Need Help on DPRK Essay - Should I Bother?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Yeah, so this is just an English class, I have to write a research paper about whatever I want, so I figured I would write it on North Korea. I am NOT trying to talk about the Left or anything. I'm actually going to try to argue that North Korea is a right wing regime operating with a state capitalist economic model, and I'm going to slightly talk about how revolution against NK's govt must be internal, not external (external meaning imperialism). I'm arguing it's a right wing regime contrary to popular belief about it being a leftist communist regime.

Here's my problem. Take a look at the conversation I had with my teacher when I was asking if my thesis sounded ok.

Me: Here's my thesis (read my first paragraph) above

Teacher: Oh ok, I don't think you'll find much opposition to that, but you need to address opposing viewpoints

Me: Yeah, I'm mainly going to argue it is rightist and state capitalist since most people think it is a left wing regime with a communist economy (I was putting it in simplified terms)

Teacher: Well communism isn't really left wing is it

Me: Yeah I mean you know, fascism is far right, communism is far left

Teacher: Oh yeah, I was thinking more American left but yeah, that sounds fine

So yeah. Should I really even bother with this? I feel like I would first have to sort of define the left-right spectrum and characteristics of each, because my teacher seems to be stuck on the typical conservative-liberal thing as left and right and doesn't seem to have any kind of grasp on political science or whatever. So I feel like I would have to waste a lot of pages just giving clear definitions and stuff.

Like, I really don't even want to talk about communism. This isn't meant to be some propaganda piece. Am I wrong in assuming that most people (mainly Americans) think North Korea's government is leftist and communist? Because my teacher didn't seem to think so. Does that mean she agrees it is rightist or just that she thinks communism is outside the spectrum because she thinks left is liberal?

Some insight would be cool.

[Bala Perdida]

American left. What the fuck. Then again this is the same country that drastically distorted the meaning of libertarian.
I think if you explain that leftism favors popular sovereignty and rightism favors hierarchy, you can get rid of the issue with a paragraph. I would call North Korea more of a monarchy.
That's all I can give for now so, good luck!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not sure how this relates to your English class?

Perhaps as it's an English essay you could critique the North Korean constitution and the language it uses as evidence of any ideological shift? Of course, the problem with trying to combine such big concepts as socialism, capitalism, the 'state' into a school English essay is that they are rather large concepts to research, review, define and evaluate. You have to ask yourself: are you going to have the time/space to do justice to this topic?

Even at 3rd year university level, a problem you will encounter is that your ambitions are loftier than the tools and time at your disposal.

My humble advice would be that you choose a less ambitious topic, that is smaller in scope and has more resources available, and then make sure that you can really do justice to it. Then you can build up towards the bigger projects that involve the more complicated concepts.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

American left. What the fuck. Then again this is the same country that drastically distorted the meaning of libertarian.
I think if you explain that leftism favors popular sovereignty and rightism favors hierarchy, you can get rid of the issue with a paragraph. I would call North Korea more of a monarchy.
That's all I can give for now so, good luck!

Huh, good point. I might as well just keep it super simple and be like "left is equal, right is unequal hierarchy." I was thinking something along those lines too.


I'm not sure how this relates to your English class?

Perhaps as it's an English essay you could critique the North Korean constitution and the language it uses as evidence of any ideological shift? Of course, the problem with trying to combine such big concepts as socialism, capitalism, the 'state' into a school English essay is that they are rather large concepts to research, review, define and evaluate. You have to ask yourself: are you going to have the time/space to do justice to this topic?

Even at 3rd year university level, a problem you will encounter is that your ambitions are loftier than the tools and time at your disposal.

My humble advice would be that you choose a less ambitious topic, that is smaller in scope and has more resources available, and then make sure that you can really do justice to it. Then you can build up towards the bigger projects that involve the more complicated concepts.

Yeah lol weird for an English class, but she said literally any topic and this is the kind of stuff I know about. But that's true, that's what I was thinking because it almost produces an endless chain reaction of other concepts I have to define and explain before I even get to the main point. I just don't know what else to write about. I don't wanna write about communism because she'll think I'm weird as fuck. And my classmates have the most boring topics such as writing about successful companies or weed legalization. I just don't know what else to do, really.

