Do any genuine DPRK defenders have sources or statistics to help me break my brainwashing or whatever because all I have ever seen are reasons to oppose and people saying yeah but what if that’s not actually true.
if your attention span has been ruined by social media like mine is; madeline pendelton does short form videos that touches on it and she backs it up with a linktree full of sources and north korea seems to be her favorite topic. she’s also on almost all of the social media platforms and you should be aware that her videos comment are mostly filled with hate from brainwashed people.
she also does a twich channel where she goes over the current news and explains the propaganda in it; i watch it everyday.
Thanks for the link. The source doesn’t really pass the sniff test, though. Take, for example, the claim that North Koreans are permitted to leave the country.
A citizen who has committed an act of treason against the state, such as by betraying the State and
escaping to another country or surrendering, defecting or giving over secrets, shall be sentenced to a
term of reform through labour of more than 5 years. In particularly grave cases, he or she shall be
sentenced to life-term of reform through labour or to the death penalty and confiscation of
property.
This doesn’t sound like a law only applied to violent criminals.
While I meant to try and figure out translating it literally, it has turned out more difficult than I had hoped. So if any korean understanders would like to check it instead, here is the specific article:
제63조 (조국반역죄)
공민이 조국을 배반하고 다른 나라로 도망쳤거나 투항, 변절하였거나 비밀을 넘겨준것과 같은 조국반역행위를 한 경우에는 5년이상의 로동교화형에 처한다. 정상이 특히 무거운 경우에는 무기로동교화형 또는 사형 및 재산몰수형에 처한다.
Edit: The word “배반” means “betrayal, treachery, [or] treason,” suffixed to it in the sentence is “하고” meaning “and” or “with”
I know you didn’t ask but 3 and 4 seem normal to me defecting during wartime and espionage are punished everywhere on Earth for a reason it makes them no better or worse than any other country.
As for surrender I have a feeling it’s a purposely unflattering translation whose real meaning is likely more inline with international norms such as
Article 99 of the UCMJ
Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006
Section 74 of the National Defence Act
Section 15 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982
if you look at the links in the video, you would see that several organizations; including the UN; has made up shit about north korea.
also, it’s bonkers that you would use the same organization that condemned iran for defending itself and has slow walked justice for the gaza genocides for decades.
if you refuse to look beyond western sources, you’re going to be stuck being brainwashed for the rest of your life.
(1) by betraying the State and escaping to another country or
(2) surrendering
(3) defecting
(4) giving over secrets
1 implies that escaping to another country is a betrayal of the state. 2 and 3 involve no violent criminal acts. 4 isn’t violent, although it is the only item on the list that might make sense.
Thanks for the links. I’m curious if you see North Korea as an actual positive example of state governance or socialism, or if you simply mean to point out certain specific myths?
The haircut video is an interesting demonstration of how state-run media spreads falsehoods, but overall it’s really more of an indictment of America than a defense of North Korea. South Korea paying people makes sense, I never really gave defectors too much credence anyway. The interview is interesting but I wish it were longer and more in-depth.
Everything in you’re seeing in Gaza today is what was done to North Korea once. Arguably to an even larger extent.
A society that has been subject to that level of violence and inhumanity can’t be expected to be exactly like colonial countries in Europe in terms of its social norms, without even considering cultural differences.
Despite all of that, North Korea has not just managed to survive, it’s maintained HDI that surpasses nearly every other under developed country. Remember that it is one of the most, if not the most diplomatically isolated and sanctioned country in the world.
Do you think a state run by tyrants and capitalism enabled fasicsts would do that?
I don’t usually evaluate countries based on whether they overcame adversities. It’s an interesting exercise in political science, or even moral philosophy, but my purpose in analysis is to find models to inform a potential future society.
Countries do not go by “models” like that. They form based on their existing conditions, and may have similarities or differences depending on their material conditions. The US Empire cannot dogmatically copy the DPRK even if it wanted to, as they are too different in conditions. That’s why socialism is scientific and not utopian, there is no “model” to find.
