Is North Korea right wing?

[willowtooth]

I recently heard that by most definitions, North Korea is an extreme far right wing government, even though it espouses communist rhetoric, it only does so as a means of control and propaganda.

Is this a popular opinion? Are there any other communist movements that would fall under this category? How would you label the North Korean government overall?

[Rafiq]

As far as the global totality, or "Empire" goes, they are most certainly and undoubtedly reactionary. If we understand left and right wing as definite political standards which have significance on the global level, then this places North Korea, which either out of desparation or spontaneous inclination aligns itself with some of the worst scum globally - squarely in the right camp, in the reactionary sense (I.e. David Cameron and the Iranian state are both "right wing", but they are not the same).

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I've found that North Korea and the ruling Kim family can often be compared to another dictatorship, that of Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenistan. It has alot of the same attributes: A totalitarian state, deification of the leader, the massive cult of personality surrounding said leader, the strict control of travel and communication, and the notorious eccentricities of the leader that are sometimes imposed on the populace.

The other big similarity? Both were dressed in communist clothing and claimed communism to still be the guiding light of the nation, even long after the regime had done away with communism in everything but name only. They even have their own spin-off nationlist philosphies/ideologies= Juche for the DPRK, and....whatever crazy shit Niyazov came up with for Turkmenistan. Probably something from the Ruhnama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhnama)

Both are, of course, reactionary and right-wing in nature. But claim to be somehow inspired or connected to communism.

[G4b3n]

I would never defend that oppressive slave camp of a regime. But I also find it a bit disingenuous to claim that it is right wing. It was born out of failed 20th century leftist ideology and the path in which it is directed is of course contemptible to say the least in the eyes of most leftists. But similar semantic arguments can be made about the Nazi regime being economically left in character, which is obviously a load of shit.

[John Nada]

I recently heard that by most definitions, North Korea is an extreme far right wing government, even though it espouses communist rhetoric, it only does so as a means of control and propaganda.

Is this a popular opinion?Yes. The DPRK's existence is based on their opposition to the US occupation of the south, as well as the failure of reuniting Korea. That they still pay lip-service to socialism reflects that.
Are there any other communist movements that would fall under this category?The Chinese Communist Party and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Cruel irony.:glare:
How would you label the North Korean government overall?A national liberation project that due to the stress of US imperialism, degenerated into a state-capitalist military state, and neo-colony of Chinese social imperialism. Ideologically revisionists, closer to Tito, Nasser, and Nehru with their "national path to socialism".

[Tim Cornelis]

I do believe they are right-wing. What makes someone or something left-wing or right-wing? It is a spectrum of social equality. On the far-right stand those whom want to encourage or solidify social inequality. North Korea's regime does this. It has a unique social class structure called the songbun system, which affects career opportunities and the severity of legal penalties. There's three categories, and within the highest there's also another sub-categorisation which includes the elite which lives in (relative) luxury. It is also sexist and racist. It prescribes how men and women should clothe (by the way, not that every man has to have the same hairstyle as the Dear Leader, that's a myth), which confirms gender differences. It also forces abortions on women that are suspected of having biracial children (part-Chinese) because the regime is incredibly chauvinistic and has Korean racial supremacist views. So yes, I think it's clear that it is a far-right regime, although I don't think it's fascist.

[OnFire]

North Korea, as one of the last communist countries on Earth today, is always in the center of capitalist propaganda. While the Juche is no longer pure marxism, NK is in fact a country where the population is more free than in the West. Don't believe everything you hear on the news friends, has anyone of you ever been to NK and seen any crimes against humanity? Me neither, so who are we to judge? I live in the so called "free world" and witness crimes against humanity by the government every day, just think of Ferguason and Baltimore!!!

[RedWorker]

North Korea, as one of the last communist countries on Earth today

Communist country - an oxymoron.


is always in the center of capitalist propaganda

The propaganda is claiming it somehow represents socialism, not detailing what goes on there.


While the Juche is no longer pure marxism

It is not at all nor ever was.


NK is in fact a country where the population is more free than in the West.

No... just no. While the status of 'freedom' in the West isn't good it definitely is better than in North Korea.


has anyone of you ever been to NK and seen any crimes against humanity? Me neither, so who are we to judge?

Have you ever been to Nazi Germany? We can judge things without being there. And do you honestly believe that the authorities of an authoritarian state would allow the regular person who travels there to see any major wrongdoings?

We judge because we are having a political discussion.

