The DPRK

[Brother No. 1]

Comrades is the DPRK a good example of what we try to achive or is it not an example I want your oppions and answers comrades and tell me if this is a bad question if so I'll delete it

[Pogue]

No quesitons are bad, except ones which are designed to troll or spread hate, so don't worry comrade.

The DPRK is heavily beurecratic with a repressive capitalist state. It is the complete opposite from what communists desire to see in the world.

[Dóchas]

i dont know much about the DPRK but form what iv heard it dosnt sound like a great example of what we are aiming for, but thats just me

[Brother No. 1]

I think peronally that kim the kim now betrayed the Revloution and set up his own empire and to make sure no one would stop him he dissabled the peoples thoughts and sayed to them follow me for a better future so where is that future

[KurtFF8]

No quesitons are bad, except ones which are designed to troll or spread hate, so don't worry comrade.

The DPRK is heavily beurecratic with a repressive capitalist state. It is the complete opposite from what communists desire to see in the world.

I don't exactly see how the DPRK is a "capitalist state" but it certainly is quite repressive. Oblisk (who was banned here) from SE moderates the DPRK subforum at SE: link (http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewforum.php?f=131&sid=7017a4a5ca18e64e4706d65b09cd3ad2) that has some information that may be helpful. Granted Oblisk and a few others there are DPRK apologists, there's still some valuable topics there.

I also suggest these documentaries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VzDqbMUlrU A clip from "A day in the life" The whole thing can be found via torrent somewhere I believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU "Welcome To North Korea" takes a much less sympathetic approach.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I believe that in practice Juche has failed, but I believe the reasons for this to lie outside Korea. I believe it to be the result of a deliberate campaign of destruction against the Korean people. As such I sympathise fully with the North Korean government while having to acknowledge that they have been accused of human rights abuses that are beyond the pale.

I would be willing to proudly accept a certificate of membership in the international DPRK friendship society and will probably spend tbe 25 dollars necessary to do so. I would give my right testicle to visit Pyongyang and see for myself the result of the socialist miracle, I want to believe but I can't claim that I currently do so. I believe quite strongly in the foundations of the state and I would very much like to be shown a version of its current status that contradicts the dominant view of the western media which condemns the DPRK as a failed state. Because they have done a pretty good job depicting it as such, and things do look bleak.

Whether that is true or not, I ALSO want to see the facts as presented by the side of the government of the DPRK. The constant bombardment of AmeriKKKan propaganda that we are faced with gives no insight into DPRK politics. I fear we gain limited insights from the KCNA (Korean Central News Agency, google it and read it if you don't already) but at least they give us straight quotes from officials and not lies from American generals that make up their own quotes for the DPRK officials.

End of rant, heh.

[Mister X]

As communists we have to defend the DPRK from imperialism.
Also we have to understand the advantages of the socialist economic basis and how this benefits the people of the DPRK. On the other hand we criticize the bureaucracy which has surpassed Stalin in audacity and has created an extreme cult for Dear Leader Sung. We should not only criticize Sung as I see people doing in this thread but the bureaucratic deformation which has existed since its foundation.

Other than that I am a member of the Korean Friendship Association and I invite every comrade who agrees with what I just wrote to PM me with questions about it if he/she is interested.

[Hiero]

The DPRK is heavily beurecratic with a repressive capitalist state. It is the complete opposite from what communists desire to see in the world.

That is why the capitalist love it so much. The DPRK is the anti-Communist dream!

[Dr Mindbender]

Comrades is the DPRK a good example of what we try to achive or is it not an example I want your oppions and answers comrades and tell me if this is a bad question if so I'll delete it

I'd like to be even mildly sympathetic towards the DPRK purely for being a pain in the ass to the US capitalist hegemony for so long but the way in which the Juche state has allowed its people to live in poverty and famine despite the comparitive luxury of the 'dear leader' is just too big a factor to overlook.

It's border control, right down to its own class system and emphasis on military control is completely reactionary and totally the opposite to genuine communism. If anything it is an embarressment to the left, not something to be appraised. If Korea is ever reunited on the terms of the capitalist south, it wont really be a big loss.

I was going to say that Cuba is closer to the model of socialism we ought to be aiming for, but in some ways thats almost as bad as the DPRK.

[Q]

As communists we have to defend the DPRK from imperialism.
Also we have to understand the advantages of the socialist economic basis and how this benefits the people of the DPRK. On the other hand we criticize the bureaucracy which has surpassed Stalin in audacity and has created an extreme cult for Dear Leader Sung. We should not only criticize Sung as I see people doing in this thread but the bureaucratic deformation which has existed since its foundation.

I largely agree. Despite the bureaucratic deformation, North-Korea has a socialised and planned economy, which in itself is a progressive step over capitalism. Before the fall of the USSR, North-Korea was far more advanced then the South if I'm not mistaken. Sadly, the fall of the Stalinist regimes has put the North-Korean people into total isolation and society has fallen apart as a result. The highly nationalistic Juche isn't helping here either.