[synthesis]

Why does she think communism isn't left-wing?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Why does she think communism isn't left-wing?

I wanted to ask that in those exact words to be honest, but I didn't want to come off as a conceited know-it-all. Even though that's pretty fucking common knowledge. I think she was just thinking in terms of Democrat and Republican…? I have no clue though, and I am still confused about why she thought that.

[synthesis]

I wanted to ask that in those exact words to be honest, but I didn't want to come off as a conceited know-it-all. Even though that's pretty fucking common knowledge. I think she was just thinking in terms of Democrat and Republican…? I have no clue though, and I am still confused about why she thought that.

I guess the thing is that I don't know if it's possible to answer the questions in the OP, in terms of what you would need to include about the basic elements, without knowing more about her own familiarity with the concepts.

Perhaps she was thinking capital-C Communism, like the Soviet bloc? In that case maybe include a few sentences about the common thread between what we see as "leftist" in the U.S. and the ideology upon which those states claimed to be based.

I definitely don't think you should dumb it down for her though, like reducing the left-right spectrum to just "equal" and "unequal hierarchies." Just put it in terms that would make sense to you if you knew nothing about it. You could also talk about how Marxism supersedes the left-right spectrum in favor of class analysis.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I guess the thing is that I don't know if it's possible to answer the questions in the OP, in terms of what you would need to include about the basic elements, without knowing more about her own familiarity with the concepts.

Perhaps she was thinking capital-C Communism, like the Soviet bloc? In that case maybe include a few sentences about the common thread between what we see as "leftist" in the U.S. and the ideology upon which those states claimed to be based.

I definitely don't think you should dumb it down for her though, like reducing the left-right spectrum to just "equal" and "unequal hierarchies." Just put it in terms that would make sense to you if you knew nothing about it. You could also talk about how Marxism supersedes the left-right spectrum in favor of class analysis.

Very good advice, thank you. I forget that communism is usually associated with the Soviet bloc by default, so comparing that to the common view of leftism in the US will certainly help.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think it's fine to talk about communism, but you need to limit your scope, as i've said above.

One of the best ways to do this is to set a specific time frame. So instead of writing an essay on communism in general (which could literally be endless, and could never satisfactorily be answered in a PhD thesis, let alone a school essay), focus on a 5 or 10 year period that has good sources available, research the fuck out of it and write a nice clear essay with a good argument, concise language and well-argued conclusion.

[Blake's Baby]

250 words on how Marx saw communist society (bringing in other theorists would be too much).

500 words describing N Korea.

250 words summing up the mismatch between the first and second parts.

Expand or contract in proportion to the size of your essay.

That's how I'd approach it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why wouldn't you pick a more relevant topic, in relation to the more immediate problems your class might be familiar with?

I gather you're from the US. There's plenty of stuff to choose. For instance, the urban decline in connection with the ongoing capitalist crisis as evident in Detroit. Or how about the right to work and its criticism? Or a brief history of unionism?

[Slavic]

Why wouldn't you pick a more relevant topic, in relation to the more immediate problems your class might be familiar with?

I gather you're from the US. There's plenty of stuff to choose. For instance, the urban decline in connection with the ongoing capitalist crisis as evident in Detroit. Or how about the right to work and its criticism? Or a brief history of unionism?


I am assuming that this is a High School English class, there is no need to go crazy in depth.

As long as you have an Intro, Body, Conclusion. One opinion per paragraph with three supporting statements each, then its an easy A. English classes are there to teach you how to write a paper, not challenge your research ability.

Like others have stated, go more narrow.

Contrast quality of living between the people of DPRK and the Kims
Foreign relationship between DPRK and US in past 10 years
Ballistic missile program

[PhoenixAsh]

You could post your eventual paper in articles.

This would be interesting. Especially if it could serve as a discussion piece on the site.