Even going by North Korea's own information: the documents released by the state about the conditions of the workers certainly do not reveal anything impressive.


I live in the so called "free world" and witness crimes against humanity by the government every day, just think of Ferguason and Baltimore!!!

Applying your logic: Have you ever been to Ferguson or Baltimore?

[Tim Cornelis]

I bet that Tankie's never read any Marxist literature. Just likes Soviet paraphernalia and militarism.

[G4b3n]

I bet that Tankie's never read any Marxist literature. Just likes Soviet paraphernalia and militarism.

But.. there is just no time to start on Vol 1 of Capital with so many portraits of Stalin and Mao to observe and analyze.

[Tim Cornelis]

I read some commentary in a paper about how these types of people, like Foucault admiring the Ayatollahs, was the result of postmodernism. So these Tankies and anti-imps that support Ramzan Kadryov (yes, they exist), Iran, Alexander Dugin and Novorossiya, North Korea, China, are perhaps some kind of degenerate postmodern bastards. Would need to look into that to see if that holds some merit.

[lutraphile]

The Chinese Communist Party and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.
The CPRF isn't right-wing, IMO. They are awful in many ways- their reactionary social attitudes and their ultra-nationalism- but they do still call for the nationalization of key parts of the economy.

[G4b3n]

I read some commentary in a paper about how these types of people, like Foucault admiring the Ayatollahs, was the result of postmodernism. So these Tankies and anti-imps that support Ramzan Kadryov (yes, they exist), Iran, Alexander Dugin and Novorossiya, North Korea, China, are perhaps some kind of degenerate postmodern bastards. Would need to look into that to see if that holds some merit.

Ehh I'm sure the argument could be made, and quite well I bet. But would the sociological research needed to support the claims be worth the effort? I think the essentials of the subject could be just left at "tankies gunna tank".

I will contemplate, as I head to the toilet to take my routinely afternoon Juche.

[Rafiq]

I read some commentary in a paper about how these types of people, like Foucault admiring the Ayatollahs, was the result of postmodernism. So these Tankies and anti-imps that support Ramzan Kadryov (yes, they exist), Iran, Alexander Dugin and Novorossiya, North Korea, China, are perhaps some kind of degenerate postmodern bastards. Would need to look into that to see if that holds some merit.

To be clear this is absolutely a postmodern phenomena unique to our de-industrialized epoch. It allows one to maintain a proper distance from the "thing", as a means of not identifying with them but reducing them to a mere expression of your consumerist individuality. It's also important to however not get confused: If one is supporting Dugin, while this is undoubtedly a degenerate postmodern phenomena it is still political - thoroughly reactionary.

[PhoenixAsh]

they do still call for the nationalization of key parts of the economy.

hmmm...so do fascists and neo-nazi's... so that is not indicating anything relevant.

[Cliff Paul]

"tankies gunna tank"

This saying really needs to be used more

[Guardia Rossa]

How to convince my tankie friends of this?

[G4b3n]

How to convince my tankie friends of this?

Try hosting a reading session of Marxist literature. Hell, even Lenin's most basic works ought to cure chronic tankieism.

[Tim Cornelis]

A Marxist reading session or two will also cure Titoism.

[Guardia Rossa]

I took mine a while ago, Tito just has a awsome stencil.

[willowtooth]

So north korea could be described as "tankeist" it could be considered a far right wing form of marxist-leninism that is highy militaristic, yes? In the same sense that strasserism was a less militaristic form of nazism? And because this right wing form of marxist-leninism is so militaristic, it naturally becomes ultra nationalistic, and results in, let's say the communist manifesto, to become a sort of religious dogma and the eventual deification of their leader.

[RedWorker]

The Communist Manifesto may very well be banned in North Korea...

[mushroompizza]

Its corrupted leftism, like Stalinism on steroids. To be honest Jucheism claims to be left but it looks a lot more like Fascism.

Whats Left: Feminism, not a market economy, anti-imperialist

Whats Right: Totaltarianism, Monarchism (basically), Theocracy (Juche is basically a state religion), Racism (propoganda is often racist in portrayl of enemies), Militarism, Censorship, Police State.

[RedWorker]

There is widespread sexism and a market economy in North Korea.

[Tim Cornelis]

No, it's not 'Marxist-Leninist' (Stalinist). Right-wing Stalinism is a contradiction. It used a Stalinist form as a vehicle to advance chauvinist Korean supremacism.

