". In fact, let's be honest, you appear to be as puzzled as me and aufheben are. I assumed that "feudalistic" means "has remnants of the feudal" - or equivalent (Korea was never feudal in the same sense as Europe and Japan) - "mode of production". But then you deny that Britain, which also has several interesting remnants of feudalism, is "feudalistic", so that won't do.

As for the low productivity of North Korean agriculture, you manage to completely divorce the mode of production from the relations of production! Feudalism generally leads to labour-intensive, inefficient agriculture, but an inefficient agricultural sector doesn't define feudalism. It characterised the slave-owning despocies, and it characterises certain capitalist states and besieged workers' states. You have to account for imperialist encirclement. By the way - the notion that China and the Soviet Union "shored up" the North like the US did the South is simply wrong. China in particular was barely making do herself, and the Soviet Union was hardly an imperialist giant.

And the notion that individual peasant agriculture is more efficient than collectivisation or coercion by an urban-based state is ridiculous in light of the Russian experience during the NEP, and during the Military Communism / Ural-Siberian Method and the first Five-Year Plan period.

[TheMask]

The short answer to your question:
Yes. There are different ways to support North Korea both officially and through the internet whether its with support (which is actually possible through sites like this) or through financial aid.

The long answer:
Yes but... Long answers usually start with a yes but and let me just try and get my point through quickly. There are ways to easily support North Korea with money as I'm sure many of our fellow comrades have told you about by now but be warned: You might not be sure what your money goes to.

Allow me to expand. As a fellow communist I am ever so happy to see an initiative being taken to attempt to support communism out in the world but North Korea unfortunately also stands for more than that. There are many ways to support communism but supporting North Korea might actually work against what was originally intended: The communist society. Supplying North Korea with money will most likely mean giving money to the distribution. As the current economic state in North Korea this works against the currently left-winged working class. Giving money to the country will most likely since they are the ones with the resources to open funds mean giving money to the highest tenth of the country who have no left-winged interests. Therefore yes if you want to support North Korea you can most likely do so quite easily but that wont be the same as funding communism in a country like Cuba as you mentioned. I therefore advice you my fellow comrade to think wisely where to support communist leaders as I'm sure you could be getting ''more for your effort'' elsewhere. That being said I would also like to make a quick point towards human-rights. The North-Korean government who will most likely be the ones to receive your aid go against a knowledge-free society and therefore many of the basic concepts of traditional communism and might actually be put towards a more unequal society which I surely hope is not your intention. As a spokesman for human rights and dignity everywhere in the world I therefore strongly recommend you to think twice before supporting a state that is on the edge of fascism.

[Dodo]

(1) the DPRK is "state capitalist" (this is, by the way, extremely vague, since obviously people like Cliff and people like Mao don't mean the same by "state capitalism");
(2) the DPRK could be deformed workers' state;
(3) the DPRK is "feudalistic".

That is because you are missing my point. These definitions are not my concern. It seems to m like the reason debate got into this weird cycle was that you thought of my reference to "feudalistic" as a mode of production on it's own.
Deformed worker's state, state capitalism and all those other stuff are to me unnecessary concepts, at least today. It is a thing of the past, or 20th century "communist" experience.
Those were concepts used for politically motivated reasons. I do not bother myself with rigid "categorizations" of modes of production. In the end, what matters are the existing relations.
That is the whole reason I say "feudalistic" relations within N.Korea. Because to me, it is not these rigid concepts with their "laws" that matters but the dynamics process which changes the way economy is organized.
I do not know how I can explain this perception to you.

I have explained in previous posts what I was referrring to as feudalistic.


And in particular, it isn't clear what you mean by "feudalistic". In fact, let's be honest, you appear to be as puzzled as me and aufheben are. I assumed that "feudalistic" means "has remnants of the feudal" - or equivalent (Korea was never feudal in the same sense as Europe and Japan) - "mode of production". But then you deny that Britain, which also has several interesting remnants of feudalism, is "feudalistic", so that won't do.
By feudalistic, I did not want to refer to a feudal past, though I mean it is not impossible to make links to that as well.
What I meant was purely organized around the concept of "tranformation of productive forces", the technology-know-how at the heart of production process which changes everything. What I argued was that, this changed did not happen in N.Korea through a transformation despite the state's attempts at top-down change.
Therefore, in order to "industrialize" under conditions of economic scarcity and low productivity, Korean ruling class had to do exactly what feudal lords did back in their day under similar low-productivity conditions.
Make the rural labor stick to the land with a contract, in their case it is "socialism," back in the day it was "feudalism" and extract surplus leaving people at subsistance level.
What they call as names does not matter to me, it is the set-of relations that my whole analysis revolves around.

I can understand the confusion I caused by using the word "feudalistic", what I meant was the -low productivity- by that.


As for the low productivity of North Korean agriculture, you manage to completely divorce the mode of production from the relations of production! Feudalism generally leads to labour-intensive, inefficient agriculture, but an inefficient agricultural sector doesn't define feudalism.

It does not define it but feudalism's cause is the conditions of productive-forces. At least in historical materialism.
So whatever the mode of production in N.Korea is, its productivity levels had not caused that qualitative leap, therefore mode-of-labor shows clear similarities to feudalism.

Mind you, I am approaching to issue from the perspective of labor and not capital when I am defining this concept of "feudalistic". (not that this is my sole way of defining production but it is a way nonetheless)


It characterised the slave-owning despocies, and it characterises certain capitalist states and besieged workers' states. You have to account for imperialist encirclement.

I do. Imperialism is a big reason N.Korea is like this today.

By the way - the notion that China and the Soviet Union "shored up" the North like the US did the South is simply wrong. China in particular was barely making do herself, and the Soviet Union was hardly an imperialist giant.
Can we please admit that S.Korea did much better things for its working class?
S.Korea, was not even under direct American control. It was a pretty strong fascist state which coercively transformed the whole economy into a much more productive one.
Independent peasantry played a big role in this as well as existing poverty/low wage in the country which allowed for extraction of high surplus from rapidly increasing productivity levels.
N.Korea is equally coercive and extractive(and even threathening of one's life) but within low productivity so the country rarely changes.


And the notion that individual peasant agriculture is more efficient than collectivisation or coercion by an urban-based state is ridiculous in light of the Russian experience during the NEP, and during the Military Communism / Ural-Siberian Method and the first Five-Year Plan period.

This depends on existing relations. It is not a standard outcome. Each country has its own unique historical tradition of relations/institutions. I am not read much into success of NEP and empirical data available but I know it came in under really difficult domestic and international conditions for the country.
Empirically speaking, in terms of poverty elavation, land-reforms for independent smallholder peasantry had been one of the most succesful ways.
I just read the other day that Cuba did the same very recently.
Independent peasantry and co-operatives give pretty good results in poor countries.