Is the DPRK communist?

[Flavius]

Or, in other words, can Juche be called a form of communism, or is it completely alien to revolutionary left? In my opinion it is, and even more, Juche is one of the most reactionary, fascistic worldviews. Not just because of it's extreme nationalism, but also it's degenerated, quasi-religious cult of personality, not to mention it's other fatal flaws.

Still, I ask this question, because it seems there are lots of people out there who disagree with me and say that Juche, and thus, the DPRK is communist in its essence. And this is an opinion I can't agree with, mea culpa.

However, I'm curious what arguments are there on the other side.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would say it's far right, but not fascist. Also, its*

[Flavius]

I would say it's far right, but not fascist. Also, its*

My english sometimes needs some corrections. Thanks for noticing, already edited. :)

And you are maybe right, they are of course not fascist if we stick to the strict definition of fascism, but in my opinion, the regime is kind of fascistoid (is that even a word?) in the sense that they have roots of far-left thought, but are now nationalists, maybe even chauvinists, militarists, and have a ridiculous cult of personality.

[ComradeAllende]

Or, in other words, can Juche be called a form of communism, or is it completely alien to revolutionary left? In my opinion it is, and even more, Juche is one of the most reactionary, fascistic worldviews. Not just because of it's extreme nationalism, but also it's degenerated, quasi-religious cult of personality, not to mention it's other fatal flaws.

Nah; Juche is basically fascism with a left-wing mask. It makes Stalinism look revolutionary.


Still, I ask this question, because it seems there are lots of people out there who disagree with me and say that Juche, and thus, the DPRK is communist in its essence. And this is an opinion I can't agree with, mea culpa.

Most of the people who support the DPRK are either neo-Stalinist totalitarians or actually part of the DPRK's ruling caste. Juche is too nationalistic and militaristic to qualify as a "communist" country, and its power structure is essentially a mix of the Divine Right of Kings and the emperor-worship of the Roman Empire.

[Antiochus]

The DPRK admits they aren't Communists.... As far as I know, they have clearly demarcated 'classes', where the city dwellers live some sort of 'middle'-class existance in exchange for support while the people in the countryside and towns starve to death. It is basically an idiotic Khmer Rouge but in reverse. Off course its a tragedy for the people there. Keep in mind, the two main imperialist powers, the U.S and China, have quite a bit of the responsibility for creating this monster, for two different reasons off course. China to create a buffer state and the U.S to punish and squeeze to death a hostile country.

[tuwix]

Or, in other words, can Juche be called a form of communism, or is it completely alien to revolutionary left? In my opinion it is, and even more, Juche is one of the most reactionary, fascistic worldviews. Not just because of it's extreme nationalism, but also it's degenerated, quasi-religious cult of personality, not to mention it's other fatal flaws.

Still, I ask this question, because it seems there are lots of people out there who disagree with me and say that Juche, and thus, the DPRK is communist in its essence. And this is an opinion I can't agree with, mea culpa.

However, I'm curious what arguments are there on the other side.

It's rather form of totalitarian monarchy. Political system there is near to feudalism. It has nothing to do with communism.

[RedWorker]

In my opinion Juche is similar to fascism but not the same thing. I would say there is a "reactionary" category which includes the terms fascism, U.S. "libertarianism" and Juche, typically associated with the petty-bourgeoisie and/or political bureaucracies.

[G4b3n]

In my opinion Juche is similar to fascism but not the same thing. I would say there is a "reactionary" category which includes the terms fascism, U.S. "libertarianism" and Juche, typically associated with the petty-bourgeoisie and/or political bureaucracies.

Juche has nothing to do with fascism.
Fascism is a reactionary stage of capitalist production in which the bourgeoisie employee state sponsored thugs to defend their economic positions from workers' or any other mass movement that could challenge existing production.

The leaders of the DPRK came to power, historically, through a mass movement determined to push imperialist powers out of their country. If you want to compare what this movement has to degenerated into to fascism then you are simply comparing aesthetics, nothing that actually means anything in terms of production and how the nation plays on the world stage.