There’s a difference between “utopianism,” trying to find the perfect model and emulating it, and scientific socialism, ie Marxism.
In our country, once a backward, colonial semi-feudal society, we could not literally accept the Marxist theory which had been advanced on the premises of the socio-historical conditions of the developed European capitalist countries, or the Leninist theory presented in the situation of Russia where capitalism was developed to the secondary grade. We had had to find a solution to every problem arising in the revolution by racking our own brains and with our own efforts to suit our country’s socio-historical conditions. Immediately after liberation we started building a new society under the situation in which our country was divided into north and south and we were in direct confrontation with the US imperialists; this situation urgently required us to solve every problem from the standpoint of Juche.
Kim Jong Il
The DPRK took what they could from soviet experience, but had to adapt to their own conditions. They did not merely copy the soviet model, but had to find solutions for their own problems that the soviets never ran into. That’s why I am criticizing the idea that we can find a better “model,” we can merely take the same methodology and apply it to our own conditions.
In China there’s a saying: “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” This describes the Chinese experience with socialism, developing Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The Korean experience can be thought of in much the same way, as a Korean way of socialism suited to Korean conditions. We will all have to discover our own socialist characteristics through the path of building socialism.
The DPRK is a success story, they succeeded in defeating both the Japanese and US imperialists (despite the US killing 1/5 of their citizens), fought the US comprador government to a standstill (which still serves as a US military base and carries out attacks and propaganda against the DPRK), and made it through the incredibly hard period of the 90s (the arduous march) after the fall of the USSR.
Socialism can take on many forms, all of which can’t be divorced from the historical context in which they arose. Other comrades can give some deep dives into the DPRK’s governance system, which can show how it’s far more democratic than the capitalist dictatorship in the south.
We should all admire the DPRK for standing up to the US empire, and debunk the lies told about it first and foremost. Liberals tend to think its mordor or something, when in reality its a country where ppl go to work and live regular lives like any other.
Point taken that they overcame adversity and that there is propaganda against them. To be fair, that can be said to varying degrees about a lot of countries.
Everyone has reasons to do propaganda but if you’re mostly exposed to western media then it’s definitely a good idea to fact check everything they say about their geopolitical enemies, because they’re always gonna be slandered to hell and even in countries with actual problematic leadership the idea isn’t to uncritically defend them but just push back against narratives that will never serve the people in those countries regardless
What does good mean here? That’s a very vague idea by which to classify entire societies, it would probably serve our understanding better to have more concrete criteria. For example, I would say the continued existence of the DPRK has had a net positive effect on the development of the global south: their development under seige has created a blueprint for other countries to examine, they counterbalance the power of imperial vassals in the region such as Japan, and the military deterrence they provide against US aggression has most likely saved a lot of lives.
Yeah good is a Rorschach word. I interpret it in the context of states as in broad alignment with whatever political values you hold. If geopolitical positioning is what you care about them sure they might be good.
For absolute beginners to learning about Korea, I like Nodutdol’s US out of Korea toolkit. It gives you background on Korea, from the Joseon dynasty to Japanese colonialism to the split to today. For specifics on the DPRK I can offer some helpful resources, but without knowing what in particular you’re talking about I’d just have to dump books on you, and that’s not particularly effective. It’s better to either follow a course like Nodutdol’s, or to study specific areas of interest.
Democracy is not a binary, it can exist to varying degrees. A strong example of democracy would be Uruguay, where popular votes can block and propose legislation, which has been used to prevent privatization. A more radical example might be Federal Northern Syria.
The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.
How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels.
As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.
To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability
As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting.
Universal Conscription
The DPRK is still at war, as is the ROK and US Empire. The ROK also has universal conscription. This is a strategic necessity for deterrence at the present moment, and as such cannot be compared to a country at peacetime.