Totalitarianism is not inherently right-wing, nor is censorship and such.

[RedWorker]

Totalitarianism is not inherently right-wing, nor is censorship and such.

It depends on how you define left-wing and right-wing. One could argue that totalitarianism and censorship hinder social equality. One could also argue that authoritarian rule is either reactionary or belongs to the past, that is necessarily destroyed by progress and that it can only exist in the context of class society.

Stalinism is definitely a right-wing tendency compared to other tendencies and could be said to be a right-wing degeneration of a left-wing idea.

[hashem]

North Korea, as one of the last communist countries on Earth today


NK is in fact a country where the population is more free than in the West.


We don't have to be in North Korea to see the truth. if North Korea is communist and its people are free, why isn't there a single North Korean communist on Revleft or any other site where such subjects are being discussed?

only liar opportunists or stupid idealists can claim that north is communist and free.

[Rafiq]

The idea of totalitarianism is inherently a liberal one. How it works, essentially, is it contrasts the various ethical and political norms of liberal society - deemed to be natural and trans-historic, with the political and social standards of other societies: Because for these "natural" laws to be violated, i.e. in the process of contrasting them, they are deemed to all have intent behind them - the idea that there was a special psychological department in the Soviet propaganda apparatus that willfully manipulated people (this did exist for the Germans, ironically).

Either ONLY Fascism was totalitarian, or ONLY Stalinism was totalitarian. The reason is that Fascism was intentionally forced, and mimicked Stalinism in various ways, while Stalinism was organic and sufficient unto itself. The conclusions you could draw from this are EITHER the organic nature of Stalinist "totalitarianism" is why it is truly totalitarian (because, *Gasp* it was such an enclosed totalitarian society, even Stalin himself was brainwashed!) or alternatively, BECAUSE it was organic only Fascism was totalitarian, in the sense that it was in various ways staged like a spectacle that was all-encompassing in an intentional manner.

All in all, the idea of Totalitarianism is liberal masturbation and nothing more.

[Tim Cornelis]

Totalitarian systems of government are distinct from other systems of government and that warrants a word to describe the concept. Typical authoritarian systems of government distance themselves from the general population in order for the political elite to enrich themselves. It is corrupt, nepostic, marked by favouritsm, cliques, and these governments do not seek justification in grande ideological narratives. Totalitarian systems of government, in stark contrast, invite popular participation but in a tightly controlled fashion and this is tied to an ideological justification. Essentially, typical authoritarian rule is illegitimate, and totalitarian rule is legitimate. These two styles or systems of governance/government are distinct enough to discern between them.

Totalitarianism has been a form of government in both left-wing and right-wing governments.

[RedWorker]

It is corrupt, nepostic, marked by favouritsm, cliques, and these governments do not seek justification in grande ideological narratives.

Doesn't North Korea match everything but the last point?

[d3crypt]

Super right wing. They sure aren't my comrades.

[PhoenixAsh]

Both authoritarians and totalitarians argue the inevitability of their domination of society through the inevitability of history and the natural and organic development of their respective systems.

In that respect the arguments do not differ much from the natural rights arguments of liberalism. There is a good discussion to be had if on the respects of rights liberalism developed already existing natural rights arguments from feudalism and feudal authoritarianism and expanded the notion to apply equally to a larger population....and totalitarianism is a reactionary system that reverts it back towards a small part of that population.

[Rafiq]

Totalitarian systems of government are distinct from other systems of government and that warrants a word to describe the concept. Typical authoritarian systems of government distance themselves from the general population in order for the political elite to enrich themselves. It is corrupt, nepostic, marked by favouritsm, cliques, and these governments do not seek justification in grande ideological narratives. Totalitarian systems of government, in stark contrast, invite popular participation but in a tightly controlled fashion and this is tied to an ideological justification. Essentially, typical authoritarian rule is illegitimate, and totalitarian rule is legitimate. These two styles or systems of governance/government are distinct enough to discern between them.


The very insistence of this distinction has its basis not in any overtly apparent reality, but in an ideological perversion. The reason it is wholly unscientific is because the ideological pathology that sees a "totalitarian" system proceeds its qualifications for definition. The word "totalitarianism" is in essence nothing more than a means by which ruling ideology de-legitimizes societies with different ideological constellations and political standards. In order to have any discussion of "totalitarianism" we have to first accept that the qualification is muddied and unscientific - that its ambiguity is evidence of its ideological nature. The same goes for a so-called "Authoritarian" government.