[RedWorker]

Fascism is a reactionary stage of capitalist production

"Reactionary stage of capitalist production"? What does this mean? What is this? What is "capitalist production" in this context? How can it have stages, let alone political ones? How can it have a 'reactionary stage'?

More importantly, on what is this concept based?

A more reasonable analysis names fascism a specific kind of reactionary political regime which can take place in bourgeois society.


in which the bourgeoisie employee state sponsored thugs to defend their economic positions from workers' or any other mass movement that could challenge existing production.

Fascism is characterized by the bourgeoisie losing its control of politics, being turned over to a political bureaucracy, thought this is not exclusive of fascism. So they are not actively employing them, they can just support them until the fascist regime actually starts.

Having said this, the DPRK political regime is objectively reactionary and prevents a revolution in a qualitatively different fashion from a bourgeois one, even though its origin is different.


The leaders of the DPRK came to power, historically, through a mass movement determined to push imperialist powers out of their country.

They came to power through the USSR militarily defeating Japan then establishing a political regime in half of Korea's land distinct from the other half occupied by the US.

Of course, this does not mean that the DPRK's leaders do not pretend having been great popular figures in some liberation movement. Hell, they may even have had some relevance - but this is merely offered as a justification, it does not have to do with the fact that they're actually in power now.


If you want to compare what this movement has to degenerated into to fascism then you are simply comparing aesthetics, nothing that actually means anything in terms of production and how the nation plays on the world stage.

Firstly, this does not go down to mere 'aesthetics'. There is a good amount of similarities between fascist regimes and the DPRK, and both are reactionary.

Secondly, you use the watered-down term 'aesthetics' to refer to a wider concept which is really one of the key parts of fascism. Extreme nationalism, extreme militarism, extreme promotion of idealism, worship of realist-style and related art and culture, extreme control and repression of culture, extreme and total submission to a specific ideology and so on, are characteristics that are relevant.

[Rafiq]

The DPRK cannot be qualified as a Communist state for the simple reason that its mutation into something entirely different was the prime condition of its survival following the collapse of 20th century Communism.

One should not make the mistake of believing that North Korea is the "Last surviving remnant" of Stalinism. It is not. The question shifts from whether North Korea can be qualified as Communist, to the significance this state has on the level of the global totality - and it does not take much effort to see that North Korea is a reactionary state. That is to say, reactionary in juxtaposition to the global developments that have transpired over the last few decades. Those with a keen eye can see very clearly that Fascists in the West have a great deal of admiration for North Korea, as they did, and still do for many of the surviving (but modernist) despotic Arab states.

Regarding the position of the Left on a potential military invasion of North Korea, we cannot oppose it any more, or any less than any other military adventure that remains in the realm of possibility - Syria, Iran, Russia, and so on. Conversely, if the US were to engage - Venezuela or any of the Left-populist governments in Latin America, we would have to oppose this while supporting the governments in question. Why? Of course, because a US invasion of Latin America would have entirely different political ramifications, and an entirely different basis of causation than a US invasion of Iran. Of course we are no friends of the Chavista, or the Morales' of the continent, but these possess organic predispositions to something larger, irreducible to themselves (Conversely, what organic Ba'ath politics exists irreducible to the Syrian state in question?). That is to say, the Left populist governments in Latin America are NOT sufficient-unto-themselves, their endurance is contingent upon the ambiguous political void that surrounds their sustenance (Like, say, the Spanish Republican government or Allende). The toppling of one of the most reactionary states in the Middle east would not in principle be something we would oppose, rather, a means by doing this via an invasion would be. Conversely, what would emerge in stead of North Korea, or Iran (even in the event of a western backed uprising) would be a bourgeois-liberal state, in it containing the opportunity for worker's consciousness actualized politically.

[Flavius]

Thank you, Rafiq, useful post. Now I think I am enstrengthened in my opinion.

[Comrade Jacob]

This thread again?
DPRK follows Juche (Korean socialism), I'd prefer them to do more of a Marxist-Leninist line but here we are.