I think we should make clear in our support though that it goes unconditionally to the North-Korean working people, not to its regime. In fact, I think the formula of a political revolution - one which is aimed at ousting the bureaucracy and starting a genuine workers democracy - applies here well, although I'm too unfamiliar with the internal movements to make a judgement how feasable this is in the coming period.

[Mister X]

I think we should make clear in our support though that it goes unconditionally to the North-Korean working people, not to its regime. In fact, I think the formula of a political revolution - one which is aimed at ousting the bureaucracy and starting a genuine workers democracy - applies here well, although I'm too unfamiliar with the internal movements to make a judgement how feasable this is in the coming period.

Yes of course we support the proletariat of the DPRK as we do with every proletariat(Including the Israeli which is scorned upon by so many "leftists").

I am somewhat familiar with the situation in the DPRK as I have friends who traveled there. Suffice it to say that they have no freedom of assembly and expression whatsoever and their lives in the factory are constantly monitored. My friend went there with the KFA and he told me that all the workers gave robot-like responses to his questions and they talked about how much they loved the "Dear Leader" etc.

I don't think that with this kind of oppression the proletariat will overthrow the bureaucracy and establish a workers democracy soon enough. The fact is though that the bureaucracy, due to the bureaucratic management of the economy has created a very unstable economic situation that will hit the wall soon enough.

That being said the imminent economic bankrupcy and collapse of the regime will not mean that there is going to be a restoration of workers democracy but probably the unity of the two Koreas , the "fall of the Berlin wall" and the reconstruction. The bureaucracy is just waiting for the moment which will probably going to be the Dear Leaders death so they can find a scapegoat.

[Revy]

it looks as if reform is going to happen, it is going to happen through the elites that control North Korea, or the military. After Kim Jong-il's death, there will be the likely possibility for a power struggle.

North Korea is a dictatorship and it is not socialist. It's state capitalist. There is no reason to believe that North Korea could not collapse in the same way that East Germany did. And if it collapses, it will be because of the contradictions of the regime and its anti-socialist ideology.

[Mister X]

Rarely in this history of this site has someone tried to pass off shallow liberal 'analysis' as fact as often and matter-of-factly as you stancel. You simply pop into threads and make completely baseless and over simplistic assertions, and that's supposed to be that. Anyone capable of thinking will of course reject your approach, but it's very annoying.

Every society in which multiple antagonistic classes exist at once is a dictatorship of one class or another. The United States is a dictatorship of the capitalists. Yet, I don't recall you to referring to it as that ever on this board. Perhaps you can show me where you did.

Of course it's much easier to verbally attack an isolated country half away around the world that also happens to be in the crosshairs of your imperialist rulers. There's no need for study of the actual situation and you don't have to worry about growing a backbone and defending any gains made by the international proletariat, however limited.

Capitalist property relations were overturned in the northern part of Korea. The capitalists were expropriated. A new state was built, and that state still exists today. It hasn't been destroyed (which would be a requirement for the capitalists to retake power). There is no new ruling capitalist class, only a bureaucratic caste. It does not own the means of production.

"The class has an exceptionally important and, moreover, a scientifically restricted meaning to a Marxist. A class is defined not by its participation in the distribution of the national income alone, but by its independent role in the general structure of the economy and by its independent roots in the economic foundation of society. Each class (the feudal nobility, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, the capitalist bourgeoisie and the proletariat) works out its own special forms of property. The bureaucracy lacks all these social traits. It has no independent position in the process of production and distribution. It has no independent property roots. Its functions relate basically to the political technique of class rule .... Nevertheless, the privileges of the bureaucracy by themselves do not change the bases of the Soviet society, because the bureaucracy derives its privileges not from any special property relations peculiar to it as a ‘class,’ but from those property relations that have been created by the October Revolution [or in this case the revolutionary overturn of capitalism in Korea] and that are fundamentally adequate for the dictatorship of the proletariat .... To put it plainly, insofar as the bureaucracy robs the people (and this is done in various ways by every bureaucracy), we have to deal not with class exploitation, in the scientific sense of the word, but with social parasitism, although on a very large scale.” - Trotsky

Our party has taken the time and energy to analyze Korea. If you're serious about discussing it and getting to the bottom of what's going on there, you should look at something like this and engage it contents. If you want to contest the analysis we put forward, do it, and back up your arguments. Don't just repeat the same empty slogans over and over.


Although you recommended the text to someone else I took the time to read it.
Really great article, which reflects my opinion on the topic .
There was no mention of political revolution in the DPRK which I think can bring about a genuine workers state there. Of course the author does a really good job explaining the effects of a South Korean revolution in respect to North Korea but the fact still remains that a political revolution that will bring workers democracy in the DPRK is still something to consider although the chances of that happening are not that high.

Well done in respect to internationalism but omitting the possibility of a political revolution is a bug deal.

[Revy]

North Korea has the right to defend itself from imperialism, that doesn't mean we should harbor illusions about what exists there.

The "North Korea Truth Project" website would like us to believe that North Korea is a democracy with freedom of speech. I pity those that actually believe it.

I'm glad I'm free from those meddling contradictions. No offense - I just wouldn't be able to handle the stress from trying to reconcile all that with my socialist views.