No authoritarian government exists for the sake of the government - and typically when we think of an "authoritarian" government we think solely of the Franco, Suharto, Pinochet, Lee Kuon Yu and so on. This is how sick and hypocritical liberal ideology is - we use words like "totalitarian" to completely debase and delegitimize societies, but we can use "authoritarian" to describe societies which require the iron fist in order to institute our political standards. Even if they are equal in terms of their degrees of brutality and abuse of power, the basis of this distinction is not in cynicism, but what we want to pick and choose in legitimizing. The fact of the matter is that the totalitarian narrative, arguably for any society has been not only an utter failure in encapsulating and relating to the experiences of those who lived under them, but a meaningful analysis into the various complexities of these systems for what they were. The idea that he Soviet Union was totalitarian even under Stalin is so painfully disgusting words cannot describe it - even on an ethical level its reductionist is disgusting. Because the "horror" of Stalinism was precisely because it was not this, society was not "consciously" controlled and so-called grand ideological narratives (And tell me, what societies don't have this? The ideological mechanisms of Soviet, and North Korean power WERE legitimate! In fact, most of the opposition following collectivization pre-supposed in one way or another the structure of Marxist-Leninist ideology, albeit with some minor elaborations!) were actually adhered to and believed in by those in power.

So the problem with this distinction is that it has its basis in what is already a false designation of government - the only way to measure an "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" government is by presuming the legitimacy of liberal democracy and contrasting it with them. Ultimately, the differences are bound by the state of class struggle - in liberal democracies, political power between classes, or its potential for it, is balanced - it was not "set up" this way, but it accommodates for the fluidity of capital and as a result its social stratification in a more dynamic manner. Initially, for example, democratic rights were not given to everyone - universal suffrage was fought for in various countries. So liberal democracy, while certainly representative of the rule of the bourgeoisie, is different insofar as it does not attempt to overcome the contradictions of capitalism. In "authoritarian" governments, typically you have either a transitional period wherein the political enemies of capital are liquidated followed by a "democracy", or traditionally, and what looks to be the future of capital is the disavowment of liberal civic values, with the retention of the "private freedoms" sustained by the capitalist economy.

[Rafiq]

In that respect the arguments do not differ much from the natural rights arguments of liberalism. There is a good discussion to be had if on the respects of rights liberalism developed already existing natural rights arguments from feudalism and feudal authoritarianism and expanded the notion to apply equally to a larger population....and totalitarianism is a reactionary system that reverts it back towards a small part of that population.

No, in a so-called "totalitarian" society formally everyone is equal before the law. Even more ironic is that at least in the case of Stalinism, at least formally (and this is very powerful) the leader had the etiquette of just another citizen. The leader would clap at the end of his speeches when the masses did, in order to not dis-associate with them and so on. And I don't buy it was all some intentional publicity stunt. The cult of personality was something outside of his formal being, and it symbolically functioned to encapsulate the collective egalitarian spirit of the masses. In this sense, Stalinist "totalitarian" societies were much more democratic than liberal democracies, not in the sense that the direct decisions of people were more powerful, but that "the people", as such, mattered with regard to relations of political power.

Now 'formally' liberal democracy grants equal rights for all citizens, but in truth the reality is that this in practice, again, only applies to a small part of the population in full.

[Puzzled Left]

Does it mean that Stalinism is inherently, a liberal ideology?

[Comrade Jacob]

Nope. You can't call anything you don't like rightwing.

[Tim Cornelis]

Nope. You can't call anything you don't like rightwing.

But you can things that are right-wing.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think the problem is with introducing the term legitimate as a basis for the definition of both totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. If there is one term that has no meaning it is the term "legitimate" as that only means either conforming to laws and rule or being able to defend by logical arguments. Both authoritarian and totalitarian states can be completely legitimate...depending on the adopted laws, legal frame work and the rational behind the arguments.

The relevant parts are whether or not the population itself has a real and relevant impact on government and on policy (in both totalitarian and authoritarian regimes this is NOT the case...and yes...even not in Stalinist or pre-Stalinist Russia);

You mentioned equality before the law. Technically this is an irrelevant distinction and relies heavily on whether or not the laws are applied equally. Which was definatly not the case in the entire life span of the USSR. This is not an argument for whether or not a state is or is not authoritarian or totalitarian.

The distinction between both is made primarily on the impact the government/state has and tries to apply on social lives of people.