[breadnroses]

Hic est Veritas, North Korea is not socialist, it is not revolutionary or socialist. The workers have been oppressed for decades under the Kim family's oppressive rule. The North Koreans do not work to improve the plight of the workers abroad. In a true socialist state, the government doesn't pilfer from the peasants and workers in order to feed a gigantic, unsustainable army.

[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-leninism, but rather juche is korean socialism. 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 comrades, has anyone of you ever been to NK and seen any crimes against humanity? Who are we to judge?

I live in the so called "free world" of the West and witness crimes against humanity by the government every day, just think of Ferguason or Mumia Abu-Jamal.

[Atsumari]

You just had to post a reply that will do nothing but inflate someone's rep.

I know this may be pointless but have you been to North Korea to see their exemplary socialism? Who are you to judge? Go ahead and defend North Korea all you want but you will not win any sympathy by trying to persuade us that it is somehow a free wonderful land, even MRN does not have that kind of level of apologism.
And out of curiosity, what do Die Linke and Communist Platform members think of your views, assuming that you interact with them in the first place?

[OnFire]

In fact, as a member of the KFA I visited the DPRK in 2013, I have not seen people starving or gulags, what I saw were happy people. The main problem of Korea is the US embargo, it can be likened to the situation of Palestine with the Israeli embargo.

From what I saw, the Korean people value the independence of their country nd, under the pressure of imperialists, have thoroughly implemented the principle of independence, self-reliance and self-defence, defending their sovereignty and dignity.

The juche means, in a nutshell, that the masters of the revolution and construction are the masses of the people and that they are also the motive force of the revolution.

Many members of the communist platform also show much solidarity with DPRK, and we all should try to defend it from imperialism.

[Gunsmas]

I remember there being an excellent website that wrote all about the formation of the Workers party of Korea and it went into great detail about everything they did well into the 1980s. I remember the background of the website was black.

Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about?

[OGG]

What is 'Korean Socialism'?

[Gunsmas]

What is 'Korean Socialism'?

What could have been if the Americans/South Korean fascist regime had not destroyed the People's Republic of Korea in 1946/7...

[Antiochus]

Ugh, off course any leftist forum would be incomplete without 2-3 imbeciles that offer apologia for the DPRK.

No, I haven't been to North Korea. Guess what, I also wasn't alive in 1945, but I know a bunch of Jews were gassed by the Nazis. The DPRK is a fucking shithole, the people there are not "happy" and no one here gives a fuck about some state-sponsored tour that took you to see Pyongyang's monuments (i.e the asslicking statues of the Kim dynasty).

"Korean Socialism". What drivel. Never mind this is absurdly racist and idiotic, as if Koreans thought on some other mental plane that forced them to adopt a "unique" (i.e far right-wing) "socialism". Idiots.

Oh but please regale us with your defense of forced abortions of "mixed" children in N.Korea.

[Futility Personified]

Some of you need to listen to holiday in cambodia and have a good long hard think about red flags and actual liberation.

[Hatshepsut]

The main problem of Korea is the US embargo, it can be likened to the situation of Palestine with the Israeli embargo...

I doubt that's their main problem, but yes, the U.S. embargo has nothing to do with helping North Koreans. Around 1994 I remember President Clinton withheld food and medicine from them in the midst of one of their famines, upon extortion of promises with respect to the country's nuclear program—eventually forwarding the rice bags when allegations of tens of thousands of deaths wallpapered American TV screens. See the U.S. as a fine humanitarian force on the world stage, with every right to lecture other countries on human rights; except when it's politically inconvenient the humanism stops.

North Korea is so Kim I have no idea whether it's left or right or fascist or communist; I suspect it has more in common with a malevolent resurrection of Snofru's pyramid-building state in Egypt than with anything modern.