[Mister X]

We have to understand that the state in north Korea grew out of material conditions. The conditions have actually worsened since the formation of that state. Those conditions (e.g. isolation, imperialist army on the border and in surrounding waters, etc.) need to change to give workers in north Korea the room they need to oust the bureaucrats. It's our duty to fight for the spread of revolution to south Korea, Japan and internationally. Revolutions in south Korea and Japan especially can create the spark needed for the proletariat in north Korea and China.. and internationally.

Comrade I understand that but the fact is that as Trotsky state in his book "The Revolution Betrayed", there will be either a political revolution, either the bureaucracy will sell-out the collectivized economy in order to serve their own interests(sorry for not having the exact quote but this won't be a problem since we both read the book I assume).

Yes if a revolution happens in South Korea etc, that will probably correct the bureaucracy problem in North Korea, but the thing is that there is still a posibility of a political revolution. That is because the revolution did not degenerate due to objective material conditions but it was created that way due to the influence of Soviet bureaucracy among other things. For sure economic conditions as well as isolation are not favorable for a workers state but its not a fact that workers democracy ceases to exist due to isolation .

Workers democracy was abolished in the USSR in part due to isolation and economic conditions but there were other factors as well. One of those were the death of many "hardcore" Bolsheviks in the civil war and their replacement with people who could not lead the class towards building genuine socialism. Also the fact that there was a high illiteracy rate worsened conditions for a workers democracy since the high illiteracy rate meant a limitation in regards to the people who perform bureaucratic tasks.

Therefore the old czarist bureaucracy ended up switching to the socialist camp after the revolution and assumed positions of power during the Stalinist regime ,but not only that they helped Stalin to come to power.

My point is that although degeneration arises through material conditions we cannot be eclectic as Marxists but we can't generalize either. You seem to think that a workers democracy is impossible without good economic etc conditions. This is a very false notion and dangerous to your future development as a revolutionary. Socialism(genuine) is possible and the fact that the USSR degenerated due to certain conditions that does not mean that Cuba and N.Korea do not have the possibility of achieving workers democracy through political revolutions.

Also you might object that a political revolution endangers the gains of the working class and enfeebles the country in respect to defence from a capitalist attack. That is not true though because a political revolution, just like a socialist revolution is a matter of days not a matter of months and years. Also the present day Korea and Cuba have a bigger chance in being sold out by their respective bureaucracies every day a political revolution doesn't happen.

Let's face it , the gains made in the DPRK and Cuba will never be stable as long as there is no genuine workers democracy. The bureaucracy can -Gorbatchev or Xiaoping-like- sell out the gains of the working class at any time (gradualy or in one shot).

Sorry if my writing is not very coherent , due to my limited time I had to make haste writing it. That's the burden of being a family man.

[Q]

This sounds like a case of dogmatism to me. Just because Trotsky said something doesn't mean it was true. Trotsky made a ton of mistakes.

Yes, Trotsky called for a political revolution, but none ever came about.

So because it didn't happen in the USSR, does that mean that one can't happen in Cuba or N-Korea? I agree though that, given what you and Mister X told on the subjective conditions in N-Korea, a political revolution will most likely be the result of a revolution in S-Korea, Japan or China.

[Glenn Beck]

From what little I (or almost anyone else in the West) knows about North Korea, I won't be moving there anytime soon. However, I think it's extremely in poor taste when leftists call for the defeat of a government that is both resisting imperialism and in an extremely delicate political impasse. By impasse I mean: who knows what the consequences of the sudden collapse of the Kim regime would spell for the Korean peninsula and East Asia in general? If a change of government is what the people of North Korea want then that is their right as sovereign people, but otherwise its all just wishful thinking, typically of an either utopian or an imperialist variety.

To address the OP I think even people who think the government of the DPRK is a well-intentioned socialist government would not uphold the current state of the DPRK as something to aspire to. Ultimately, much like Cuba's endemic shortages since the fall of the Soviet bloc some of the greatest difficulties of the DPRK are imposed by circumstance. Many of the policies of the DPRK no doubt are set up specifically to deal with the far short of ideal circumstances, in the same manner as Cuba or Russia during the Civil War or countless other socialist countries, none of which has had a particularly pleasant birth.

[Wanted Man]

Report from the National Lawyers' Guild about the DPRK: http://www.nlg.org/korea/2003delegation_report.html

I don't think a lot of people will read it, just like they won't read NHIA's link about Communist Perspectives, or whatever it's called. After all, in a hilarious mockery of Fox News pundits, the NLG or PoWR can't be trusted because they only make "commie propaganda". It shows a kind of arrogance and aversion to opening one's mind and learning more.

Some people ask themselves: why learn more when I've already made up my mind and drawn my conclusions? It's much easier to be judgemental on the basis of one's own ignorance. Just look at stancel's post. He thinks he's scoring points, but he's only advertising his own ignorance. What the hell is a "North Korea Truth Project" anyway? It's as if he's trying to accuse his opponents of posting some sort of LaRouchie or Scientologist propaganda.