[Dagoth Ur]

Yes we need another "communist" joining in the imperial chorus against North Korea. The nation so horrible it feeds it's people better than India, and literally harms none of it's neighbors. Yes you should focus on what the American media already hates.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

250 words on how Marx saw communist society (bringing in other theorists would be too much).

500 words describing N Korea.

250 words summing up the mismatch between the first and second parts.

Expand or contract in proportion to the size of your essay.

That's how I'd approach it.

Oh wow, thank you! That's a pretty good idea, I like that.


Why wouldn't you pick a more relevant topic, in relation to the more immediate problems your class might be familiar with?

I gather you're from the US. There's plenty of stuff to choose. For instance, the urban decline in connection with the ongoing capitalist crisis as evident in Detroit. Or how about the right to work and its criticism? Or a brief history of unionism?

Well honestly, my classmates aren't going to be reading it, just the teacher. And I used to be obsessed with learning about North Korea so that's what I have the most knowledge about. I have to fill like 10 pages and I just can't talk about unions and Detroit and such for that long, plus it's not interesting for me to write about, really.


You could post your eventual paper in articles.

This would be interesting. Especially if it could serve as a discussion piece on the site.

I'll think about it but I'm too paranoid :o

[Dagoth Ur]

I have to ask, have you ever read any of the Kims' works?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I have to ask, have you ever read any of the Kims' works?

I have not. I have read excerpts from their works though. Why do you ask?

[Dagoth Ur]

Because you can hardly proclaim them right-wing when you haven't even given the horse's mouth a fair shake.
http://www.korea-dpr.com/lib/

That's a good resource.

Also to be clear I think most of these writings are dumb as shit but they certainly are not right-wing. Barracks Communism is confusing because of it's appearance but it isn't right-wing.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Because you can hardly proclaim them right-wing when you haven't even given the horse's mouth a fair shake.
http://www.korea-dpr.com/lib/

That's a good resource.

Also to be clear I think most of these writings are dumb as shit but they certainly are not right-wing. Barracks Communism is confusing because of it's appearance but it isn't right-wing.

Fair enough, I'll take a look at it.

What's your stance on DPRK? I know this wasn't the original intention of my thread but now I'm curious and don't mind derailing it into a North Korea debate :grin:

[Thirsty Crow]

Well honestly, my classmates aren't going to be reading it, just the teacher. And I used to be obsessed with learning about North Korea so that's what I have the most knowledge about. I have to fill like 10 pages and I just can't talk about unions and Detroit and such for that long, plus it's not interesting for me to write about, really.
Eh, then disregard what I wrote and fire away, and there's also some decent advice on how to structure your essay here.

[Dagoth Ur]

I think they're Communists and Korean Nationalists and one of the last hold-overs from WW2 (and their rhetoric shows it). They are under constant imperial attention and can only secure things for their people with threats and bluster. Many blame them for this but what else were they supposed to do? Their revolution was halted by Americans unilaterally setting up "South Korea" which was a carbon copy of the recently thrown off Japanese Imperial Occupation, and secured basically all of the flat farmlands (despite this the South was given food aid by the North up until the famine of the late-80's). America then proceeded to kill around a third of the Northern population and was only stopped by the Chinese. Since they couldn't win in Korea they put up massive sanctions that only didn't crush the nation because great nations like the USSR existed.

I don't like the Kims, and I don't like the line the WPK follows, but unlike many other soviet satellites they did not trade in their party cards for lucrative futures as oligarchs (which would be much better than being a North Korean military man). And despite their failings they are all that stands between the people of Korea and the abysmal results of any "shock therapy" that would be forced on them should the DPRK fall apart.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I think they're Communists and Korean Nationalists and one of the last hold-overs from WW2 (and their rhetoric shows it). They are under constant imperial attention and can only secure things for their people with threats and bluster. Many blame them for this but what else were they supposed to do? Their revolution was halted by Americans unilaterally setting up "South Korea" which was a carbon copy of the recently thrown off Japanese Imperial Occupation, and secured basically all of the flat farmlands (despite this the South was given food aid by the North up until the famine of the late-80's). America then proceeded to kill around a third of the Northern population and was only stopped by the Chinese. Since they couldn't win in Korea they put up massive sanctions that only didn't crush the nation because great nations like the USSR existed.

