/marx/ - Marxism

>>527
Does China really deserve to be on that map? They may claim to be communist, but can you really deny how capitalism they've become?

>>527
>>533

IMO China should be the one with stripes, instead of Best Korea.

But yeah although it sucks I like to think of it as the precursor to the revolution yet to come. I think the next one will be even greater.

>>539

The economy of Nork is pretty socialist though, you have to admit.

bump

>>527
North Korea is not even pretending to be socialist anymore. It is pretty much a hereditary fascist dictatorship.
Crazy shit.

>>1197

What about the economics though? Economically it is following the socialist path quite well I think.

>>1198
I think saying North Korea has an economy is overstating it.

>>1202

Be reasonable anon.

>>1197
>>1202
Juche has pretty much entirely supplanted Marxism-Leninism in the DPRK, but saying that it has no economy or that it doesn't claim to be socialist is wrong. Famines in the late 1990s and early 2000s greatly damaged the economy but there are factories, there are fields, there is a small telecommunications industry and whatnot. Living conditions have significantly improved in the past ten years.

I mean in terms of industrial production I'm pretty sure the DPRK puts out more stuff than Laos, and no one goes around calling Laos a fascist dictatorship, just dirt poor.

>>1205

Yeah I mean as long as they are carrying the general ideas of Marxism, without necessarily calling it Marxism, then it seems alright. Perhaps some of the juche principles are like the next category of ideology stemming from communist material conditions rather than capitalist ones. Of course the global revolution isn't over and there are still class issues in the DPRK, as seen by the fairly recent purges, but someone once said that Marxism will become obsolete at some point (can't find source - anyone know), like once communism has been achieved, there won't really be a reason to have Marxism anymore. Of course the DPRK isn't there yet but perhaps another ideology coming into the fold isn't so bad as long as it continues the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>>1222

When I say some of the principles I mean things like "man is the master of everything" and "man is the decider of everything". I think the self reliance is more just a stand against previous international revisionism by the USSR and China, and imperialism.

>>1226
The DPRK did make some dumb moves during the Cold War, e.g. when the Vietnamese ousted Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung joined China, Romania and Yugoslavia in supporting the exiled "coalition government" (Pol Pot, Sihanouk and a group of former Lon Nol lackeys.) That sort of "maverick" attitude was bad and hardly an example of anti-revisionism.

>>1228

Where'd you hear that?

>>1228
I don't recall any examples of "communist mass murder" or whatever in 1989-1991. Pretty sure the USSR didn't collapse because of the Great Purges done five decades earlier.

>>1230
why da evil bourgeois educational apparatus of course. Bloody revisionists, the lot of 'em.
>>1232
1989-1991 Weren't exactly the USSR's golden years either pal.
>''communist mass murder'
they 'killed their own' indirectly by not being economically competent by very government who swore to they had the peoples' best interest.
Take
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
for example.

>1989-1991 Weren't exactly the USSR's golden years either pal.
Not my point. I'm saying the overwhelming concern of the vast majority of people in the USSR, GDR, and whatnot in 1989-1991 wasn't "oh my god did you know JOSEPH STALIN KILLED A LOT OF PEOPLE???" After all, they had "learned" as much after 1956 through the revisionist educational apparatus in those countries.

The famine in the DPRK occurred because that country based its entire agricultural policy on the continued existence of the USSR, which was providing it with all sorts of inputs including fertilizer and electricity. When the USSR died, the DPRK's agriculture went into disarray.

This was a good argument against the "international socialist division of labor" proposed by the Soviet revisionists. Albania by contrast adhered to the line of Lenin and Stalin and actually sought to devleop a self-reliant economy to the best of its abilities, with the result that it was self-sufficient in grain by the late 70s. It had food shortages in the late 80s, but never a threat of famine.

>>1238
>1989-1991 happened because Stalin killed people 40 years ago.
Nope, that would be too easy.
>You were claiming that the USSR was killing its own citizens
That's undeniable, but okay…

>ergo that's why "communism" died
Great Leap BACKWARDS COMR8. I don't even know how you do it, I mean all these pressumsions you're making from one flimsy post. Still, this is amusing.
>but never a threat of famine.
What about the famine of 1921?
Or the Soviet famine of 1932–33?
Or 1946–47?
No threat of famine? are you kidding? 1932–33 alone is ~6mil deaths.
But hey,
Everything but communism is clearly the problem right? right?

All of which btw was suppressed by the soviets until the 1990's yet you complain about "muh bourgeois education bias" typical fucking tankies, Get a grip.

>>1242
>That's undeniable, but okay…
Let's hear about how Khrushchev, Brezhnev and/or Gorbachev killed millions of people then. Not that they're great guys, of course, but yeah.

>What about the famine of 1921?
>[and so on]
I was talking about Albania. You obviously have problems with reading comprehension.

Anyway the 1921 famine was due to the civil war, the 1932-33 famine was due to upheaval caused by a combination of class struggle and having to adapt to a new (collective) way of life with mechanized agriculture and the like, and 1946-47 was the result of WWII. Notice how even though there was always a threat of famine before collectivization, that threat ceased to exist afterwards (except, as you said, for that brief period in 1946-47 which was a far cry from the early 30s famine.)

>>1234

>they 'killed their own' indirectly by not being economically competent

That's a bit of a leap to go from the latter to the former.