I hope it doesn’t come across as mean, as I have enjoyed some of your thoughtful discourse, but that is more or less how you come across.
The DPRK has the working classes in charge of the state, with public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. As long as these remain true, and there are no underlying problems of the character that can overturn those, simply continuing to develop industry and infrastructure is working towards communism.
[your concerns are] either sensible given the DPRK’s existence as a country in siege, or is a misunderstanding on your own part, a misunderstanding that can be alleviated through study.
Oh I see, you see people supporting a country the anglosphere has told you is Bad Guys, so you’ve decided that we must be Bad Guys too. Very smart and not at all the heuristic of a trained dog, carry on
Sure, you can take those out of context, I still stand by them. You kept talking about the potential for mistreatment, and about the idea of a “political class” as distinct from the working classes, and not a subset of them. Even here, you never really gave an example of real mistreatment beyond universal conscription in a time of war.
This thread here that you take this from had hundreds of replies from different people, and despite all of this you kept talking about potentials for misconduct, not pointing at concrete reality. That’s why I’m saying the meme makes no sense, nobody is saying a state attacking the working classes is necessary for communism, and you never gave an actual example of it beyond the potential you feared.
By quote-mining and erasing the dozens of comments between this specific back and forth, you make it seem like I didn’t give you many well-sourced comments, like this one:
The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.
How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels.
As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.
To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability
As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting.
Universal Conscription
The DPRK is still at war, as is the ROK and US Empire. The ROK also has universal conscription. This is a strategic necessity for deterrence at the present moment, and as such cannot be compared to a country at peacetime.
Nationalism
The DPRK’s nationalism is from a socialist perspective, national unity against imperialism and colonialism. The DPRK is in fact extremely internationalist as well. The DPRK has played a similar role internationally as Cuba, supporting anti-imperialist movements around the world. From aiding the African National Congress by training millitants, to supporting Palestinian liberation, the DPRK has never been Korean supremacist. The Black Panther Party maintained good relations with the DPRK, visiting it and teaching Juche to Statesians.
Poverty
The DPRK is poor. It’s under brutal sanctions, and like Cuba, does more with what it has thanks to its socialist system than capitalist countries would be able to. Because of the policy of nuclear deterrence, and the socialist system, the DPRK has managed to recover from historic flooding and the dissolution of the USSR into a poor but socially oriented, rising economy. Pyongyang in particular has been booming with massive expansions, and the 20x10 initiative has steadily been patching up the problem of rural underdevelopment.
To top it off, famine is now far more under control than it was during the 90s, when weather disaster combined with the dissolution of the USSR and the DPRK’s hostile environment to agriculture resulted in tragedy. Now, however, this is far more under control:
Conclusion
The DPRK is incredibly misunderstood. It isn’t a secret paradise, but it isn’t Hell either. It’s real, existing socialism, and delivers results we can expect socialism to deliver in such harsh, hostile conditions. Their rise from being subject to genocide to a stable, functional society despite brutal sanctions is to be respected and studied, not opposed.
It comes across as dishonest vagueposting on your part, and because you didn’t link the comments, you give the impression that we just had a one-off comment back and forth where I’m entirely unreasonable. I detest this dishonest framing.
people who weaponise potential theoretical abstract problems of change, instead of the real material problems of the current system are there to maintain and protect the system.
there’s a world for that ideology, it’s called consevatism
you never really gave an example of real mistreatment beyond universal conscription in a time of war.
That’s plenty for me. Also preventing asylum, which was never denied. There are also loads of reports of other mistreatment, but it is difficult to find a neutral source for those. That’s why I went to the law document, which is their own government’s statements about what is illegal and how it will be punished, which in addition to confirming the previously mentioned issues, appears to explicitly limit dissent.
Edit: I do appreciate the sources and information you and others have provided. I do not intend to imply that you did not answer my questions.
You specifically used “seeking asylum in South Korea” as an example, a country at war with the DPRK. Your dogmatic opposition to the measures a country victim to genocide by the US Empire decided on out of necessity is plain chauvanism at work. Do you think the DPRK wants to be at war? Do you believe the people wouldn’t rather be at peace, in a unified and decolonized Korea? Universal conscription, and the prevention of treason, are both decisions not imposed on the people from above, but are rational decisions made due to the extreme circumstances the DPRK is in.
The way you treat existing socialism seems to be looking for potential for wrongdoing, or trying to find an excuse to not support them in their struggles. This is just classic western leftism, letting your perfect, imaginary socialism exist in your head as an enemy of existing countries. You quite literally likened conscription to slavery in that thread, ignoring the fact that there is no class exploiting the people in this equation, and that these measures were a matter of survival.