I don't like the Kims, and I don't like the line the WPK follows, but unlike many other soviet satellites they did not trade in their party cards for lucrative futures as oligarchs (which would be much better than being a North Korean military man). And despite their failings they are all that stands between the people of Korea and the abysmal results of any "shock therapy" that would be forced on them should the DPRK fall apart.

Huh, ok interesting. That's slightly different from what most people who defend the DPRK say,because most people won't even mention the Kims' as sort of a cop-out.
I don't like imperialism either, but I don't think the North Korean military junta are communists in any way for sure, and I completely denounce the entire regime. But fair enough, I was just wondering.

[Dagoth Ur]

Their adherence to theory is irrelevant. It's where they stand that matters. And for now (for now being a critical caveat) they are literally the only ones standing in the way of the privatization of North Korean means of production and a direct worsening of the status of every Northern Korean not poised to steal the wealth of the nation. I support the DPRK because I care about the would-be victims of imperialism more than I care about making a political point against a tiny, and relatively insignificant, backwater regime.

My position isn't that strange or new for that matter.

Also re: the Kims. They are overblown. The only one who had uncontested power was Kim il-Sung, and the latter two Kims have been elected to make the military regime seem more legitimate, as though they have a connection to the raison d'etre of the DPRK. This is the same rationale as is used by calling the Kims the leaders of Mt. Paetku, it is a direct connection to the legitimacy of the DPRK government in Korean terms.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Their adherence to theory is irrelevant. It's where they stand that matters. And for now (for now being a critical caveat) they are literally the only ones standing in the way of the privatization of North Korean means of production and a direct worsening of the status of every Northern Korean not poised to steal the wealth of the nation. I support the DPRK because I care about the would-be victims of imperialism more than I care about making a political point against a tiny, and relatively insignificant, backwater regime.

My position isn't that strange or new for that matter.

Also re: the Kims. They are overblown. The only one who had uncontested power was Kim il-Sung, and the latter two Kims have been elected to make the military regime seem more legitimate, as though they have a connection to the raison d'etre of the DPRK. This is the same rationale as is used by calling the Kims the leaders of Mt. Paetku, it is a direct connection to the legitimacy of the DPRK government in Korean terms.

Well I certainly don't think imperialist powers being in control of the country would be a good thing at all. But under the regime, the workers are not in charge of the means of production. The means of production is owned by the military junta with Kim as the figurehead, and the junta profits off of the resources. Then, they give a small amount of wages to the worker. Isn't that capitalism since the junta acts as the CEO and extracts surplus value from the labor of the North Korean workers, whom they have no choice but to sell their labor to the regime?

Also, I'm curious on your stance on nationalism because you said in an earlier post that they are Korean nationalists. Are you aware of their ideology regarding race?

But I do agree about what you said about the Kims. You're right, Kim Jong Un does not have ultimate power, there are certain factions in the top ranks of the military. That's why it's a junta because it's a group of top military officials who rule and profit from the country's resources. Hence why Kim had his uncle killed, because his uncle was making disproportionate amount of profit from a certain lucrative area.

I understand defending a region against imperialism, but why not support proletarian revolution instead of saying "well at least they aren't imperialists"?

I mean, if I'm being honest, conditions in the North are so horrendous, that imperialism would make their lives slightly better. That's an awful thing to have to say, and again, I am against imperialism. But throwing around leftist slogans doesn't do much when you have perhaps a small bowl of rice a day, if that. Ya know?

EDIT: If you don't wanna debate this, that's fine, no worries. But I'd definitely be down if not. I love debating these things, and for some reason it's frowned upon to make threads called "stance on____" whether it be Stalin, Mao, or the DPRK. So yeah lol

[The Intransigent Faction]

I say go for it. It is a pain in the ass that takes very consistent verbosity to have to deconstruct the political spectrum and relevant but frequently abused terms, but it's worth a shot.