This is the liberal way of going about stuff, and it has never presented a coherent argument in all of these DPRK discussions. Which is why a lot of people get tired of participating in them, because even (especially!) threads in Learning end up like this.

[Uncle Al]

If the DPRK is really what we're all aiming for, then we're heading for a dead end - it's never going to happen here. Korea was never an advanced capitalist nation, and its revolution was a localised, national affair. Millions dead in famine is hardly the socialist ideal (and if it is, then count me out), neither is the adoration of the leader as some sort of god, and of the ideology as some sort of religion (and that's exactly what Juche demands). Unless you're some sort of anti-revisionist, quasi-fascist type who idolises Stalin.

Sorry to be blunt, comrades, but the longer people on the so-called left defend regimes such as this, the longer we'll all stay out in the wilderness.

[Uncle Al]

Also, we've got to get over this habit of automatically embracing anything that looks different to/winds up imperialism/the United States. A state-planned economy does NOT mean socialist - the Coal Board in the UK was run by the state, and yet look what they did to the miners. Aren't we better than that?

[Mister X]

This sounds like a case of dogmatism to me. Just because Trotsky said something doesn't mean it was true. Trotsky made a ton of mistakes.

Yes, Trotsky called for a political revolution, but none ever came about.

I am not aware of this "ton" of mistakes comrade. Sure he made mistakes but on major (and most minor) parts of theory and practice he was correct.
Also a political revolution came about in Hungary in 1956 but this is another topic which can be discussed elsewhere.


Communists don't base themselves on the writings of one individual, or a group of individuals. We don't create abstract principles then try to force the world to adopt them. We work to understand what is real so we can change things.

We understand what is real given some tools and concepts that we get from an individual or a Group of individuals. Such as Dialectical Materialism by Marx and Engels, how to build a revolutionary party and the analysis of imperialism by Lenin, the analysis of how a revolution can be degenerated or deformed by Trotsky , the concept of the Permanent Revolution by Trotsky and also his contributions on how a change will come about in the degenerated or deformed workers states.

As Q-Collective pointed out a political revolution in North Korea will most likely happen due to the effect of a South Korean revolution. But it is still a political revolution either your organization wants to call that or not. A political revolution can come about in many ways, either that is in the form of Hungary in 1956 or another form.



As Sankara said, “We are open to all the winds of the will of the peoples and their revolutions, and we study some of the terrible failures that have given rise to tragic violations of human rights. We take from each revolution only its kernel of purity, which forbids us to become slaves to the reality of others.”

Mixing up Maoism, Stalinism , Trotskyism, Guevaraism and what not is not such a good idea when you want to build a revolutionary party. You need an analysis from the past revolutions , but you also need a definite methodology , tactics , ideas etc. And the ideas and tactics proven correct were those of the Bolsheviks. I think that genuine Bolshevism is the solution for the revolutionary movement(Bolshevism not Stalinism).



And on Cuba, I believe there is workers democracy.I'm curious as to what you're basing your assertion that there isn't on.

Cuba is proletarian state. It is not a bureaucratized proletarian state like China, north Korea, Laos and Viet Nam.

A one party genuine workers state is a joke. I think you need to prove that Cuba does not have a bureaucracic caste but a genuine workers democracy. But since this is a different topic I don't want to go much into it.

Basicaly the situation in Cuba has improved since the fall of Stalinism in the USSR , but there is still an opportunistic bureaucracy on the top. If you don't see it your perspectives and analysis and also your approach on these critical times Cuba is passing will be erroneous.

The bureaucracy is fighting over the continuation of socialism and the Chinese model of capitalist restoratation. If you do not see this your whole perspectives on Cuba will be erroneous and you won't be much helpful to Cubans that may suffer to to a possible capitalist restoration.

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

Just to add something, I can understand that you might not have time to argue with me over the DPRK but taking a quote from me (out of context) and trying to prove that I am a dogmatist is not a proper refutation technique.

So please don't do this again and try to stick to the argument rather trying to prove that I am a dogmatic lunatic based on a line you took out of the 15-20 I ve written.

[gorillafuck]

I don't know too much about it, but from what I know, I certainly won't be moving there anytime soon.

[Mister X]

I don't know too much about it, but from what I know, I certainly won't be moving there anytime soon.

To compare the quality of life between the US and North Korea would be idiotic and anti-materialist. It is like comparing two entirely different things , for example cars with bananas.

What we need to understand is the gains from the socialized mode of production in the DPRK. Yes, due to material and historical conditions/cinrcumstances the DPRK is a totalitarian , deformed workers state. But we must at all costs defend it from imperialism and from capitalist restoration , while at the same time pushing for a political revolution (whichever way it happens).

This is what distinguishes Marxists , from idealists and moralists. Because scientific marxist analysis is always objective , while idealism and moralism are subjective and also a subject to material conditions.

That is why idealists can never be revolutionaries and why Marxism is the only ideology that is conscistently revolutionary.

[Demogorgon]

To compare the quality of life between the US and North Korea would be idiotic and anti-materialist. It is like comparing two entirely different things , for example cars with bananas.

What about comparing it with South Korea?