Fascism as I understand it erases the distinction between state and people, at least in Alfredo Rocco's formulation. People submerge their own ideas and preferences in favor of pledging absolute loyalty and obedience to the state, because in theory the state's aim is their own welfare. The state promises in return to optimize human physical and mental development in service to nation. Hitler added blood-and-soil elements and the holocaust ideology of the Judeo-Bolshevist Foe to the mix. Property is private but the state has first dibs when it comes to how it's used. Which seems to be war; fascism organizes on a permanent military footing for conquest and aggrandizement of the state.

[The Intransigent Faction]

No, it's not communist. The question of how North Korea could move forward from its current position toward a genuine socialism is, however, a contentious and difficult one. I can't honestly give an answer to that.

[RedWorker]

No, it's not communist. The question of how North Korea could move forward from its current position toward a genuine socialism is, however, a contentious and difficult one. I can't honestly give an answer to that.

In my opinion, it is evident at this point that the substitution of the political regime for a bourgeois-liberal one is a necessity for revolutionary activity. Due to several factors such as the requirement of freedom of speech and political organization, and the need to end a pseudo-socialist government in order to avoid illusion and confusion.

This transition may happen in several ways. It is clear that the DPRK is moving towards liberal economical politics and something close to the China model. The political regime may also slowly transition towards more freedom, but in any case would become stuck at the Chinese level for a long time. A bourgeois military intervention may also be possible (though unlikely right now), then it is debatable whether communists ought to support it (not just because but rather because discussing such a decision is legitimate, e.g. see Rafiq's post).

[The Intransigent Faction]

In my opinion, it is evident at this point that the substitution of the political regime for a bourgeois-liberal one is a necessity for revolutionary activity. Due to several factors such as the requirement of freedom of speech and political organization, and the need to end a pseudo-socialist government in order to avoid illusion and confusion.

What, exactly, makes you think that replacing the existing regime with a bourgeois-liberal one will be a step closer to avoiding illusion and confusion? If other former 'socialist' regimes are any indication, all it will mean is an end to lip-service to the working class and the continued portrayal of socialism as an anachronistic 'totalitarian' regime with symbolism adopted by nationalists.


This transition may happen in several ways. It is clear that the DPRK is moving towards liberal economical politics and something close to the China model.

True. It's my understanding that there's been some degree of smuggling across the China-North Korea border, as well (of goods, or in a few cases people). Perhaps a certain degree of liberalization is or will be seen as a way to provide a legal alternative. The more such a thing offers a glimpse of the outside, the harder it will be to sustain isolationism.


The political regime may also slowly transition towards more freedom, but in any case would become stuck at the Chinese level for a long time. A bourgeois military intervention may also be possible (though unlikely right now), then it is debatable whether communists ought to support it (not just because but rather because discussing such a decision is legitimate, e.g. see Rafiq's post).

The first point is a possibility, yes. Regarding military intervention, it shouldn't need to be said that this would inevitably be a quagmire for many reasons, even if a functional bourgeois-liberal regime could be built from the wreckage.

[Pancakes Rühle]

It's state capitalism wrapped up in nationalist-bourgeois ideology.

[Fourth Internationalist]

A bourgeois military intervention may also be possible (though unlikely right now), then it is debatable whether communists ought to support it (not just because but rather because discussing such a decision is legitimate, e.g. see Rafiq's post).

For communists, supporting a bourgeois(-imperialist) military intervention in the DPRK is not "debatable".

[RedWorker]

For communists, supporting a bourgeois(-imperialist) military intervention in the DPRK is not "debatable".

Why?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why?

Communists seek to overthrow capitalism and imperialism. Supporting imperialism in any case is counter-effective if one's goal is proletarian revolution. In fact, it is an outright betrayal on par with that of the Second International's betrayal of the world proletariat during World War I.

[AnarchistCollectivistRoxy]

I would say it used to be left. It really did. But it's slowly become more fascist, militaristic, and nationalistic. Also, they removed any dialogue about communism from their constitution a while ago.

[LeninistIthink]

I'm going to be a pedantic ass and say the title is wrong because of communism being stateless, but enough of that XD.

