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 point I am trying to drive home is that if I am to build socialism in a given country, I can of course begin with an analysis of existing class society and the material conditions surrounding me. I can look to successes elswehere, and compare the general and the particular. What I cannot do is treat different societies as models or templates to emulate. Perhaps specific elements can be, but the particularities of each country determine the nature of socialist construction, and the fact that nothing is static means that socialism is a process and not an end.
That’s all fine. Would you at least deem it appropriate to evaluate a country on it’s likelihood of moving a society closer to communism? Or do you not see that as a relevant goal?
If a country is on the socialist road, it is moving towards communism. Communism is built on collectivized production and distribution, and this is economically compelled by the centralization of markets and even more compelled once socialized production becomes the principal aspect of the economy.
I find this idea dubious. I think that state control of the economy could lead to communism if that state is managed democratically by a majority underclass that does not own property, because such a class might develop a system of governance that abolishes class and private property and distributes political power. I do not see communism as an inevitable outcome of any given state run economy.
Workers in socialism collectively own the commanding heights of the economy, sometimes much more as in the DPRK. They are not an underclass, they are the ruling class. Communism isn’t inevitable, much can go wrong as was seen with the dissolution of the once great USSR. However, it remains that socialism is a process, and that process involves developing towards communism as is economically compelled.
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 point I am trying to drive home is that if I am to build socialism in a given country, I can of course begin with an analysis of existing class society and the material conditions surrounding me. I can look to successes elswehere, and compare the general and the particular. What I cannot do is treat different societies as models or templates to emulate. Perhaps specific elements can be, but the particularities of each country determine the nature of socialist construction, and the fact that nothing is static means that socialism is a process and not an end.
That’s all fine. Would you at least deem it appropriate to evaluate a country on it’s likelihood of moving a society closer to communism? Or do you not see that as a relevant goal?
If a country is on the socialist road, it is moving towards communism. Communism is built on collectivized production and distribution, and this is economically compelled by the centralization of markets and even more compelled once socialized production becomes the principal aspect of the economy.
I find this idea dubious. I think that state control of the economy could lead to communism if that state is managed democratically by a majority underclass that does not own property, because such a class might develop a system of governance that abolishes class and private property and distributes political power. I do not see communism as an inevitable outcome of any given state run economy.
Workers in socialism collectively own the commanding heights of the economy, sometimes much more as in the DPRK. They are not an underclass, they are the ruling class. Communism isn’t inevitable, much can go wrong as was seen with the dissolution of the once great USSR. However, it remains that socialism is a process, and that process involves developing towards communism as is economically compelled.