From your arguments it seems that your primary problem with the terminology is more based on whether or not it applies to the Soviet Union and you use a lot of the exact same arguments that are used to disprove the label for the fascist states.

[Tim Cornelis]

As a short remark, all political terms have a degree of ambiguity. To exploit that to make a point is pretty weak. I think legitimate and illegitimate is useful. Illegitimate authoritarian rulers happen to have been in the right place and right time to rule. Lukashenko happened to be there to pick up the pieces, but his coming to power was not preceding by a justifying or legitimising event or whatever. And if we further look at his regime, there is no controlled popular mobilisation for some sort of transformation, there is no restrictions on artistic expression beyond criticism, sports are not made subservient to politics. There's clear differences between liberal democracy, illiberal democracy, authoritarian regimes, and totalitarian regimes. I don't see why some leftists are so allergic to using 'totalitarian'.

[PhoenixAsh]

The term is highly subjective.

And it is so because of this:

The rule of law is usually established by the ruling group. In no legal frame work was it ever legal to dispose of a ruling group unless the ruling group chaged the law. So both the French and Russian revolution were performed outside the legal frame work and therefore illegitimate...and legally speaking the same could be argued for any subsequent system change that came out of it...since they resulted from illegal and therefore illegitimate actions.

In a revolutionary situation the only legitimate action is restoration of the violated legal system.

Of course both revolutions can be called legitimate because of the logic and reason behind them...arguing that the previous government violated some concept of good governing, natural laws etc. etc. But that is merely a matter of opinion.

The term is highly dependent on the point of view and perspective. And as such the term is meaningless...and more than anything else based in ideology.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think you misunderstand what legitimacy means. It can be used in a neutral, objective sense. It doesn't mean justified from a personal moral point of view, and law doesn't factor into it. It is a question of whether rule is considered accepted and justified by the general population. Illegitimate authoritarian states work more like this:

"Linz identified the two most basic subtypes as traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes. Traditional authoritarian regimes are those "in which the ruling authority (generally a single person)" is maintained in power "through a combination of appeals to traditional legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound to the ruling authority through personal loyalties"; an example is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.[4] Bureacratic-military authoritarian regimes are those "governed by a coalition of military officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the limits of their bureaucratic mentality"

There's no legitimacy in that their rule is 'ad hoc', they provide no ideological justification for their rule and the general population tolerates it, it does not generally accept it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Totalitarian states actually rely on acceptance and justification. It does so by inviting popular participation under the tight control of state agencies in order of some transformative goal, the complete overhaul of society for whatever reason. There is legitimacy in that the population at large accepts their rule and considers it justified, and large parts actively participate in it.

Of course there's shades of grey. Iran legitimate but probably not totalitarian (any more), but this ambiguity is true for most political terms. Where does liberal democracy begin and illiberal democracy end?

===
why should I bother explaining? Wikipedia has perfectly good explanation:

"(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic 'mystique' and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.

(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings largely content to control, and often maintain, the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable 'function' to guide and reshape the universe.

(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.[16]

Thus, compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits."

[PhoenixAsh]

Sorry but no.

What you are talking about is Political Legitimacy based on the European notion of Enlightenment that was first described in the late 17th century and only became common practice after the French Revolution. In fact the notion formed the basis of the French Revolution

However it is a redefinition of the word Legitimacy which in all practical meaning has internationally been defined for centuries as pertaining to the legal frame work. The common current definition still does that by saying that legitimacy is defined as the state of being legitimate. Legitimate is defined as pertaining to the legal frame work.

Your notion of legitimate and legitimacy is therefore based on the aforementioned second definition: as logically argued. And that argument is highly European in origine.

Which as I stated....is highly dependent on subjective interpretation.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't know about this definitions. One of the often identified key characteristics of totalitarianism is legitimacy. In this context, legitimacy, as used in political science, is a descriptive term refers to perceptions of acceptance and justification. If you insist on using a different definition involving the rule of law or reason or logic then you are simply using the wrong definition in this context. Because the theorists and political scientists that use legitimacy to describe totalitarianism are not referring to your definitions, so those are completely irrelevant.

[Rafiq]

There's clear differences between liberal democracy, illiberal democracy, authoritarian regimes, and totalitarian regimes. I don't see why some leftists are so allergic to using 'totalitarian'.