North Korea is a major boogeyman for U.S. propaganda not in the sense that all the problems are made up, but in how it is represented as "communist", and if you can convince even one person to second-guess that propagandistic representation it might be worthwhile. It's up to you, though.

[Prometeo liberado]

I wanted to ask that in those exact words to be honest, but I didn't want to come off as a conceited know-it-all. Even thF2fough that's pretty fucking common knowledge. I think she was just thinking in terms of Democrat and Republican…? I have no clue though, and I am still confused about why she thought that.

Fucking her, and yes you should let assholes that think they have the power feel uncomfortable. Push buttons son or you'll have no good memories. University is when the learning starts.

[Dagoth Ur]

Well I certainly don't think imperialist powers being in control of the country would be a good thing at all. But under the regime, the workers are not in charge of the means of production.
They have no democratic control but they profit off the nationalized means of production. This is why North Korea, despite its poverty, has better health stats than richer nations like Indonesia and India (neither of which are subject to sanctions and get big time support from international capital). Yes this lack of democracy is bad, but at least there is no bourgeoisie.


The means of production is owned by the military junta with Kim as the figurehead, and the junta profits off of the resources. Then, they give a small amount of wages to the worker. Isn't that capitalism since the junta acts as the CEO and extracts surplus value from the labor of the North Korean workers, whom they have no choice but to sell their labor to the regime?
It is exploitative but there is no super rich in North Korea. The Kims live palatially but for North Korea. In terms of contrast he's like a trust fund kid in Austria. Not a good sign but not super wealth that comes from exclusive benefit of private property. Which is another point, private property is not legal in the DPRK. Even if the military is given benefits over everyone else this does not mean that the lack of private property fails to protect North Koreans from more extreme exploitation.

Long story short, not a pretty picture, but not capitalist exploitation by a longshot.


Also, I'm curious on your stance on nationalism because you said in an earlier post that they are Korean nationalists. Are you aware of their ideology regarding race?
Songun and Korean racism are overplayed. Basically all East Asian countries are racist by western standards, and polls have shown racism is endemic in South Korea as well. This is just a point people like to make about the DPRK as though it cannot be held up in comparison to its neighbors.


But I do agree about what you said about the Kims. You're right, Kim Jong Un does not have ultimate power, there are certain factions in the top ranks of the military. That's why it's a junta because it's a group of top military officials who rule and profit from the country's resources. Hence why Kim had his uncle killed, because his uncle was making disproportionate amount of profit from a certain lucrative area.
And most likely he was making a power grab. But a power grab doesn't mean capitalism and it doesn't mean military officials are stealing the nation's wealth. As I said before these men you are accusing of gross exploitation are the ones best poised to seize these national resources if they were to break apart the DPRK. All they'd have to do is trade over a Kim and claim they were capitalists now and they'd be fabulously wealthy oligarchs instead of military men who will get a soldier's pension in the end. This is important.


I understand defending a region against imperialism, but why not support proletarian revolution instead of saying "well at least they aren't imperialists"?
There is no proletarian revolution brewing in North Korea. If there was, and it was legitimate and not stupid enough to want to break apart the DPR, I'd support it. We are materialists, we deal with what we have not what we'd like.


I mean, if I'm being honest, conditions in the North are so horrendous, that imperialism would make their lives slightly better. That's an awful thing to have to say, and again, I am against imperialism. But throwing around leftist slogans doesn't do much when you have perhaps a small bowl of rice a day, if that. Ya know?
Again, most East Asian (and especially South Asians) have major food insecurity. Japan and China (to a lesser degree) are the only exceptions. Health and food stats from North Korea are actually better than wealthier nations like Indonesia who are free from sanctions.

And for what possible reason can you believe imperialism will be better? Instead of getting a small bowl of rice a day they'd have to sew sneakers all day for a quarter. Hopefully they have enough family members to all work so they can chip in together for a medium size bowl of rice for them all to share. Nothing but death and misery will come from the North being brought down by imperialists. Not to mention all the rare earths mining that will inevitably occur which will have disastrous effects on northern ecology.