It’s thanks to the millitarization of the DPRK that they are still a country to begin with, and not attacked by the US Empire like Iran. You letting survival measures give you an excuse to not support their struggles against imperialism is just idealism. The path to ending universal conscription is to support decolonization of Korea and an end to sanctions, not finger wagging them for deciding what they need to do to survive.
Do you have any real reason to believe that other than the equivalent of a pinky-swear from the government?
Do you have any real reason to disbelieve it other than the equivalent of a lifetime of flashlight-under-chin spooky stories from the Epstein governments?
The democratic structure doesn’t appear democratic, the aforementioned policies are typically unpopular in other countries, and there are countless of expats who tell horror stories. I acknowledge that there is an incentive for them to make shit up, but I don’t know how to find neutral sources.
I’m still learning about it, but it seems to be based, similar to the USSR and China, in trust that the government will take into consideration the opinion of the masses, as opposed to a direct lever of control.
Expats like Yeonmi Park?
I have seen her speak, and she is obviously pulling stories out of her ass. But she is far from the only person with stories of oppression.
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
I’ve already explained what class is, the nature of socialist society, and given you ample resources on how the DPRK was formed, its democratic processes, and the context of the Korean War and liberation from Japan. I’ve also summarized a good deal of this for you in the thread linked, and you’re now acting like I didn’t at all do that and that my points are based purely on “pinky-swears.” Again, it’s dishonest framing, the third time in a row. From the meme to your response to my comment and this response, you’ve been misframing my point over and over again.
As for your support for decolonization and an end to sanctions, that’s good! Just not sure what you actually mean by not supporting someone but actually you do support them. I suppose simply saying the words “I support X” doesn’t mean anything by itself, it matters how you organize and what you do in concrete terms, but you made it clear that you don’t support the DPRK and are happy strawmanning those who do.
The only real resource on democracy you provided is the Roland Boer book, which looks interesting, and which I got a copy of and intend to read. However, a committee-based democracy with a ban on antagonistic propaganda does not sound promising.
See, this is the problem again. The form of socialist society that exists in Korea is one that was formed through direct practice and based on Korea’s existing situation. It’s what works for them, regardless of whether or not you approve of the “model.” You’re saying it isn’t “promising,” more gesturing to potentials of misconduct that you percieve based on your own comparison to the ideal, perfect, impossible version of socialism that exists purely in imagination.
The problem rests on your belief that you know better than the millions of people in the DPRK over the last century how to run their country, without doing the study to see how and why their structures were formed. For example, the Democratic Front is an integral part to their socialist democracy, and this has heritage in liberation from colonialism by Japan. The various councils and committees have heritage in the culture formed in Korea and were solidified into a state.
Then, you go and strawman people and misrepresent them. Though you maintain a polite tone, your actual actions speak against that, and thus you aren’t acting in a comradely way like you first seemed to be. It’s frustrating.
The problem rests on your belief that you know better than the millions of people in the DPRK
That’s only true if you assume the government is actually a representation of the will of the people of the DPRK. How am I supposed to know whether that’s true other than by evaluating the quality of their democratic system?
Though you maintain a polite tone, your actual actions speak against that
However, a committee-based democracy with a ban on antagonistic propaganda does not sound promising.
Comrade Bordiga limits himself to upholding a cautious position on all the questions raised by the Left. He doesn’t say: the International poses and resolves such and such a question in this way, but the Left will instead pose and resolve it this other way. He instead says: the way the International poses and resolves problems doesn’t convince me; I fear they might slip into opportunism; there are insufficient guarantees against this; etc. His position, then, is one of permanent suspicion and doubt. In this way the position of the “Left” is purely negative: they express reservations without specifying them in a concrete form, and above all without indicating in concrete form their own point of view and their solutions. They end up spreading doubt and distrust without offering anything constructive.
that’s right. I quoted you. I don’t even have to say anything. It’s just so obvious what I’m pointing out. Sorry if my intellectual assault on you is too harsh. You’ve been a worthy opponent.
I hope it doesn’t come across as mean, as I have enjoyed some of your thoughtful discourse, but that is more or less how you come across.
Oh I see, you see people supporting a country the anglosphere has told you is Bad Guys, so you’ve decided that we must be Bad Guys too. Very smart and not at all the heuristic of a trained dog, carry on
Sure, you can take those out of context, I still stand by them. You kept talking about the potential for mistreatment, and about the idea of a “political class” as distinct from the working classes, and not a subset of them. Even here, you never really gave an example of real mistreatment beyond universal conscription in a time of war.
This thread here that you take this from had hundreds of replies from different people, and despite all of this you kept talking about potentials for misconduct, not pointing at concrete reality. That’s why I’m saying the meme makes no sense, nobody is saying a state attacking the working classes is necessary for communism, and you never gave an actual example of it beyond the potential you feared.