Nationalism
The DPRK’s nationalism is from a socialist perspective, national unity against imperialism and colonialism. The DPRK is in fact extremely internationalist as well. The DPRK has played a similar role internationally as Cuba, supporting anti-imperialist movements around the world. From aiding the African National Congress by training millitants, to supporting Palestinian liberation, the DPRK has never been Korean supremacist. The Black Panther Party maintained good relations with the DPRK, visiting it and teaching Juche to Statesians.
Poverty
The DPRK is poor. It’s under brutal sanctions, and like Cuba, does more with what it has thanks to its socialist system than capitalist countries would be able to. Because of the policy of nuclear deterrence, and the socialist system, the DPRK has managed to recover from historic flooding and the dissolution of the USSR into a poor but socially oriented, rising economy. Pyongyang in particular has been booming with massive expansions, and the 20x10 initiative has steadily been patching up the problem of rural underdevelopment.
To top it off, famine is now far more under control than it was during the 90s, when weather disaster combined with the dissolution of the USSR and the DPRK’s hostile environment to agriculture resulted in tragedy. Now, however, this is far more under control:
Conclusion
The DPRK is incredibly misunderstood. It isn’t a secret paradise, but it isn’t Hell either. It’s real, existing socialism, and delivers results we can expect socialism to deliver in such harsh, hostile conditions. Their rise from being subject to genocide to a stable, functional society despite brutal sanctions is to be respected and studied, not opposed.
I’ll have to read more about Korean Nationalism. As to poverty, you make fair points. As to universal conscription, I object to it in all circumstances regardless of wartime vs peace, as it is literally slavery. Other countries doing it doesn’t make it better.
As to Democracy, I am confused by the claim
the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels
When the source later says
All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front…the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA.
I fail to see the “direct election” in this process. It seems like a committee that theoretically takes into consideration debate and opinion but which then makes a unilateral nomination, who runs unopposed. Am I missing something?
Again, universal conscription cannot be removed from its necessary context: the DPRK is under constant threat. It isn’t literally slavery, it’s a policy that has important context, and isn’t done for profit but to satisfy the justified need for security and deterrence.
As for direct democracy, the DPRK has approval based voting. Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a “yes/no” basis. Elections are not treated like political theater, there’s a comprehensive candidate selection system in the Democratic Front, with direct elections from bottom to top at the approval level. I recommend reading more from the linked book, the snippet I showed is just a tiny portion.
How would you define slavery? Do you see it as only applicable in the context of commodity production?
Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a “yes/no” basis
I may look more into the book. Curious if you know of any data on how common it is for candidates to lose an election once nominated?
I have to say, even the Yes/No voting is done properly, the lack of an open primary or similar seems to preclude the idea of “direct elections”.
Slavery is largely forced labor to achieve economic ends, universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies, or how doctors and other educated fields are sent to rural and underdeveloped areas in socialist systems upon graduating. There isn’t a class of exploiters and exploited, it’s the proletariat organizing itself in self-defense during the passive phase of an active war. Calling it slavery equates it to slavery in the Statesian south, where slave owners brutally exploited a class of slaves. The reason I bring up other countries is to show that this isn’t simply a policy preference, but something decided upon because of its practical necessity in real, existing conditions.
As for stats on those who lose elections, I don’t have any. I wouldn’t imagine it would be a high number given that it’s essentially an approval round for candidates, rather than their first exposure.
universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies
I recognize the difference you are making, but this seems like huge a stretch. Children’s lack of knowledge requires some degree of restriction on autonomy at least to a certain age, in the interest of preparing them for life. Personally I think school mandates are excessive in most countries, but it is still very different from a mandatory activity for adults. Moreover, the military represents a far greater risk of personal harm. As to the idea that it is self-organizing, the degree to which that is true rests heavily on the democracy question.
