/marx/ - Marxism

Why the anti-DPRK shilling recently?

It's socialist. I think this is really just another attempt to discredit every real attempt at socialism and leave Marxists blind and directionless.

>>1495

>CHAPTER II. THE ECONOMY Article 24
>The State shall protect private property and guarantee the right to inherit it by law.
How the fuck did I edit this out? I swear, the thing I was so outraged by, I accidentally removed. It was supposed to put as the first thing, right behind Article 74 and 78. Damn, now I look like a fucking right-deviationist fuckwit. These small boxes and weird colors make it difficult to properly write shit.

>Obviously the definition of freedom and speech and whatnot differ from definitions used in the West.
Yup, but I still don't like it. I mean, we should 'get rid' of counter-revolutionary dissent by any means necessary. But we shouldn't stoop so low as to guarantee non-existent political freedoms. If we kill a man, we should scream to the world that we killed him, and be proud of it. None of that secret crap.

>The compradore bourgeoisie linked up with Japanese colonial rule was pretty much obliterated economically and/or physically in the 40s
I'll have to admit a mistake. I misused the word. I was thinking of the people who manage multinational corporations. (I'm still new to this communism thing, and my dialectics are shit. I need to read more socialist theory)

“a Democratic People’s Republic . . . must be built by forming a democratic united front . . . which embraces . . . even the national capitalists with a national conscience.”
Kim Il Sung, “On the Building of New Korea and the National United Front: Speech to the Responsible Functionaries of the Provincial Party Committees”, 13-10-1945, in Kim Il Sung, Works, vol 1, Pyongyang, 1980, pp. 298.

“from the beginning our policy with regard to the national capitalists was not only to carry out the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, democratic revolution with them, but also to take them along with us to a socialist, communist society.”

Kim Il Sung, “Let Us Further Strengthen the Socialist System of Our Country: Speech Made at the First Session of the Fifth Supreme People’s Assembly of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, 25-12-1972, in Kim Il Sung, Works, vol. 27, Pyongyang, 1986, p.484

>Why the anti-DPRK shilling recently?
hoxhaists think DPRK is revisionist

>It's socialist. I think this is really just another attempt to discredit every real attempt at socialism and leave Marxists blind and directionless.
“Marxism was a revolutionary doctrine which represented the era when the working class had emerged in the historical arena and was waging a struggle against capital. . . . But the times have changed and history has developed, so Marxism has acquired inevitable historical limitations. . . .
Ultimately, Marxism failed to provide a proper explanation concerning the building of a socialist and communist society by continuing the revolution after the establishment of the socialist system. Historically, Marxism is an idea and theory dealing with the requirements of the initial stage of the socialist cause.”
Kim Jong Il, On Carrying Forward the Juche Idea, Pyongyang, 1995
“The theory of socialism in the preceding age . . . did not regard the social and historical movement as a movement of the motive force, as a movement which begins and develops on the initiative and through the role of the popular masses, its motive force, but as a natural historical process which changes and develops due to material and economic factors. . . .
In socialist society, the transformation of man, his ideological remoulding, becomes a more important and primary task than that of creating the material and economic conditions of socialism. . . .
In the past, the founders of Marxism evolved socialist theory by putting the main stress on material and economic conditions. . . .
Marxism defined man’s essential quality as the ensemble of social relations. . . . the definition of man’s essential quality as the sum total of social relations does not provide a comprehensive elucidation of man’s own essential qualities. . . . The history of social development is, in the long run, the history of the development of man’s independence, creativity and consciousness.”
Kim Jong Il, Socialism is a Science, Pyongyang
(Juche is utopian deviation)

>>1500
>In that case no one in the DPRK manages or ever managed multinational corporations. The national bourgeoisie in the north was always weak and, as I said, basically disappeared by the 50s. Enlisting capitalists to work for the newborn society isn't some Kim innovation, Lenin also talked about it.
>"Special economic zones" in the DPRK have been around for decades now, they've never really gotten off the ground. Lenin's policy of state-capitalism as a transition to socialism never really got off the ground either, but I don't think if it was successful that it would somehow make the Soviet Union a capitalist country.
I wasn't referring to the national bourgeoisie of DPRK as own multinationals, I was referring to the DPRK collaborating with Russian and East Asian imperialists.
Lenin never spoke of "enlisting capitalists to work for the newborn society," he spoke of tactical alliances against common enemies to obtain similar goals, as in the case of bourgeois-democratic revolution as a necessary precursor to obtain the material and social conditions of capitalism in order to create the foundations of a socialist society. These temporary alliances, when they have fulfilled their purpose, should be then broken, as the inherent class antagonisms between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would render such alliances counter-revolutionary to any genuine revolutionary vanguard. There is no speech of the temporariness of such alliances, and Democratic Korean propaganda seems to insinuate the permanency of their capitalist developmental programs. Perhaps Bukharin, and definitely Khrushchev, spoke of such rightist nonsense, but not Lenin.
Special Economic Zones in the DPRK have only started in the early 1990s, around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and because of DPRK's strong ties with the revisionists of China, China is pushing North Korea to create more, and DPRK's propaganda doesn't seem to be complaining about it. Stalin and Mao argued that, if not combated, a rising bourgeois caste from within the Party will usurp power and restore capitalism, case and point, revisionist China. The Workers' Party has done little to curtail this, and at times seem to suggest that class antagonisms can be simply resolved through state propaganda, and not through class struggle.

>But as for non-antagonistic classes and strata (workers, cooperativist peasantry, the new intelligentsia) they should have the freedom to criticize inefficiency, bureaucracy, flawed policies, etc. That's what freedom of speech signifies. It obviously doesn't mean "freedom to spread racist propaganda" or something.
I agree, but the DPRK contains no such clause in their constitution stating such things. They do have exceptions when it comes to religion, but not to the suppression of "freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association."

>>1496
>I think this is really just another attempt to discredit every real attempt at socialism and leave Marxists blind and directionless
Well I criticize North Korea, but nonetheless, any reasonable Marxist would still critically support DPRK to a certain extent, at least from a "fuck you USA" standpoint. Lenin was harshly critical of his contemporaries, but still called them "comrade." Can't a communist still give support without solidarity?
Besides, North Korea is too economically disparaged to be the leading vanguard of any international movement.

>>1512

I'm not an expert on the subject but it seems to me that those economic zones were a manifestation of the capitalist roader faction of the party. It seems like with Jang Song Thaek dead and the purges, the tide of the two-line struggle has recently shifted back to the side of the socialist roaders. What do you think?