The DPRK is a theoretical minefield , it is lied about by the capitalist media, so the most ardent defenders of the DPRK will take this to mean that it is a strong socialist state (by that logic Kruschev with the Cuban Missile Crisis delivered the socialist utopia to us all) . However, there is an absolutely nationalistic character to juche from what I can tell (not an expert) . The so called Korean path to socialism is just whatever the hell the DPRK does without having to explain it with marxism . I have heard stories that in the DPRK you are even given benefits based on family history, which is certainly not socialism, even as M-Ls define it. Which has lead some comrades of mine to even go so far as to say that the DPRK has reverted to feudalism and now the south winning would be a step forward.

The importance of this question lies in its conclusions:
A) DPRK=socialism defend it
B) DPRK=deformed workers state defend it from imperialism and counter revolution but advocate political revolution
C) DPRK= Feudalism don't defend it
D) DPRK= A bad country but defend it from US imperialism , perhaps supporting counter revolution etc .

I assume most would fall under D and B .

[Fourth Internationalist]

The importance of this question lies in its conclusions:
A) DPRK=socialism defend it
B) DPRK=degenerated workers state defend it
C) DPRK= Feudalism don't defend it
D) DPRK= A bad country but defend it from US imperialism

I assume most would fall under D and B .

Option B would be best represented as "deformed workers state, defend it from imperialism and counterrevolution, advocate proletarian political revolution" because Trotskyists would not defend the ruling bureaucracy in such states in the same way that those who view the DPRK as a socialist country would. Option A would politically and militarily defend the DPRK and its current government, while option B would militarily defend the DPRK from capitalist attacks but simultaneously advocate revolution to overthrow the current government.

[LeninistIthink]

Option B would be best represented as "deformed workers state, defend it from imperialism and counterrevolution, advocate proletarian political revolution" because Trotskyists would not defend the ruling bureaucracy in such states in the same way that those who view the DPRK as a socialist country would. Option A would politically and militarily defend the DPRK and its current government, while option B would militarily defend the DPRK from capitalist attacks but simultaneously advocate revolution to overthrow the current government.

Ah sorry slip of the keyboard, I meant to type deformed , but yeah you're right, I'll edit it

[Comrade Jacob]

It's state capitalism wrapped up in nationalist-bourgeois ideology.

Nice buzzwords.

[RedWorker]

Communists seek to overthrow capitalism and imperialism. Supporting imperialism in any case is counter-effective if one's goal is proletarian revolution. In fact, it is an outright betrayal on par with that of the Second International's betrayal of the world proletariat during World War I.

I am not convinced - we are speaking about the replacement of a regime by something which may supposedly improve the possibilities of proletarian revolution, not taking sides nor supporting the own government in a pointless inter-imperialist war of mainly national character. While I am open to accept the notion that this may violate fundamental communist principles (if convinced), I'm not sure if what you are mentioning here bows down to dogma relating to which tactics are appliable.

[John Nada]

I am not convinced - we are speaking about the replacement of a regime by something which may supposedly improve the possibilities of proletarian revolution, not taking sides nor supporting the own government in a pointless inter-imperialist war of mainly national character. While I am open to accept the notion that this may violate fundamental communist principles (if convinced), I'm not sure if what you are mentioning here bows down to dogma relating to which tactics are appliable.The remotely progressive replace would be a bourgeois democratic revolution with a national character. There's a decent argument to be had that Korea has not completed it's bourgeois democratic revolution due to US imperialism.

The US dividing the Korean nation following WWII, installing puppets(some of which collaborated with Japanese fascism) not supported by the Korean people, brutally suppressing what was once a very strong socialist movement and solidifying semi-colonial control in the ROK after the Korean war, was one half of the counterrevolution.