Honestly I can't believe anyone would say anything so stupid as imperialism could make anything better.


EDIT: If you don't wanna debate this, that's fine, no worries. But I'd definitely be down if not. I love debating these things, and for some reason it's frowned upon to make threads called "stance on____" whether it be Stalin, Mao, or the DPRK. So yeah lol
I like to talk about the DPRK because it is a major stumbling point for many Marxists. The place offends so much of our western sensibilities and we know so little that conjecture is the only type of story you ever get about them. Many choose to follow the liberal media or try to make communism sound better to their liberal friends by saying "fuck Best Korea", but it is not a marxist position, it is anti-proletarian. The people are what matters, and any nation where the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has been broken must be defended against encroaching imperialism. We are not moralists, we are Marxists.

[synthesis]

Many choose to follow the liberal media or try to make communism sound better to their liberal friends by saying "fuck Best Korea", but it is not a marxist position, it is anti-proletarian. The people are what matters, and any nation where the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has been broken must be defended against encroaching imperialism. We are not moralists, we are Marxists.

How has "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie been broken" in North Korea? Is there not still a class of people who work for a wage and generate surplus value? And is there not still a class of people who own the means of production? "The people are what matters" - which people? Is class analysis no longer applicable when discussing U.S. imperialism? If so, why is this only the case for U.S. imperialism?

[Marshal of the People]

I have to ask, have you ever read any of the Kims' works?I may not agree with his politics but Kim Jong Il knows his stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Cinema-Kim-Jong-il-ebook/dp/B00HQ5UECQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397378160&sr=8-1&keywords=the+art+of+cinema+kim+jong+il

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Opera-Kim-Jong-il-ebook/dp/B00I9DOLWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397378238&sr=8-1&keywords=the+art+of+opera+kim+jong+il

In all seriousness I think that you should try to explain what communism and socialism is, then explain what state capitalism and fascism is, then link state capitalism and fascism to North Korea while explaining that it has nothing to do with communism or socialism.

[Dagoth Ur]

That would to be a misuse of fascism which can best be defined as:
The empowerment of the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie in the defense of Private Property by any means necessary.

Ultimately being a fascist isn't so much an ideology (despite the big metaphysical webs they construct) but a defense mechanism of the liberal bourgeoisie. The DPRK cannot be accused of this. State Capitalism is closer to the mark but the DPRK lacks access to most global markets (import or export) so their capitalism is pretty weak. And trying to discuss the relationship between the DPRK and Communism is enough information to fill books and isn't really suitable for an essay.

Honestly I think he should scrap the whole North Korea angle altogether. Sourcing will be hard, the subject matter is dense, and ultimately he's turning it into a teacher who doesn't know that communism is a left-wing ideology. And really he is wrong, North Korea is a lot of bad things but it is not right-wing. It takes more courage to accept the failures of your own side than to blame them on your adversaries.

[Per Levy]

I don't like the Kims, and I don't like the line the WPK follows, but unlike many other soviet satellites they did not trade in their party cards for lucrative futures as oligarchs (which would be much better than being a North Korean military man). And despite their failings they are all that stands between the people of Korea and the abysmal results of any "shock therapy" that would be forced on them should the DPRK fall apart.

i think your reasoning here is very wrong, if NK would've transformed like the east european states it would've been swallowed by SK, just like the gdr was swallowed by westgermany, and that means that the rulers of NK would've been done away with since the south would've taken over. so no oligarchic positions for the kims and the other rulers of NK or in other words keeping the system means keeping the power and all the nice stuff that comes with that.

[Dagoth Ur]

Dude the leaders of the USSR like Gorbachev didn't become oligarchs either. I'm not talking the top brass, I'm talking the guys who do all the work for the top brass and who nobody knows by name. They are in control and could break the DPR apart if they wanted, and are situated to get massive resource grabs. I don't think they'd mind being a part of the South Korean government after that. Also I don't see what the "nice stuff" is about being military man in Korea. It's equivalent to being a well-paid worker.