Well, let me be more concise: Is there something distinct about states that are deemed totalitarian? Yes. The distinction is undoubtedly there. The point is that the totalitarian model fails to conceive the qualifications of this distinction in a scientific manner. It is pathological not because it "falsely" groups things together that have nothing to do with each other, but because it emphasizes and de-emphasizes, it picks and chooses aspects about these societies in common in a way that is only possible if they're contrasted with liberal democracies. Hence the ambiguity of the term - the only meaningful reason behind it is to bind Fascist and Stalinist states together as somehow being the "same" in their extremism. This has little to do with any meaningful analysis of Fascism or Stalinism, but a means to obfuscate politics in western countries so that no one goes "too far" from the "center" of the political spectrum, which could only ever be those in power.

To cut a long story short, only two types of states in existence can be called "Totalitarian" - Stalinist, and Fascist states. I think on this we can agree, no? So the qualifications of distinction you've set forth - mass participation, "grand ideological narratives" and the irk - this is not a universal qualification that "any" ideology can conform to, it is something innately and uniquely Communist. The confusion arises from this simple fact: Fascism mimicked the aesthetic appeal of Communism in every possible way, but the difference is that Fascism was not an "organic" totalitarianism in the sense that - Fascism was staged, it was largely a spectacle. It did not have the grand awe-aspiring power of Stalinism, instead it had a sham of a mystique that, while able to inspire devotion from large sections of the population, was fundamentally not grounded in any transformative project (but preventing one!). Do you really thin the idea of the "master race" or whatever was in any way a meaningful goal? And even if it was, what is really socially transformative about it? Nothing. It's not as though Germany was such a culturally diverse state before the Nazis.

What are the distinguishing features of states ascribed to be "totalitarian"? Simple, a precarious political existence and the democratization of everyday life. "totalitarian" states were political in the domain of everyday life, because every day life was in the process of being transformed. With a mass feeling of solidarity, collective sacrifice and egalitarian passion, of course "ordinary" everyday life could not flourish. This is why totalitarianism usually ONLY refers to the Soviet Union during the Stalin era - when its existence was most precarious, and when the calm of everyday life hadn't set in politically. So what's the problem with the so-called "totalitarian" model?

It assumes that the citizens of these countries had some kind of innate spontaneous predisposition to diverge from ruling ideology, and had to be "kept in check" by the state in all domains of life. But this wasn't true to the slightest: When there was dissonance between the population and the state, it usually never took the form of an ideological difference but an opposition that pre-supposed the prevailing power structures ("totalitarian" power structures). Furthermore, in the cases where people had to be "kept in check", it wasn't because they spontaneously had predispositions to bourgeois-liberal ideology (I.e. the "natural" state of mankind and his desire for liberty). That's why after the collapse of Communism, most anti-Communist activists were in for a big surprise - their expectations for capitalism were entirely different from the reality of it. If it was otherwise, one could make the argument that they were spontaneously predisposed to capitalism, but they simply weren't.

Totalitarianism either ONLY refers to Fascism, or it ONLY refers to Communism. Because you can have it one way or another - either it's intentional, staged as a means of controlling people (Fascism) or everyone is "so brainwashed" that it forms organically without anyone knowing it (Communism). There's so much ambiguity HERE that it's impossible to make a meaningful qualification for ascribing the term onto something.

[Rafiq]

Regarding legitimacy, all the notions of it that have been put forth are innately liberal. What is legitimacy? When the ideology of the state apparatus, sustained of course by violence by default, is able to correctly approximate the real conditions of life and existence of citizens. In other words, when the state reproduces condition of production ideologically, and not just by sheer direct, naked force, it is legitimate.

[Tim Cornelis]

I reject many of the assumptions you make, so there's no real use going into it.

"all the notions of it that have been put forth are innately liberal." I don't see how your explanation makes those liberal. Legitimacy = acceptance and perception of justified. How's that liberal? That's a neutral, descriptive definition.

[Rafiq]

Because then it inevitably leads to a game of subjectivity: justified by who? Acceptance by who? "The people"?

And now we see why it's liberal.

[Tim Cornelis]

The liberal American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy also "involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society." How's that any different from what you said?

What you're saying is also contradictory. Supposedly, totalitarianism is a liberal concept as a way to chastise rule that deviates from the liberal norm but the same liberals also use the liberal-biased concept of legitimacy to describe that same totalitarianism. Doesn't really make sense to me.