Do any genuine DPRK defenders have sources or statistics to help me break my brainwashing or whatever because all I have ever seen are reasons to oppose and people saying yeah but what if that’s not actually true.
if your attention span has been ruined by social media like mine is; madeline pendelton does short form videos that touches on it and she backs it up with a linktree full of sources and north korea seems to be her favorite topic. she’s also on almost all of the social media platforms and you should be aware that her videos comment are mostly filled with hate from brainwashed people.
she also does a twich channel where she goes over the current news and explains the propaganda in it; i watch it everyday.
here’s the most recent video of hers that i shared: https://www.tiktok.com/@madeline_pendleton/video/7610963982198770975
Thanks for the link. The source doesn’t really pass the sniff test, though. Take, for example, the claim that North Koreans are permitted to leave the country.
From the Article 63 of this 2015 criminal law document:
This doesn’t sound like a law only applied to violent criminals.
I think I found the original on https://www.unilaw.go.kr/bbs/selectBoardList.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000021&bbsSubId=008 (number 5 “형법”)
While I meant to try and figure out translating it literally, it has turned out more difficult than I had hoped. So if any korean understanders would like to check it instead, here is the specific article:
Edit: The word “배반” means “betrayal, treachery, [or] treason,” suffixed to it in the sentence is “하고” meaning “and” or “with”
They absolutely are. I met more than one during my many years in university.
You very clearly misread this. It’s a crime to commit treason and then escape. AND. “escaping” to another country is not a crime.
Do you have a take on 2 and 3
I know you didn’t ask but 3 and 4 seem normal to me defecting during wartime and espionage are punished everywhere on Earth for a reason it makes them no better or worse than any other country.
As for surrender I have a feeling it’s a purposely unflattering translation whose real meaning is likely more inline with international norms such as
Article 99 of the UCMJ
Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006
Section 74 of the National Defence Act
Section 15 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982
Section 34 of the Army Act 1950
and so on.
Are you suggesting that these laws only apply during active service in the military?
No that’s not at all what I said.
The examples you site as comparable to 2 are military laws.
if you look at the links in the video, you would see that several organizations; including the UN; has made up shit about north korea.
also, it’s bonkers that you would use the same organization that condemned iran for defending itself and has slow walked justice for the gaza genocides for decades.
if you refuse to look beyond western sources, you’re going to be stuck being brainwashed for the rest of your life.
I am totally open to looking beyond western sources. Do you have a link to a non-western translation of North Korean criminal law?
it’s in her linktree; the video says so.
did you even watch the video? because it’s starting to feel like you’re being willfully ignorant here.
Genuinely, I do not see that in her linktree. She links to this document for information about North Korea: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fPJjTYGBo4QRuafFkbWTA8imbpr-QP3tD_946Yv_v3A/edit?tab=t.0
I do not see a translation of North Korean criminal law in the document.
she doing her live stream on twich right now as she does almost every day; ask her for this specific one.
https://www.twitch.tv/madelinependleton
Why do you say so? Who is this law applied to other than violent criminals?
“treason against the state, such as”:
1 implies that escaping to another country is a betrayal of the state. 2 and 3 involve no violent criminal acts. 4 isn’t violent, although it is the only item on the list that might make sense.
I replied to another comment but to reiterate
This is categorically false it states if you commit treason and then escape it is a crime. The key word being AND.
Some introductory de-brainwashing links:
Thanks for the links. I’m curious if you see North Korea as an actual positive example of state governance or socialism, or if you simply mean to point out certain specific myths?
The haircut video is an interesting demonstration of how state-run media spreads falsehoods, but overall it’s really more of an indictment of America than a defense of North Korea. South Korea paying people makes sense, I never really gave defectors too much credence anyway. The interview is interesting but I wish it were longer and more in-depth.
Think of it this way
Everything in you’re seeing in Gaza today is what was done to North Korea once. Arguably to an even larger extent.
A society that has been subject to that level of violence and inhumanity can’t be expected to be exactly like colonial countries in Europe in terms of its social norms, without even considering cultural differences.
Despite all of that, North Korea has not just managed to survive, it’s maintained HDI that surpasses nearly every other under developed country. Remember that it is one of the most, if not the most diplomatically isolated and sanctioned country in the world.
Do you think a state run by tyrants and capitalism enabled fasicsts would do that?