By quote-mining and erasing the dozens of comments between this specific back and forth, you make it seem like I didn’t give you many well-sourced comments, like this one:
Long, well-sourced comment
It comes across as dishonest vagueposting on your part, and because you didn’t link the comments, you give the impression that we just had a one-off comment back and forth where I’m entirely unreasonable. I detest this dishonest framing.
people who weaponise potential theoretical abstract problems of change, instead of the real material problems of the current system are there to maintain and protect the system.
there’s a world for that ideology, it’s called consevatism
Yep! It’s what Bordiga was known for, and why he was called out by Gramsci.
That’s plenty for me. Also preventing asylum, which was never denied. There are also loads of reports of other mistreatment, but it is difficult to find a neutral source for those. That’s why I went to the law document, which is their own government’s statements about what is illegal and how it will be punished, which in addition to confirming the previously mentioned issues, appears to explicitly limit dissent.
Edit: I do appreciate the sources and information you and others have provided. I do not intend to imply that you did not answer my questions.
You specifically used “seeking asylum in South Korea” as an example, a country at war with the DPRK. Your dogmatic opposition to the measures a country victim to genocide by the US Empire decided on out of necessity is plain chauvanism at work. Do you think the DPRK wants to be at war? Do you believe the people wouldn’t rather be at peace, in a unified and decolonized Korea? Universal conscription, and the prevention of treason, are both decisions not imposed on the people from above, but are rational decisions made due to the extreme circumstances the DPRK is in.
The way you treat existing socialism seems to be looking for potential for wrongdoing, or trying to find an excuse to not support them in their struggles. This is just classic western leftism, letting your perfect, imaginary socialism exist in your head as an enemy of existing countries. You quite literally likened conscription to slavery in that thread, ignoring the fact that there is no class exploiting the people in this equation, and that these measures were a matter of survival.
It’s thanks to the millitarization of the DPRK that they are still a country to begin with, and not attacked by the US Empire like Iran. You letting survival measures give you an excuse to not support their struggles against imperialism is just idealism. The path to ending universal conscription is to support decolonization of Korea and an end to sanctions, not finger wagging them for deciding what they need to do to survive.
Do you have any real reason to believe that other than the equivalent of a pinky-swear from the government?
I generally support that for all countries
Do you have any real reason to disbelieve it other than the equivalent of a lifetime of flashlight-under-chin spooky stories from the Epstein governments?
The democratic structure doesn’t appear democratic, the aforementioned policies are typically unpopular in other countries, and there are countless of expats who tell horror stories. I acknowledge that there is an incentive for them to make shit up, but I don’t know how to find neutral sources.
What do you mean by this?
Expats like Yeonmi Park?
I’m still learning about it, but it seems to be based, similar to the USSR and China, in trust that the government will take into consideration the opinion of the masses, as opposed to a direct lever of control.
I have seen her speak, and she is obviously pulling stories out of her ass. But she is far from the only person with stories of oppression.
I’ve already explained what class is, the nature of socialist society, and given you ample resources on how the DPRK was formed, its democratic processes, and the context of the Korean War and liberation from Japan. I’ve also summarized a good deal of this for you in the thread linked, and you’re now acting like I didn’t at all do that and that my points are based purely on “pinky-swears.” Again, it’s dishonest framing, the third time in a row. From the meme to your response to my comment and this response, you’ve been misframing my point over and over again.
As for your support for decolonization and an end to sanctions, that’s good! Just not sure what you actually mean by not supporting someone but actually you do support them. I suppose simply saying the words “I support X” doesn’t mean anything by itself, it matters how you organize and what you do in concrete terms, but you made it clear that you don’t support the DPRK and are happy strawmanning those who do.
The only real resource on democracy you provided is the Roland Boer book, which looks interesting, and which I got a copy of and intend to read. However, a committee-based democracy with a ban on antagonistic propaganda does not sound promising.
See, this is the problem again. The form of socialist society that exists in Korea is one that was formed through direct practice and based on Korea’s existing situation. It’s what works for them, regardless of whether or not you approve of the “model.” You’re saying it isn’t “promising,” more gesturing to potentials of misconduct that you percieve based on your own comparison to the ideal, perfect, impossible version of socialism that exists purely in imagination.
The problem rests on your belief that you know better than the millions of people in the DPRK over the last century how to run their country, without doing the study to see how and why their structures were formed. For example, the Democratic Front is an integral part to their socialist democracy, and this has heritage in liberation from colonialism by Japan. The various councils and committees have heritage in the culture formed in Korea and were solidified into a state.
Then, you go and strawman people and misrepresent them. Though you maintain a polite tone, your actual actions speak against that, and thus you aren’t acting in a comradely way like you first seemed to be. It’s frustrating.
That’s only true if you assume the government is actually a representation of the will of the people of the DPRK. How am I supposed to know whether that’s true other than by evaluating the quality of their democratic system?
What actions have I taken that are upsetting?