Yes, as far as I know, in the context of totalitarianism legitimacy refers to popular acceptance and perceptions of justification. And how is it subjective to make the objective observation whether a population considers their form of government legitimate? In the broader sense, legitimacy can also refer to acceptance and perceptions of justification of any social group.

[Rafiq]

The liberal American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy also "involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society." How's that any different from what you said?

Because what constitutes "society" for a liberal is infinitely different than what we consider relations to production. What's being said here assumes "society" as some kind of holistic well being of "the people", i.e. society here is not being used in a relative manner. You may as well replace "the society" for "the people". It makes no difference.


Supposedly, totalitarianism is a liberal concept as a way to chastise rule that deviates from the liberal norm but the same liberals also use the liberal-biased concept of legitimacy to describe that same totalitarianism. Doesn't really make sense to me.

This isn't what is being said. Pinochet arguably deviated from the liberal norm, and yet no one refers to his rule as totalitarian. The point being that it's a word used to de-legitimize societies that are built on fundamentally different political and social foundations with entirely different ideological standards, i.e. either ONLY fascist societies or ONLY Stalinist societies, for reasons I have mentioned above - of course all them are deemed totalitarian, but it can either be read that the Soviet Union was "fascist-like" or that Nazi Germany was "Soviet-like" in the minds of liberals. There is no in-between. The society which is the point of reference for totalitarianism which forms the basis of mimickery encapsulates the divide between different bourgeois political factions.

Conversely the way your'e describing it makes it seem like totalitarian is a regular occurrence that can be "left-wing" or "right-wing", as though it's a manner of taxamony, as though there's nothing extra-ordinary about it and it's just "another form of society" or whatever. This isn't the case though. A "totalitarian" society can either be Stalinist or Fascist. The relation between these two types of societies has already been established above.

But to ignore all of that, even by your own standards of argumentation I don't understand where the confusion comes from. The only way liberals could "chastise rule that deviates from the liberal norm" is by applying their own notion of legitimacy. Legitimacy for liberals doesn't ALWAYS have moral connotations. Divine right as a means of rule was described by liberal thinkers as a form of legitimacy - the point is that for liberals there are ethically acceptable foundations of legitimacy, and ethically unacceptable ones.


Yes, as far as I know, in the context of totalitarianism legitimacy refers to popular acceptance and perceptions of justification. And how is it subjective to make the objective observation whether a population considers their form of government legitimate? In the broader sense, legitimacy can also refer to acceptance and perceptions of justification of any social group.

Because a) What constitutes the population? Everyone not in a direct position of state power? Are they really so monolithic? And b) If this cannot be clearly defined, how can a WHOLE society be deemed totalitarian? Again, why is Iran "not exactly" totalitarian by merit of the definition you've given us? There is certainly popular acceptance and perceptions of justification. I'm not saying there's nothing distinct about what is described as a "totalitarian" society, I'm just saying that the conscious explanations brought forth for what that constitutes is inconsistent and wholly ideological. If we could be honest and say it only refers to Stalinist or Fascist societies, then this would reveal the utterly hypocritical nature of the word as not some kind of "neutral" means of designating societies (like democracy, autocracy, or whatever you want), but something that has been explicitly built upon very specific societies.

[willowtooth]

I agree with rafiq, totalitarianism is a word created as propaganda by 3rd party fascists, as a way to tie Stalin and Hitler together in the common mans mind. They're the same people who claim Hitler was a socialist. Neither Hitler or Stalin can be totalitarian as the word was invented as a way too purposefully mislabel them.

But back to my question. The right wing believes that inequality is either desirable or natural. Changing the criteria by which you determine who is to be unequal by basing it on a few excerpts from Karl Marx does not mean you are left wing. The North Koreans also treat the Kim family like gods with myths like they do not defecate or urinate or that he scored a 18 holes in one on his first round of golf

At the same time North Korea is subject to massive sanctions from capitalist countries. There are very little news sources that can be considered trustworthy in North Korea, whether reporting negatively or not. North Korea is still technically at war with the USA. Also, the argument has been made that inside of North Korea, the Kim's family's deification is a sarcastic one meant to mock other religions and show how idiotic religion is and not actually believed by those who espouse it. And I'm also sure there have been many attempts to collapse the government and assassinate the Kim family, the Korean war comes to mind, this would atleast excuse some of the militarism

I think the two biggest questions (atleast for me) are would North Koreans be better off if it's government was a mimic of South Korea's? and what would North Korea look like under, it's current government, if it weren't for capitalist aggression, like sanctions, and such?