I don’t usually evaluate countries based on whether they overcame adversities. It’s an interesting exercise in political science, or even moral philosophy, but my purpose in analysis is to find models to inform a potential future society.
Countries do not go by “models” like that. They form based on their existing conditions, and may have similarities or differences depending on their material conditions. The US Empire cannot dogmatically copy the DPRK even if it wanted to, as they are too different in conditions. That’s why socialism is scientific and not utopian, there is no “model” to find.
What kind of scientific method doesn’t use models? Did North Korea not look to the USSR for inspiration when creating its government?
There’s a difference between “utopianism,” trying to find the perfect model and emulating it, and scientific socialism, ie Marxism.
The DPRK took what they could from soviet experience, but had to adapt to their own conditions. They did not merely copy the soviet model, but had to find solutions for their own problems that the soviets never ran into. That’s why I am criticizing the idea that we can find a better “model,” we can merely take the same methodology and apply it to our own conditions.
In China there’s a saying: “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” This describes the Chinese experience with socialism, developing Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The Korean experience can be thought of in much the same way, as a Korean way of socialism suited to Korean conditions. We will all have to discover our own socialist characteristics through the path of building socialism.
Using a model is not the same as copying.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the throughline of socialism?
The DPRK is a success story, they succeeded in defeating both the Japanese and US imperialists (despite the US killing 1/5 of their citizens), fought the US comprador government to a standstill (which still serves as a US military base and carries out attacks and propaganda against the DPRK), and made it through the incredibly hard period of the 90s (the arduous march) after the fall of the USSR.
Socialism can take on many forms, all of which can’t be divorced from the historical context in which they arose. Other comrades can give some deep dives into the DPRK’s governance system, which can show how it’s far more democratic than the capitalist dictatorship in the south.
We should all admire the DPRK for standing up to the US empire, and debunk the lies told about it first and foremost. Liberals tend to think its mordor or something, when in reality its a country where ppl go to work and live regular lives like any other.
Point taken that they overcame adversity and that there is propaganda against them. To be fair, that can be said to varying degrees about a lot of countries.
Everyone has reasons to do propaganda but if you’re mostly exposed to western media then it’s definitely a good idea to fact check everything they say about their geopolitical enemies, because they’re always gonna be slandered to hell and even in countries with actual problematic leadership the idea isn’t to uncritically defend them but just push back against narratives that will never serve the people in those countries regardless
Fair enough. The original meme seems to suggest, though, not just that people are subject to propaganda, but that North Korea is, in fact, good.
What does good mean here? That’s a very vague idea by which to classify entire societies, it would probably serve our understanding better to have more concrete criteria. For example, I would say the continued existence of the DPRK has had a net positive effect on the development of the global south: their development under seige has created a blueprint for other countries to examine, they counterbalance the power of imperial vassals in the region such as Japan, and the military deterrence they provide against US aggression has most likely saved a lot of lives.
Yeah good is a Rorschach word. I interpret it in the context of states as in broad alignment with whatever political values you hold. If geopolitical positioning is what you care about them sure they might be good.
For absolute beginners to learning about Korea, I like Nodutdol’s US out of Korea toolkit. It gives you background on Korea, from the Joseon dynasty to Japanese colonialism to the split to today. For specifics on the DPRK I can offer some helpful resources, but without knowing what in particular you’re talking about I’d just have to dump books on you, and that’s not particularly effective. It’s better to either follow a course like Nodutdol’s, or to study specific areas of interest.
Thanks. Specifically, in broad terms the things that would concern me most about North Korea as a positive model of statehood, are
What countries do you think have democracy?
Because liberal / capitalist dictatorships are not democracies, despite marketing themselves as ones.
Democracy is not a binary, it can exist to varying degrees. A strong example of democracy would be Uruguay, where popular votes can block and propose legislation, which has been used to prevent privatization. A more radical example might be Federal Northern Syria.
Gotcha. I’ll address these in order.
Lack of Democracy in the DPRK?
The DPRK has a form of socialist democracy largely similar to the USSR and PRC, but adapted to the unique conditions of the DPRK’s existence and history. From Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting.
