North Koreans 'shot at frontier' =(

[amadeus]

Well, China is no longer communist, that much is obvious. North Korea is run by a regime of extreme militarist confucianism and ancestor worship. The word communism is rarely even mention midst the perpetual mindless adulation of the two leaders (one of whom is dead).

You'll come up with just about anything to avoid calling a country by what it really is. North Korea is as communist as communism gets.

 

[Winner]

I only know one, unless by number two you mean me

Nah, you're not that crazy Compared to DPRK, Russia is a democratic paradise. Hell, even China is rather nice and free country compared to North Korea, which means a lot.

It's the materialized version of Orwell's 1984.

 

[Tee Kay]

You'll come up with just about anything to avoid calling a country by what it really is. North Korea is as communist as communism gets.

True Communist State Checklist!

* empowered working class. Umm... no
* elimination of social class. No...
* abolition of capitalist economic system and private property. Umm... not really. DPRK has deals with South Korean companies and a SEZ on the border with Russia. There's some private businesses operating, most are technically illegal but some are allowed by the government.
* abolition of the state The North Korean state has more control over its population more than any other nation, so no.

Hardly as communist as communism gets.

 

[Winner]

You'll come up with just about anything to avoid calling a country by what it really is. North Korea is as communist as communism gets.

Exactly.

The kind of regime we're seing in North Korea is just the next major evolutionary step of communist dictatorship.

Communist regimes start with either revolution, led by a small group of Communists who somehow get the majority on their side (by making a lot of promises), or by a coup.
Once the communist party takes control, a period of revolutionary terror follows, during which the elites of the former regime are eliminated, either by means of physical extermination (USSR, Maoist China, 'Democratic' Kampuchea) or extreme marginalization and threats of long jail sentences (Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc.) or, in most cases, a cartain combination of both.
During this period, the party becomes internally unstable as many factions fight for power. This often leads to a rise of a single leader (Stalin, Mao, Gottwald, Kim Il-sung) who unites the party by eliminating the internal opposition (again there are two possible ways of doing it).

This is where North Korea and the rest of the Communist world start to differ. In Communist bloc, Stalinism had ended because Stalin didn't have an obvious successor. He was instead succeeded by people who were afraid of his style, they were terrified by it (see the irony, Communists terrified by their own terror). The new leaders in the Soviet bloc were much less autocratic, which means they allowed the other members of the Communist party to have some share of the power, and less cruel in dealing with the opposition.
This, unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, led to a gradual inner destabilization of the regime and its eventual fall in 1989, when the economic problems became so obvious nobody could deny it. With the absence of a strong, cruel and despotic leader, the Communist parties in the Eastern bloc didn't have the guts to kill thousands of people and stop the democratic revolution.

In North Korea, the first leader estabilished a clear line of succession and never loosened the terror. He combined the communist ideology, atheist in nature, with elements of religion to keep his subjects in line. Strict isolation is vital for the regimes survival. If they lightened the internal oppression, they'd start the same process which destroyed communism in Eastern Europe.

I am afraid this regime will survive long enough to totally destroy North Korea, only then will it collapse into chaos, lawlessness and Somalia-style poverty.

 

[amadeus]

True Communist

Well, then I don't think you have any basis to criticize anything, because I can just snap back that it isn't "true" [object/concept].

Didn't like the Orange Julius you got at the mall? It wasn't a true Orange Julius!

 

[Princeps]

You'll come up with just about anything to avoid calling a country by what it really is. North Korea is as communist as communism gets.

Communism is a branch of the socialist movement. Socialism as a practice requires democratic institutions, North Korea doesn't have them. In fact, there's nothing even remotely socialist about North Korea, therefore it's safe to say that any such identity is a misnomer. There's plenty of misnomers in history (holy roman Empire, national socialism etc, plenty of republics run by autocracy etc). Often these misnomers are the result of doctrinal insistence rather than any meaningful institutional analysis.

In fact, socialism died in Russia when Lenin and his right wing marxists came to power. Marxism as an ideology is not necessarily left-wing, there are authoritarian right wing interpitations of Marxism. Immediately upon taking power, Lenin attacked the power of the Soviets (worker's councils, grass roots democracy), which formed the very foundation of socialism.

And yes, there was also a property regime in the Soviet Union. All property was state property and the state was a private totalitarian institution of a concentrated elite. Therefore, this communist elite was the new capitalist class that owned absolutely everything. That's not socialism, that's the extreme contradiction of socialism. North Korea follows the same model, but has taken it to a new totalitarian extreme. I'd call North Korea necrocracy.