[Killfacer]

To compare the quality of life between the US and North Korea would be idiotic and anti-materialist. It is like comparing two entirely different things , for example cars with bananas.

What we need to understand is the gains from the socialized mode of production in the DPRK. Yes, due to material and historical conditions/cinrcumstances the DPRK is a totalitarian , deformed workers state. But we must at all costs defend it from imperialism and from capitalist restoration , while at the same time pushing for a political revolution (whichever way it happens).

This is what distinguishes Marxists , from idealists and moralists. Because scientific marxist analysis is always objective , while idealism and moralism are subjective and also a subject to material conditions.

That is why idealists can never be revolutionaries and why Marxism is the only ideology that is conscistently revolutionary.

Defend a dictatorship? Last time i checked it wasn't the job of socialist to defend tyranical dictatorships. You really think after the monumental fuck up of the last revolution, that they are likely to have another one?

[Mister X]

What about comparing it with South Korea?

If we compare it with South Korea when they were both allied with their respective superpowers(USSR and US) we will find that the DPRK had a better standard of living than South Korea. To compare them now , it would be idiotic since the Soviet Union collapse and the DPRK has few trading partners left , compared to South Korea.
Again you are being idealistic and I don't want to waste my time debating with idealists.



Defend a dictatorship? Last time i checked it wasn't the job of socialist to defend tyranical dictatorships. You really think after the monumental fuck up of the last revolution, that they are likely to have another one?

Again typical liberal criticism. What can I say? Wanted Man and Nothing Human Is Alien are probably right.

Can you please read this (http://www.marxist.com/where-is-north-korea-going101006.htm) and one of those (http://www.socialistworld.net/zbin/maps/map.cgi/s?id=30) just so we can start a discussion under a common basis? Because we both have heard the criticisms from the bourgeois media, but it seems like you have not heard the criticisms from a Marxist perspective. Also try to read the article linked by Nothing Human Is Alien which was pretty good as well.

I doubt that you will read anything , but I am linking you anyways because it will take A LOT of time which I don't have if we engage in a discussion with you coming off with a liberal point of view and me talking from a Marxist perspective.
Thank you for your patience.

[BobKKKindle$]

Defend a dictatorship? Last time i checked it wasn't the job of socialist to defend tyranical dictatorships

You completely miss the point. Socialists do not defend the North Korean bureaucracy, which has taken the place of the old ruling class and uses the state to exploit the working class. However, we do recognize that, regardless of whether we see North Korea as a workers state or a state-capitalist dictatorship, there are certain features of the North Korean economy which are useful for the working class - for example, a state monopoly on foreign trade, state ownership of strategic industries such as energy and armaments production, central planning, and state control of the financial sector. In addition, we also recognize that North Korea is an oppressed nation, and so in the event of an imperialist invasion, we would offer unconditional military support.

[Demogorgon]

If we compare it with South Korea when they were both allied with their respective superpowers(USSR and US) we will find that the DPRK had a better standard of living than South Korea. To compare them now , it would be idiotic since the Soviet Union collapse and the DPRK has few trading partners left , compared to South Korea.
No. While living standards might have been closer, North Korea was never ahead. Largely because, incidentally, while South Korea took the American assistance, North Korea refused Soviet assistance for the most part and built itself its isolationist bubble.

Plainly there has been further moving apart since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that can also be attributed to the South Korean military dictatorship falling apart around the same time.


Again you are being idealistic and I don't want to waste my time debating with idealists.

Idealism is not just a word that can be thrown at anyone who disagrees with you and expect to be considered an argument winner. If you can point out idealism in anything I said, I will be very surprised.

[Mister X]

No. While living standards might have been closer, North Korea was never ahead. Largely because, incidentally, while South Korea took the American assistance, North Korea refused Soviet assistance for the most part and built itself its isolationist bubble.

Plainly there has been further moving apart since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that can also be attributed to the South Korean military dictatorship falling apart around the same time.

Idealism is not just a word that can be thrown at anyone who disagrees with you and expect to be considered an argument winner. If you can point out idealism in anything I said, I will be very surprised.

North Korea had a better standard of living than South Korea till the mid 80s. Prove otherwise and start using facts if you want anyone to believe you.

These are real gains. Despite bureaucratic inefficiencies, the planned economy enabled the war torn north to surpass the south economically from the end of hostilities in 1953 until the mid-1980’s. It was in the early 1990’s that the real problems began as a result of severe flooding of the north’s already-limited arable land and a loss of trading partners and access to vital resources due to the counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR and the bureaucratized proletarian states in Eastern Europe.

source:http://revper.org/news.php?extend.9


Wikipedia
The 1954–56 three-year plan repaired the massive damage caused by the war and brought industrial production back to pre-war levels. This was followed by the five-year plan of 1957–61 and the seven-year plan of 1961–67. These plans brought about further growth in industrial production and substantial development of state infrastructure. By the 1960s North Korea was the second most industrialized nation in East Asia, trailing only Japan.

Also the DPRK broke with the USSR due to the latters "revisionism" , but had very close relations with China until Xiaoping came to power. So again your assumptions(as usual with no facts) are false.

