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.
I’m curious what you mean by model then. Does your thought process rely on seeing what works elsewhere first, or discovering and implementing all prior knowledge to the creation of new solutions?
Either way, socialism is broadly characterized by public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. I’m a Marxist-Leninist.
By model in this context I mean a political system or approach that may serve to inform the creation of another. I support public ownership of the economy, but that is not the only thing I support. So if an approach to public ownership involves the suppression of individual liberty, I am unlikely to find utility in it as a model. If it can be adapted to that end, though, maybe it could be.
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.
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?
I’m curious what you mean by model then. Does your thought process rely on seeing what works elsewhere first, or discovering and implementing all prior knowledge to the creation of new solutions?
Either way, socialism is broadly characterized by public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. I’m a Marxist-Leninist.
By model in this context I mean a political system or approach that may serve to inform the creation of another. I support public ownership of the economy, but that is not the only thing I support. So if an approach to public ownership involves the suppression of individual liberty, I am unlikely to find utility in it as a model. If it can be adapted to that end, though, maybe it could be.
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.