 

[Winner]

In fact, socialism died in Russia when Lenin and his right wing marxists came to power. Marxism as an ideology is not necessarily left-wing, there are authoritarian right wing interpitations of Marxism. Immediately upon taking power, Lenin attacked the power of the Soviets (worker's councils, grass roots democracy), which formed the very foundation of socialism.

Well, don't speak about misnomers because you've got it confused too.

Right - left axis is related to economic freedom. Right wing includes things like free market, laissez faire capitalism, minimal government meddling into the economy, while Left wing stands for total government control of the economy, central planning, minimal personal property.

There is another vertical axis to describe the level of personal freedom, ranging from totalitarian rule to near anarchy.

If you want to criticize others for using wrong terms, you should at least avoid doing the same.

 

[sourboy]

I am afraid this regime will survive long enough to totally destroy North Korea, only then will it collapse into chaos, lawlessness and Somalia-style poverty.

Maybe, but the South would rescue them, and the new government would quickly reunite ties and cordial relations I'm sure.

 

[holy king]

Well, don't speak about misnomers because you've got it confused too.

Right - left axis is related to economic freedom. Right wing includes things like free market, laissez faire capitalism, minimal government meddling into the economy, while Left wing stands for total government control of the economy, central planning, minimal personal property.

There is another vertical axis to describe the level of personal freedom, ranging from totalitarian rule to near anarchy.

If you want to criticize others for using wrong terms, you should at least avoid doing the same.

that's some fancy new definiton made up by some american political scientists and has nothing to do with the definitions from 1921...
and according to this definition fascism is left wing
fact is lenin did take over the ussr, destroyed the soviets (against heavy resistance in st. petersburg and ukraine, was quite a bloody mess) and implemented the NEP, making the ussr a state monopoly capitalism...

what happened in north korea... is some crazy shite, and the result is some very weird dictatorship, not a communist piece of land...

Spoiler :

Exactly.

The kind of regime we're seing in North Korea is just the next major evolutionary step of communist dictatorship.

Communist regimes start with either revolution, led by a small group of Communists who somehow get the majority on their side (by making a lot of promises), or by a coup.
Once the communist party takes control, a period of revolutionary terror follows, during which the elites of the former regime are eliminated, either by means of physical extermination (USSR, Maoist China, 'Democratic' Kampuchea) or extreme marginalization and threats of long jail sentences (Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc.) or, in most cases, a cartain combination of both.
During this period, the party becomes internally unstable as many factions fight for power. This often leads to a rise of a single leader (Stalin, Mao, Gottwald, Kim Il-sung) who unites the party by eliminating the internal opposition (again there are two possible ways of doing it).

This is where North Korea and the rest of the Communist world start to differ. In Communist bloc, Stalinism had ended because Stalin didn't have an obvious successor. He was instead succeeded by people who were afraid of his style, they were terrified by it (see the irony, Communists terrified by their own terror). The new leaders in the Soviet bloc were much less autocratic, which means they allowed the other members of the Communist party to have some share of the power, and less cruel in dealing with the opposition.
This, unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, led to a gradual inner destabilization of the regime and its eventual fall in 1989, when the economic problems became so obvious nobody could deny it. With the absence of a strong, cruel and despotic leader, the Communist parties in the Eastern bloc didn't have the guts to kill thousands of people and stop the democratic revolution.

In North Korea, the first leader estabilished a clear line of succession and never loosened the terror. He combined the communist ideology, atheist in nature, with elements of religion to keep his subjects in line. Strict isolation is vital for the regimes survival. If they lightened the internal oppression, they'd start the same process which destroyed communism in Eastern Europe.

I am afraid this regime will survive long enough to totally destroy North Korea, only then will it collapse into chaos, lawlessness and Somalia-style poverty.

and i've seen stalinists making better analysises of the history of the soviet union and communism than this one...

 

[Virote_Considon]

that's some fancy new definiton made up by some american political scientists and has nothing to do with the definitions from 1921...