Nevertheless it still had trade relationships with the USSR and China.

Also South Korea did not grew economically after Park's military dictatorship but during the military dictatorship, which was put in place by the local bourgeoisie and the US in order to prevent another uprising like the uprising in the 60s. See unlike you who thinks that the South was always better than the North, the South Koreans envied the quality of life of the North, as themselves lived in poverty.


Now I will prove how you are idealist.

- You said compare North and South Korea, when those countries don't have the same material conditions, same historical development and the same relation to the world production machine. That is very idealist.

[Demogorgon]

North Korea had a better standard of living than South Korea till the mid 80s. Prove otherwise and start using facts if you want anyone to believe you.
It is extremely difficult to do accurate measurements here because North Korea is so secretive and also puts out plainly made up data. Interesting this behaviour began around 1960, the time most observers agree South Korea moved ahead and also the time certainly when the Dictatorship in North Korea turned as lot worse. It is generally accepted that the North was ahead of the South in the fifties, but that is because the Soviets and the Chinese were pouring so much into North Korea that it was scarcely needing to use its own resources. The Americans, in contrast, were a lot less interested in the South. Moreover at the time both countries were rural, whereas now South Korea is highly industrialised, whereas outside of a few population centres, North Korea never really modernised.

Let us try to make a comparison however. We will use 1980 as a useful point of comparison, because at that point North Korea hadn't really gone into complete decline and South Korea was not in a particularly good state.

GDP in South Korea was 62.7 billion dollars (less than a tenth of what it is now). Getting data from the North for this period is, tellingly, proving to be almost impossible but it seems to have been around 10 to 15 billion dollars. To put that in perspective the population of the South was around 32 million and the North 18 million so for equality you would expect the North to be at about 35 billion. It was less than half this and maybe less than a third.

Also, let's look at a description of North Korea in the eighties written by a Soviet exchange student: http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000929.html


Nevertheless it still had trade relationships with the USSR and China.
And still has with China and modern Russia. Indeed those are the only two countries with any meaningful links to the country and certainly the only two that you can travel to North Korea from with any reliability. So you cannot claim that a lifeline was cut off in that way. Indeed China particularly would love to trade more with North Korea, but the North Korean Government won't let them, so again it isn't the lack of willing trade partners that is the problem.

Also South Korea did not grew economically after Park's military dictatorship but during the military dictatorship, which was put in place by the local bourgeoisie and the US in order to prevent another uprising like the uprising in the 60s. See unlike you who thinks that the South was always better than the North, the South Koreans envied the quality of life of the North, as themselves lived in poverty.
Now that is quite a non-sequitur. The uprisings in South Korea were based on envy of the North? You might as well say the unrest in Greece currently is based upon envy of Macedonia.

The uprisings in the South were based upon poor working conditions, oppression, poverty and so on. The relative wealth of the South as compared to the North was not the issue at stake. Even then the South was wealthier, based upon any figures I can find, being better off than the North was hardly enough though.


Now I will prove how you are idealist.

- You said compare North and South Korea, when those countries don't have the same material conditions, same historical development and the same relation to the world production machine. That is very idealist.
Sorry, but no. North and South Korea make the perfect point of comparison because they started out as part of the same country, indeed the North was the richer part of the peninsula before partition, and only separated around sixty years ago. We can look at how things developed since.

We can factor in Western support by looking at what happened in Germany where West Germany was around three times richer than East Germany (and much of the industry had been focussed in the West after the war and, of course, the East was much more heavily damaged after the war. With that taken into account you would expect South Korea to be less than three times better off than North Korea in 1990 (the point where I made the comparison of East and West Germany). In fact in 1990, at the most generous possible estimation I can make based on available figures South Korea was at least twelve times better off than the North. We can note that this is a lot worse than it was in 1980 indicating that there was a considerable widening of the gap during the eighties, there was certainly a major boom in the South, but the North despite making a brief effort to encourage foreign investment at the time experienced no such growth.

Give a material explanation of that that doesn't involve appalling economic management, autarky and ridiculous levels of military spending.

I say none of this to defend South Korea, its own problems are well documented, but the fact that North Korea is in a far worse state despite being the centre of much of the wealth before partition speaks volumes.

Mind you, to take up an issue of real interest to working class people, which Korea has fully functioning Universal Healthcare, proper provisions for the poor and unemployed, legal trade unions and an enforced minimum wage? I will give you a clue, it isn't the North.

[BobKKKindle$]

Interesting this behaviour began around 1960, the time most observers agree South Korea moved aheadActually, Paul French, one of the most renowned and knowledgeable experts on the history of North Korea, makes it clear in his book 'North Korea: The Paranoid Peninsula' that South Korea only overtook North Korea in 1969 in terms of GDP/Capita - and ironically, the only way South Korea was able to sustain such a high rate of economic growth and develop the industrial sector was through extensive government involvement in the economy and barriers to external trade, contrary to the myths promoted by supporters of the free market. You are are right in saying that the North Korean economy is now many times smaller than the economy of the South and this is partly due to the poor decision-making of the ruling elite, but there are also other factors which have had an important impact on the economic history of the peninsula - North Korea has always suffered from a severe lack of arable land due to its mountainous topography, and South Korea received large amounts of aid from the US in order to create an example of capitalism's innate superiority as a means of delivering prosperity to an impoverished population. By contrast, North Korea has consistently been forced to accept low prices for its products, and during the 1980s was deprived of the guaranteed market previously offered by the USSR. Despite this, however, your analysis is generally correct - and North Korea certainly shouldn't be held up as any kind of positive example by socialists.

