/marx/ - Marxism

It's socialist, therefore it's pretty based.

They have forsaken communism, they're defunct.
and i'm not sure about the system they had in the first place.

>>1278

How have they forsaken communism? Have they gone backwards to capitalism? It seems to me they are doing a good job of moving forward.

>>1279
References to communism were removed from their constitution in 2009
Also, how have they been moving forward, they've grown more and more stagnant for some time

>>1283
>References to communism were removed from their constitution in 2009
While I don't think this means that a society becomes capitalist overnight, I've seen no good justification for why this was done. It's like how the Communist Party of France recently got rid of the hammer and sickle. You could say "oh, well, it's just cosmetics, the end goal is the same" but it's still conceding to nationalism and the bourgeoisie for no apparent reason. If the DPRK could openly claim it was aspiring towards communism for 60 years, and the PCF could use the hammer and sickle for over 80 years, I don't see why they couldn't continue doing so unless they felt their ideology was likewise in flux.

>>1275
Yeah North Korea is totally based

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufhKWfPSQOw

>>1290

Nice propaganda.

It's a fucking monarchy.

>>1306

Sauce?

>>1312

Can you explain how that image demonstrates that it is a monarchy?

>>1316
I'm sure he knows it isn't constitutionally a monarchy or whatever, the point is that the Kim family is placed at the center of the DPRK: Kim Il Sung is credited as being the founder of the Korean communist movement, of the Korean guerrilla struggle against Japan, and as the founder of the DPRK. His parents are portrayed as leading patriots of their time, and this grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. likewise prominent patriots.

The DPRK also explicitly claims that without a "great leader" no revolution and progress is possible. Their entire system is set up so that one Kim succeeds another Kim who succeeds another Kim. Even if Kim Jong Il had misgivings about Kim Jong Un coming to power, the fact he did come to power establishes that the fourth leader of the DPRK will almost certainly be another Kim unless the government wants to risk large-scale destabilization.

>>1319

>placed at the center
>credited
>portrayed
>claimed

What about legal roles, that's the real issue. Not just the public image and all that. If one wants to make these claims I'd like to see how it is any more a monarchy than any other state with a president, prime minister, etc.

North Korea is a totalitarian regime.

>>1323
The last three leaders of the government have been directly related to one another. Son of a son of a son. How is that anything other than a monarchy by another name?

>>1323
Legal roles aren't everything either. The fact is that there is now a tradition of a father being replaced by a son upon the former's death. This is something not found in any other avowedly socialist country: whether in Lenin's, Stalin's Khrushchev's or whomever's USSR, in Mao-era and Dengist China, in Eastern Europe or even in Cuba (where Raúl Castro was as politically active as his brother well before 1959, and where the chance of another Castro relative coming to power is exceedingly small), the theme is the same: sons and daughters exist but have no significant political roles.

Again, this is much different in the DPRK. Its propaganda uniquely promotes the Kim family. In fact the only other country I can think of that *attempted* to do what the DPRK does today was Romania, where Ceaușescu's family was likewise given abnormal praise and where his son was being prepared to take power after he (peacefully, not so IRL) died.

>>1326

Because that's not the definition of monarchy. Monarchy means one person has supreme authority above the rest of the law. You can claim that about NK, but I'd like to see evidence (legal rulings, laws, etc.) for it being the case before accepting it as fact.

>>1331

He did not legally inherit the position though.

>>1332
>He did not legally inherit the position though.

No, he was elected with 100% of the votes. Because his was the only name on the ballot…

>>1335

The system is different. How his name got on the ballot is different than the West. And it's more like verifying the party's decision than having a parlimentary election.

>>1337
Was there ever a reason published for the 'decision' or was it obvious since his father and grandfather are gods?

>>1338

Do you know the answer? If not, why hold with such conviction the stance that you have?

Also, socialism doesn't put mass democracy to the highest ideal. Socialism is about the abolition of private property and the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. I don't think that Kim Jong Un is restoring or supporting private property, nor is he aiding the bourgeoisie in oppressing the proletariat, so it seems like they are doing some things right over there, from my point of view.