Universal Conscription
The DPRK is still at war, as is the ROK and US Empire. The ROK also has universal conscription. This is a strategic necessity for deterrence at the present moment, and as such cannot be compared to a country at peacetime.
Nationalism
The DPRK’s nationalism is from a socialist perspective, national unity against imperialism and colonialism. The DPRK is in fact extremely internationalist as well. The DPRK has played a similar role internationally as Cuba, supporting anti-imperialist movements around the world. From aiding the African National Congress by training millitants, to supporting Palestinian liberation, the DPRK has never been Korean supremacist. The Black Panther Party maintained good relations with the DPRK, visiting it and teaching Juche to Statesians.
Poverty
The DPRK is poor. It’s under brutal sanctions, and like Cuba, does more with what it has thanks to its socialist system than capitalist countries would be able to. Because of the policy of nuclear deterrence, and the socialist system, the DPRK has managed to recover from historic flooding and the dissolution of the USSR into a poor but socially oriented, rising economy. Pyongyang in particular has been booming with massive expansions, and the 20x10 initiative has steadily been patching up the problem of rural underdevelopment.
To top it off, famine is now far more under control than it was during the 90s, when weather disaster combined with the dissolution of the USSR and the DPRK’s hostile environment to agriculture resulted in tragedy. Now, however, this is far more under control:
Conclusion
The DPRK is incredibly misunderstood. It isn’t a secret paradise, but it isn’t Hell either. It’s real, existing socialism, and delivers results we can expect socialism to deliver in such harsh, hostile conditions. Their rise from being subject to genocide to a stable, functional society despite brutal sanctions is to be respected and studied, not opposed.
Thanks.
I’ll have to read more about Korean Nationalism. As to poverty, you make fair points. As to universal conscription, I object to it in all circumstances regardless of wartime vs peace, as it is literally slavery. Other countries doing it doesn’t make it better.
As to Democracy, I am confused by the claim
When the source later says
I fail to see the “direct election” in this process. It seems like a committee that theoretically takes into consideration debate and opinion but which then makes a unilateral nomination, who runs unopposed. Am I missing something?
Again, universal conscription cannot be removed from its necessary context: the DPRK is under constant threat. It isn’t literally slavery, it’s a policy that has important context, and isn’t done for profit but to satisfy the justified need for security and deterrence.
As for direct democracy, the DPRK has approval based voting. Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a “yes/no” basis. Elections are not treated like political theater, there’s a comprehensive candidate selection system in the Democratic Front, with direct elections from bottom to top at the approval level. I recommend reading more from the linked book, the snippet I showed is just a tiny portion.
How would you define slavery? Do you see it as only applicable in the context of commodity production?
I may look more into the book. Curious if you know of any data on how common it is for candidates to lose an election once nominated? I have to say, even the Yes/No voting is done properly, the lack of an open primary or similar seems to preclude the idea of “direct elections”.
Slavery is largely forced labor to achieve economic ends, universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies, or how doctors and other educated fields are sent to rural and underdeveloped areas in socialist systems upon graduating. There isn’t a class of exploiters and exploited, it’s the proletariat organizing itself in self-defense during the passive phase of an active war. Calling it slavery equates it to slavery in the Statesian south, where slave owners brutally exploited a class of slaves. The reason I bring up other countries is to show that this isn’t simply a policy preference, but something decided upon because of its practical necessity in real, existing conditions.
As for stats on those who lose elections, I don’t have any. I wouldn’t imagine it would be a high number given that it’s essentially an approval round for candidates, rather than their first exposure.
I recognize the difference you are making, but this seems like huge a stretch. Children’s lack of knowledge requires some degree of restriction on autonomy at least to a certain age, in the interest of preparing them for life. Personally I think school mandates are excessive in most countries, but it is still very different from a mandatory activity for adults. Moreover, the military represents a far greater risk of personal harm. As to the idea that it is self-organizing, the degree to which that is true rests heavily on the democracy question.