In the DPRK, under the pressure of US imperialism, its dependency on Soviet and Chinese social imperialism(and later Russian imperialism) propped up the Kim Il-Sung's guerrilla faction. This faction moved against and purged more orthodox Marxist-Leninists. Under the guerrilla faction, pre-liberation ideas and culture permeated the superstructure. The class background of the father's paternal line influenced one's standing, with descendants of proletarians, poor peasants and resistance fighters as the "friendly" stratum, petit-bourgeoisie, national-bourgeoisie and middle peasants as "wavering", and landlords, comprador-bourgeoisie, clergy and fascist collaborators as "hostile". There was similar in other Eastern bloc countries, it might not be de jure and supposedly it's no longer as important after the 90's. However, the idea of hereditary lines is semi-feudal vestiges, not a feudal base, but a backward superstructure.

Now if Korea needs a bourgeoisie democratic revolution, how would imperialism play a progressive role(not sure if that's the argument)? The bourgeoisie in the ROK does not give a fuck about north Koreans(or Korean workers for that matter). They're perfectly content with being a base for US imperialism, and the liberal "democracy" in ROK doesn't allow any leftists discourse. In the DPRK, the bureaucracy is just fine with the nepotism and state-capitalism, and close to Chinese and Russian imperialism themselves. Neither seems interested in leading a bourgeois democratic revolution, though maybe the DPRK's a little more. If the bureaucracy was, that's the same people in charge anyway. The US, that's self-explanatory.

Replacing anyone via imperialism has never been progressive. None of the state-capitalist governments' successors have opened up opportunities for the proletariat or led to greater leftist discourse. There is no independent opposition in the DPRK with significant support inside the DPRK. The US is the one keeping Korea divided, with the DPRK repeatedly asking for a peace treaty and reunification with "one country, two systems".

Since the supposedly progressive bourgeoisie is MIA, this leaves the workers as the only ones who can lead a bourgeois democratic revolution to completion. The Korean proletariat can't have this bourgeois democratic revolution under US, Chinese or Russian imperialism, with the US in particular committed to stop that at all costs. With a bourgeois democratic revolution seemingly in the realm of fantasy at this time, and the proletariat being the only one capable of leading it, might as well wish them a proletarian socialist revolution while they're at it.

Only sensible thing IMO is to not support the DPRK anymore than Iraqi, Afghan or Libyan governments, but oppose US imperialist meddling the same. The US is hold back development in the DPRK by having tens of thousands of troops ready to attack at any moment and occupying half of Korea. The DPRK's governement has shown willingness to pursue peace with the ROK, and supposedly the government is loosening up a bit. If there's a peace treaty with steps towards reunification, then maybe this will give the workers more breathing space.

[Armchair Partisan]

In fact, as a member of the KFA I visited the DPRK in 2013, I have not seen people starving or gulags, what I saw were happy people.

Where were you? Pyongyang? Another bigger city? The countryside? I understand that the lifestyle of Pyongyang is not that bad given the circumstances, but the rest of the country is in shambles. Were you on a guided tour? As far as I know, that's all the average tourist gets, and it's no surprise you got a good impression of the DPRK if they only showed you what they wanted to show you.

I don't think there is a lot to be done about the DPRK - it's not really a fertile ground for revolution (but then again, what is in these days?). I guess that eventually, the North Korean elite will get rid of Kim's personality cult, take NK down the path of Chinese capitalist development, and thus create the conditions for revolution without the need for US imperialist involvement or a homegrown revolution.

[Synergy]

North Korea is probably a fascist state. In any case it's a pretty terrible place to live.

This testimony from Soon Ok Lee who was a prisoner is very depressing but I highly recommend that everyone read it:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/lee_testimony_06_21_02.pdf

[Pancakes Rühle]

nice buzzwords.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The Disillusionist]

Oh good, the conclusion is that it's still not Communist. I thought something might have changed since the last billion exact copies of this discussion. Imagine my relief.

[Guardia Rossa]

North Korea is probably a fascist state.

OUCH, RIGHT IN MY HISTORY CLASSES

Serious, leftists should stop using "fascist" as synonymous to "authoritarian".

Fascist States only existed in the Interbellum/WW2 periods

[lutraphile]

Certainly not socialist, except in that for some reason half of the Communist International still accepts it as such. They are nationalistic in the extreme and often openly racist, in addition to ascending to a level of totalitarianism I can't imagine anyone being too comfortable with. But even aside from that, they're functionally an absolute monarchy. I can't think of too much less left-wing than that.