[JayBro47]

"The CPRF isn't right-wing, IMO. They are awful in many ways- their reactionary social attitudes and their ultra-nationalism- but they do still call for the nationalization of key parts of the economy."

Semi-Fascism then?

[etiennel]

From the responses I got on my question, I would say yes. It is a dictatorship with defined, very unequal classes, the defining feature of right wing capitalism and fascism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I find the argument between Tim and Rafiq rather latent, without any useful perspective. Totalitarianism, as it's used to denigrate fascist/Stalinist states, is a stupid word which we shouldn't be accepting the common definition of.
I agree with Rafiq that totalitarianism is a liberal 'kampfwort' used simply to delegitimize various independent States. Examples like mainstream silence over genocidal US allies like Indonesia, Chile or even the Khmer Rouge (1980's) show this. But it's reductionist to compare equally the lack of freedom or "totalitarianism" of a fatally threatened worker state to a bourgeois state. Whether there can be 'objectively' measurable legitimacy of a state is also a futile discussion because so long people are surviving power tends to be able to legitimize anything if it remains congruent on its founding principles.

[mushroompizza]

I also heard North Korea is building "special economic zones" which are basically small areas that legally operate on a market economy.

[willowtooth]

I find the argument between Tim and Rafiq rather latent, without any useful perspective. Totalitarianism, as it's used to denigrate fascist/Stalinist states, is a stupid word which we shouldn't be accepting the common definition of.
I agree with Rafiq that totalitarianism is a liberal 'kampfwort' used simply to delegitimize various independent States. Examples like mainstream silence over genocidal US allies like Indonesia, Chile or even the Khmer Rouge (1980's) show this. But it's reductionist to compare equally the lack of freedom or "totalitarianism" of a fatally threatened worker state to a bourgeois state. Whether there can be 'objectively' measurable legitimacy of a state is also a futile discussion because so long people are surviving power tends to be able to legitimize anything if it remains congruent on its founding principles.

what does kampfwort mean? is that german?

[PhoenixAsh]

Kampfwort means something is a (in this case) politically loaded term which usually leads to heavy debate and discussion and immediately triggers a response.

[mushroompizza]

North Korea is also incredibly Militaristic and Social Imperialist.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I recently heard that by most definitions, North Korea is an extreme far right wing government, even though it espouses communist rhetoric, it only does so as a means of control and propaganda.

Is this a popular opinion? Are there any other communist movements that would fall under this category? How would you label the North Korean government overall?

Well they have long ago dropped the term Marxist-Leninist from their ideology and don't claim to be Communists themselves. The Juche ideology which replaces the Proletariat for the military as the revolutionary force is of course totally against Marxism altogether and their 1 leader totalitarian state that resembles a monarchy backed up by a military junta is reactionary by any standards really. It is in no way a dictatorship of the proletariat but rather a dictatorship on the proletariat.

[IrishAnarchist]

Yes it is, I would say its near fascism

[mushroompizza]

The book The Cleanest Race argues that North Korea's government is based of Japanese Fascism for instance it is illegal to have mixed babies in North Korea and the mob attack of Afro Cuban diplomats. The 2009 constitution has no mention of Communism in it. North Korea is corrupted ultra nationalist Stalinism.

[uncontent_soul]

It seems like the DPRK was once a socialist/leftist society, but after Kim il-Sung, it became a monarchy and a fascist society. In my opinion it has a very Stalinist influence as well and Stalinism can be somewhat of a right-wing socialist movement to many.

[uncontent_soul]

Kim il-Sung was a cool guy I guess. He was a revolutionary aiming towards creating a socialist state. Kim Jong-il on the other hand is responsible for many famines... Turned his father into a god and forced everyone in the DPRK to worship him. He totally ignored his citizens and the Worker's Party in the DPRK weakened and a caste system was created. Kim Jong-un basically is just a little kid trying to be a national leader. He still carries out the deification of his grandfather and seems like a hypocrite and a sexist pervert. There a tons if labour camps in his country he claims doesn't exist. He seems lost. He was born into leadership and is over his head. He doesn't know what to do so he just acts like his father and has the military carry stuff out and that's why there are labour camps with rapist jail guards and people training to cannibalism. He has no idea what to do. Other nations try to offer aid but he's to snobby to accept it... It's really a shame what he's turned the DPRK into.

[uncontent_soul]

Turning* not training sorry...