[Demogorgon]

What are you talking about? The north has universal health care and education.

When last I checked, healthcare (of any type) being barely present at all outside of the cities and certainly not enough to cover the need does not qualify as Universal healthcare. Rural people are not properly covered.

[BobKKKindle$]

Rural people are not properly covered.

In theory, there is healthcare provision in the countryside, but in reality it is not free, as people who want to get healthcare often face pressure to give bribes to medical staff in the form of monetary payment and even a share of produce, due to the acute shortage of food in rural communities.

[Demogorgon]

In theory, there is healthcare provision in the countryside, but in reality it is not free, as people who want to get healthcare often face pressure to give bribes to medical staff in the form of monetary payment and even a share of produce, due to the acute shortage of food in rural communities.
Quite. As for your point about South Korea growing through heavy Government intervention, that is true as well and I have posted about it elsewhere. They used the Japanese model, albeit a milder version of it, and Japan has semi-ironically been called "the only successful Communist Country".

[Killfacer]

You completely miss the point. Socialists do not defend the North Korean bureaucracy, which has taken the place of the old ruling class and uses the state to exploit the working class. However, we do recognize that, regardless of whether we see North Korea as a workers state or a state-capitalist dictatorship, there are certain features of the North Korean economy which are useful for the working class - for example, a state monopoly on foreign trade, state ownership of strategic industries such as energy and armaments production, central planning, and state control of the financial sector. In addition, we also recognize that North Korea is an oppressed nation, and so in the event of an imperialist invasion, we would offer unconditional military support.

Oh, i'm sure the dictatorship will he happy to know the Bobkindles is offering his unconditional military support.

I somehow doubt that if noth Korea get's invaded there are going to be many International brigades springing to it's aid.

I don't understand how you can support a dictatorship, it seems totally at odds with what being a socialist is about. It's a police state. The working classes of north korea would be better off under capitalism than under their mangled dictatorship. Looks at south korea, it's got really high literacy rates and it guarentee the quality of life is thousands of times better.

"a state monopoly on foreign trade, state ownership of strategic industries such as energy and armaments production, central planning, and state control of the financial sector." What use are these if you don't have any freedom and your starving because your government blows half it's money on attempting to procure nuclear weapons?

[BobKKKindle$]

The working classes of north korea would be better off under capitalism than under their mangled dictatorship.

North Korea is already a capitalist state and always has been for the duration of its existence. To be precise, North Korea is state-capitalist. Nationalization of the productive forces and even economic planning are not enough to make a country socialist, instead there must be democratic control of the means of production through a system of workers councils which allow the workers of each enterprise to decide how production should take place and which goods should be produced. The North Korean economy does not exhibit democratic control, and power is exercised by a class of bureaucrats, who maintain their position by repressing all forms of political opposition and working class resistance. There are some socialists who will claim that nationalization makes North Korea a "workers state", but in reality there are no qualitative differences between nationalized enterprises in North Korea and those in other countries around the world which are universally accepted as capitalist, such as the UK after WW2, and Nazi Germany.

In this context, market reforms in North Korea would not signify a counter-revolution, merely a transition to a different form of capitalism. If the ruling class initiated reforms in order to solidify their own control over production, socialists would fight to maintain the progressive features of the state-capitalist economy, including nationalization, because history teaches us that market reforms invariably threaten the conditions of the working class. In the USSR, gross domestic product fell by over 80 percent from 1991 to 1997, and according to official statistics, capital investment dropped over 90 percent. By the middle of the 1990s, 40 percent of the population of the Russian Federation was living below the official poverty line and a further 36 percent only a little above it, and consequently average male life expectancy fell from 64.2 in 1989 to just 57.6 in 1994 primarily due to the total collapse of healthcare provision as well as the growing prevalence of alcoholism and other social problems associated with economic collapse. We would fight against market reforms in North Korea, just as we fight against privatization and policies designed to undermine the strength of trade unions in the UK, whilst also fighting for a genuine social revolution, directed against the bureaucracy, as part of an international socialist revolution.

[Killfacer]

Really? Take a look at all the old proletarian states where capitalism has been restored and tell me how that worked out for the working class. Are workers doing good in east Germany right now? How did reunification work out for them? Why is Marx a best seller there? Why do polls show so many folks there would prefer to return to what existed in east Germany than what exists now?

It's clear the Korean proletariat needs to move forward, to socialism. But going backward, to capitalism (which would come about as 'reunification' under the puppet government in the south, which routinely jails leftists and union leaders) would only make things worse, for workers in Korea and even internationally.