[RedWorker]

Certainly not socialist, except in that for some reason half of the Communist International still accepts it as such.

What? There's no Communist International. The clownish yearly meetings sponsored by the KKE, also involving representatives from e.g. the Communist Party of China (hahahahahahaha), are a different thing.

[lutraphile]

What? There's no Communist International. The clownish yearly meetings sponsored by the KKE, also involving representatives from e.g. the Communist Party of China (hahahahahahaha), are a different thing.
It's certainly the closest thing to one. Every ruling communist party in the world attends, along with nearly every powerful non-ruling one (even non-ML ones like the French).

[mrd6376]

The DPRK is just as legitimate of a socialist country as the USSR, GDR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. I get so tired of leftists who drool over Cuba but shy away from defending the many accomplishments of the DPRK. Whether or not the "Juche" philosophy is consistent with Marxism-Leninism is an issue for the Korean working class to resolve (it is most certainly not "fascist", a term the left continues to misuse much as the right abuses the terms "socialist" and "communist"). Remember, there is no living example of a theoretically "pure" socialist society as socialism is a transitional system that carries over many of the old ways of the society that it's revolution replaced. Therefore, we must evaluate accordingly.

[Aslan]

Hell no! You think a nation of brain-washed militarists who worship their 'eternal leader' Kim Il Sung is socialist?

[-=56=-]

Definitely not fascist as few already mentioned. It isn't "left-wing fascism" or something like that I saw mentioned as well. May be confusing due to the fact that Mussolini (if and only if by fascism one refers and thinks Italian Fascism) has been a leader of the Socialist Party of Italy who received suport for his actions from Lenin himself.

As for DPRK, it is what is says on the tin - Juche. There were quite a few nations who followed a similar approach. Not Juche, but their way to socialism.

[Lord Testicles]

Fascist States only existed in the Interbellum/WW2 periods

Don't forget Spain & Portugal.

[Aslan]

Franco's dictatorship wasn't fascist. Fascism is a very special mix of Nationalism and authoritarianism that wants the government acting as a sort of 'guiding wind'. This means fighting for the military and extreme chauvinism to the point of racism. Nationalist Spain was reactionary in it's ideology. It was reacting to the increasing Liberal leaning inter-war government. The Nationalist were direct allies of the abominable carlists and quasi-fascists that wanted to take over.
North Korea again isn't socialist nor democratic nor Fascist. It is more of a Prussian style despotism with the ruler being worshiped practically as a god. Its not taken seriously and is more like modern China and Khmer rouge as a poison to our ideology. It has done nothing good and in my opinion is better off part of the bourgeoisie machine than it's god-forbidden position it is now to prevent any further damage.

[-=56=-]

As long OP asketh about DPRK, "Prussian style despotism" is out of the equation as well. Juche simply is and was an answer to Marxism-Leninism. It is, one can say, a distortion of Marxism-Leninism (hence the emphasis on Korean way to socialism, as in the development of socialism) if any one wants to go into details, e.g. Juche tries to correct Marxism-Leninism.

I think the word you are all looking for right now is a word often used by kommies: revisionism.

So yes, I beg to differ.

[Synergy]

The fact that some people in this thread think North Korea is actually a socialist country is pretty amazing. The workers have no control over their country but I guess that still follows Marxism somehow??

[ShadowStar]

North Korea is not communist. Juche is a form of Korean ultra - nationalism that treat the Kims like gods that dresses it self up in Stalinist imagery. North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world where people routinely starve. North Korea uses propaganda to attempt to fool the western left in to thinking they are socialist. In actuality, North Korea is closer to Fascism than any leftist ideal.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Aside from the fact that the DPRK is a state that oppresses its working class, and whose elites extract surplus value for their enjoyment, there hasn't actually been a Communist state. In fact, such a notion is an oxymoron. I thought that was Marxism 101.