>>1340
>I don't think that Kim Jong Un is restoring or supporting private property, nor is he aiding the bourgeoisie in oppressing the proletariat

The largest buyer of Hennessy was Kim Jong-Il. Did he distribute the cognac to the proletariat or did it stay in the hands of an elite?

People in DPRK's leadership are clearly in a class of their own. They own luxury items and have the freedom to travel. These things are not afforded to most of the North Koreans, i.e. the proletariat.

>Also, socialism doesn't put mass democracy to the highest ideal.

Why have the 'election' in the first place? Why have a ballot? Why the theater?

>>1340
>Also, socialism doesn't put mass democracy to the highest ideal. Socialism is about the abolition of private property and the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.
Socialism is against the idea that there's "pure democracy" that's above classes, but it most certainly does call for "mass democracy," if by that one means the overwhelming participation of the mass of people (workers and peasants) in the life of the country. That's a constant theme in Lenin's works after 1917 and it was the official view of the Soviet state (and Eastern European states, etc.) that the best way to fight bureaucracy is to involve a growing number of people in state administration.

Even the DPRK claims to adhere to this position on some level, although it's pretty obviously contradicted not just by reality but even by its theory that there *has* to be a "great leader" to lead the revolution, construction of new society, etc., plus the whole Songun policy.

>>1356

>The largest buyer of Hennessy was Kim Jong-Il.
>People in DPRK's leadership are clearly in a class of their own. They own luxury items and have the freedom to travel.

Do you have evidence to support this? Or just unsourced MSM articles? Or "sources close to the Kim regime indicate that _". Have the monthly household budget and inventory of Kim Jong Il been released to the public? Where did you learn about his Hennessy consumption habits?

>Why have the 'election' in the first place? Why have a ballot? Why the theater?

Like I said it's not the same system as the west. Maybe it's so the party can gauge popular support for the leader they have chosen. In North Korea there seems to be a lot of popular support for the party and government, though you could accuse it of all being fearful "cheer so we don't get shot!" thinking and brainwashing.

The thing is about leaders that the son of a national leader is probably going to have a unique experience compared to others. The father can personally train and educate the son in the ways of ruling the country, and the son will be exposed to leadership and the concepts thereto appertaining from a young age. Not only that but the party members and the people of the nation will probably have a lot of respect/awareness of the son, due to his relationship to his father, which may also increase the chances of being selected as the next leader. And perhaps he really is well suited to the job because of this, as well as being a beacon and personification of national unity.

>>1357

All in all the leader serves an important role of promoting a sense of unity among the people. It could just be inspirational propaganda for the people, and since North Korea hasn't really gone capitalist or cozied up to the imperialists yet, (though there are some problems in terms of the Jang Song Thaek, special economic zones, etc.) it seems like it's working so far.

Songun is a policy for a historical circumstance of being isolated and threatened by outside forces. The justification is similar to the one used by Stalin with the need for industrialization prior to WWII. I'm not saying there wasn't bureaucracy or bonapartism or something. But actually I have hopes for Kim Jong Un because it seems like they purged the Jang Song Thaek faction and are moving away from Songun towards improving the lives of the daily people.

When I said mass democracy I meant political democracy in terms of elections. More importantly as you said is like workers and peasants playing a role in the life of the country. As far as I can see North Korea doesn't really lack this too badly. There is this image of the leader directing everything, magnified once for national propaganda, and magnified again for outside media slander-propaganda, but I doubt daily life in a city requires top down direct orders from Kim Jong Un. Admittedly I should look into that particular element more.

>>1358
>Songun is a policy for a historical circumstance of being isolated and threatened by outside forces. The justification is similar to the one used by Stalin with the need for industrialization prior to WWII.
I don't see how "we need to industrialize our country" is comparable to "the army has replaced the working-class as the most revolutionary and leading force of society."

>The thing is about leaders that the son of a national leader is probably going to have a unique experience compared to others.
IIRC Kim Jong Un was educated in Switzerland. That's certainly a unique experience, but it's hardly a revolutionary one.

>>1362

The reason for industrializing the USSR was so that they could defend against foreign invasion. The reason for songun is so that they can defend against foreign invasion. That being said it seems Kim Jong Un is focusing more on developing nuclear capabilities rather than a conventional military.