Since about 1990, and only because of massive influxes of U.S. capital and aid, while the north lost its trading partners and faced natural disasters. Of course it's a great place to live if you're a boss, otherwise, not so much. 2/3 of the workforce is "temporary" and has no protections, unions and even student unions are banned, leftists are locked up, strikes are broken with force, etc. Recent studies found workers in Seoul spend more time working than most people on earth. It's illegal to "promote anti-government ideas," with the penalty being prison time up to death (and yes, people are executed for this). There are over a thousand banned books. Possession of those can land you in a cell. Isn't capitalist freedom great?

Which form the basis for the transition to socialism, if and when the workers oust the bureaucrats and take political control.

Why does it try to 'procure nuclear weapons?' Could it be because the strongest military in the history of the world is stationed on their border and around their waters, with nuclear missiles pointed at them? Nuclear weapons are the only real way to prevent an attack. But you won't place the blame where it belongs, because it's much easier to "defend" the great imperialist "democracy."

As I've said many times before, even if north Korea was just a regular capitalist dictatorship, it still wouldn't be a reason for communists to line up with the imperialists against it.

Anyway, while bureaucratic mismanagement surely plays a part, north Korea has little arable land, it lost its trading partners (and sources of fertilizer, etc.) and it suffered droughts and flooding. The planned economy has helped the country deal with the lack of food better than other countries with "free markets" can, something the UN admits. But that's already been mentioned here and elsewhere. Of course you just ignore things like, which go against your preconceived notions.

I'm not saying we should line up against it. Simply that we shouldn't be showing support for it. I know little of the planned economy and openly admit that. However, even if what you say is true, i still don't see this as a reason to support a country.

I'm not defending America so i don't know why you have said that. I am simply pointing out that blowing millions building a nuclear arsenal may not be a partiucarly idea if your people are starving. Frankly i don't know what the fuck your on about. When did i defend America?!

You can slag off south korea all you want, there is still more freedom their than there is in north Korea. I know a south korean, how many of you reguarly see a North Korean who goes back to their country?

Stop accusing me off stuff i haven't said please.

[Killfacer]

You don't have to say "I support imperialism" and pin a U.S.-flag lapel on your shirt. You condemn north Korea, making positive comments about the south, where a pro-imperialist puppet government rules. You place the blame for the situation in north Korea completely on the shoulders of north Koreans, ignoring the role of the U.S. imperialists on the situation in Korea. You say "democratic" capitalism is better than the "dictatorship" in the north - which is similar to the Shachtmanites who abandoned communism and took the line that "democratic" capitalism was better than "Stalinism" leading them to support the U.S. in the war on Viet Nam. Tellingly, many of those folks are now neocons.



What does "more freedom" mean? Are there levels of freedom?



I know around 40. What the hell does that have to do with anything??



There are thousands of folks in Japan with north Korean citizenship who support the DPRK. They send their children to pro-DPRK schools in Japan. In the 1950s, around 90,000 returned to north Korea voluntarily. Many more continued to go to DPRK until the 80's. Until the late 70's, the pro-DPRK north Korean citizens were the most prominent of the Koreans in Japan.

The point i was attempting to make was that it is obvious that citizens of South Korea have more freedom than those in North Korea.

So condeming a dictatorship now means i support America? Is it really helpful to mudslinging like this?

Yes there are "levels" of freedom. For example, in Nazi germany i would not have been allowed to vote for someone to represent me as the head of state. However, in the UK, i can currently vote for someone to represent me. I think therefor i have more freedom in the UK than i would have if i had lived in Nazi Germany.

Why did they stop going after the late 80's?

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes there are "levels" of freedomWe need to consider that freedom actually means. In theory, everyone in a liberal-capitalist society such as the UK is free to do anything they want within the confines of the law, such that every individual, regardless of their financial status or personal circumstances, is free to buy the most expensive car in the world, to travel overseas for a long holiday, to eat caviar all day long, and so on - in other words, if anyone attempts to do any of these things, the state will not intervene and use physical force against them. However, realistically speaking, only a small number of people have the actual ability to do any of the things mentioned above. The bourgeois conception of liberty is abstract and legalistic, and so fails to acknowledge the ways in which the reality of an economy based on private ownership and an unequal distribution of income (i.e. capitalism) systematically limits our actual ability to exercise our freedom and realize our desires. This is not limited to things which may seem fairly trivial - freedom of speech is certainly one of the most important rights available to any member of a liberal society, and theoretically everyone has the right to set up their own television channel broadcasting anything they like, including socialist propaganda, but given the financial cost of purchasing a television channel, and broadcasting equipment, the only people who have enough money to exercise freedom of speech under capitalism are those people who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, and consequently progressives are, outside of blogs and alternative forms of media, denied a public voice. The freedom of working people is restricted in both India (a country superficially based on elections and the constitutional rule of law) and China - in the latter, restriction takes place through the armed force of the state, in the former, it takes place through economic realities.

None of this is intended to show that North Korea is more free than South Korea. It does, however, show that even when the state of a country grants its citizens more legal rights than another state, it does not necessarily follow that the former is more free than the latter.