>Switzerland

Your critizisms are getting weak. It seems like you have an overly dogmatic view of how a socialist society should be.

>>1363
>The reason for industrializing the USSR was so that they could defend against foreign invasion. The reason for songun is so that they can defend against foreign invasion.
I don't see how it is necessary to proclaim the army the vanguard of society rather than the working-class in order to defend against foreign invasion. Stalin didn't, Hoxha didn't, Ho Chi Minh didn't, nor did other leaders that felt threatened by US imperialism.

I brought up Switzerland because it seems a bit odd to claim that Kim Jong Un was personally trained and educated by his dad and thus had a uniquely revolutionary worldview even though he got his education in Switzerland living under a false identity.

Kim Jong Un is the leader because of the precedent established by his grandfather. There's no other way of looking at it. If Kim Il Sung had some other Politburo member succeed him then Kim Jong Un would be playing basketball or something.

>>1358
>Do you have evidence to support this? Or just unsourced MSM articles? Or "sources close to the Kim regime indicate that _". Have the monthly household budget and inventory of Kim Jong Il been released to the public? Where did you learn about his Hennessy consumption habits?

No discussion can happen if you reject every criticism of the DPRK by saying "That's a lie of the imperialists". But then anything that comes from North Korean sources is an absolute fact.

>Maybe it's so the party can gauge popular support for the leader they have chosen.
How do you gauge support if there's only one name on the ballot? Do you circle it instead of tick it? Don't be silly.

> The father can personally train and educate the son in the ways of ruling the country, and the son will be exposed to leadership and the concepts thereto appertaining from a young age.

So nepotism is all of a sudden socialist? OK.

>Not only that but the party members and the people of the nation will probably have a lot of respect/awareness of the son, due to his relationship to his father, which may also increase the chances of being selected as the next leader.

Weren't people in power (including Jong-Il) against Kim Jong-Un coming to power?

>And perhaps he really is well suited to the job because of this, as well as being a beacon and personification of national unity.
More like bacon. The only way he personifies national unity is by weighing as much as the rest of North Koreans. (btw, I've given you an out, accuse me of ad-hominem and you can leave a winner :) )

>All in all the leader serves an important role of promoting a sense of unity among the people.

That's what a dictator does, not a leader.

>It could just be inspirational propaganda for the people

OK, so where does the real power lie?

>But actually I have hopes for Kim Jong Un because it seems like they purged the Jang Song Thaek faction and are moving away from Songun towards improving the lives of the daily people.

Elimination of dissent is also another cornerstone of a free, socialist country.

> As far as I can see North Korea doesn't really lack this too badly. There is this image of the leader directing everything, magnified once for national propaganda, and magnified again for outside media slander-propaganda, but I doubt daily life in a city requires top down direct orders from Kim Jong Un.

Again, why? You seem to be saying Kim Jong-Un is a figurehead with no real power so why not empower the working class, if Juche is all about the workers? Why do they need to be subject to an eternal president and a glorious leader?

>>1376
>How do you gauge support if there's only one name on the ballot? Do you circle it instead of tick it? Don't be silly.
For the record, the way elections worked in the USSR and whatnot (this includes the DPRK) is that there's meetings held in workplaces, schools, office buildings, etc. in which mass organizations (trade unions, veterans' organizations, women's organizations, youth organizations, etc.) nominate candidates. These candidaites then give information on their life and why they deserve to be elected.

What happens next, at least in theory, is that all the possible candidates are questioned and narrowed down to a single candidate who then actually goes on to be voted on in the election. In this case near-unanimity is explained by the fact that the voters already made their choice during the nomination period, and now they're just confirming it.

Of course what often happened in practice was the communist party being like "hey here's this candidate, he/she is a great person, you should totally support them" and workers/peasants being like "hooray" in staged meetings and then they just treat the whole process as a mere formality. But there were plenty of cases on the local levels of these states where genuine discussion did occur.

Of course when the candidate in question is Kim Jong Un you can't exactly expect any critical remarks on the person's background or whatever to be put forward during the nomination stage.

>>1376

Trotsky pls.