The definitions come from the post-French revolutionary parliament in the early 1800's (or maybe even very late 1700's), where the revolutionaries (who wanted a more "equal" state-run economy) sat on the left hand side of the French parliament, and royalists who preferred a lazies-faire (maybe spelt wrong) economy sat on the right. So, by this definition, Winner is right.

and according to this definition fascism is left wing

It certainly did contain some Socialist aspects which pushed things along in that direction, yes.

fact is lenin did take over the ussr, destroyed the soviets (against heavy resistance in st. petersburg and ukraine, was quite a bloody mess) and implemented the NEP, making the ussr a state monopoly capitalism...

"State Monopoly Capitalism"? Sounds pretty left-wing to me.

what happened in north korea... is some crazy shite, and the result is some very weird dictatorship, not a communist piece of land...

Nothing stopping them both being one and the same.

* empowered working class. Umm... no

They were at first empowered, but society realigns by itself, even with state interference. I'd say Communism is flawed simply by this aspect.

* elimination of social class. No...

See above. Social classes were at first eliminated (obviously discounting the ruling dictatorship, which is a key aspect of Communism)

* abolition of capitalist economic system and private property. Umm... not really. DPRK has deals with South Korean companies and a SEZ on the border with Russia. There's some private businesses operating, most are technically illegal but some are allowed by the government.

These are mostly recent changes, as North Korea needs to have some economic freedoms as its economy is otherwise in total stagnation, and with the other social problems (esp. lack of food), NK cannot afford to stay without a capitalist system. So this cannot be used as real proof of their non-Communist ideology.

* abolition of the state The North Korean state has more control over its population more than any other nation, so no.

This is not required for a singular Socialist state. Only when the Proletariat has taken over the entire world can they disintegrate their dictatorship, and abolish "state".

However, before the state is abolished, the Proletariat must rule as a dictatorship (Marx called this the final dictatorship)

C'mon, even I know all of this, and I know relatively little about the reds.

 

[holy king]

The definitions come from the post-French revolutionary parliament in the early 1800's (or maybe even very late 1700's), where the revolutionaries (who wanted a more "equal" state-run economy) sat on the left hand side of the French parliament, and royalists who preferred a lazies-faire (maybe spelt wrong) economy sat on the right. So, by this definition, Winner is right.

1. winner was obviously speaking about that political compass thingy
2. those definitions of left and right wing economic policy work only within capitalism. if you call a communist left wing, you have to see that the "state" in marxist theory constitutes the people itself, no state apparatus. that was not the case in lenins ussr after he had destroyed the soviet system, therefore his policy was right wing as opposed to left wing communist policy.
if you want to talk about the history of the ussr, you cant use french terminology a hundred percent analogous.

It certainly did contain some Socialist aspects which pushed things along in that direction, yes.

taking absolute power within an existing parliamentary system and then melting it with the existing capitalist economy is not socialist.

"State Monopoly Capitalism"? Sounds pretty left-wing to me

yes. french defintion. but it's not communist, and that was what was argued about.

This is not required for a singular Socialist state. Only when the Proletariat has taken over the entire world can they disintegrate their dictatorship, and abolish "state".

a misunderstood terminus. the dictatorship in theory would have ended by the time the russian revolution had ended. not to speak of the capitalist economic system that was intact in the ussr after '21. a socialist state is not supposed to be capitalist. (captain obvious strikes again)

 

[Princeps]

The definitions come from the post-French revolutionary parliament in the early 1800's (or maybe even very late 1700's), where the revolutionaries (who wanted a more "equal" state-run economy) sat on the left hand side of the French parliament, and royalists who preferred a lazies-faire (maybe spelt wrong) economy sat on the right. So, by this definition, Winner is right.

Not really. These royalists simply wanted to protect the existing power concentrations.

It certainly did contain some Socialist aspects which pushed things along in that direction, yes.

Not really. For example, the nazis crushed organized labour, and Hitler's antiparlamentarism was intrinsically right-wing, so in exact accordance with rightist doctrine, that I wouldn't be suprised if Milton Friedman, who has made similar pronouncements, was plagiarizing him. According to Hitler, parlamentary democracy was harmful to private entrepreneurialism and had to be crushed. Friedman made a starkly similar statement about the end of Pinochet's regime, when he said that, I'm paraphrasing, "the increasing political freedom tends to decrease economic freedom."

Hitler's regime was a "regime of the bosses", extremely profitable and strongly favourable of corporate monopoly, albeit bureocratic. The actual social policies and promised job creation were all modest and hugely hyped by propaganda.

"State Monopoly Capitalism"? Sounds pretty left-wing to me.

There's nothing left wing about it. Statism is not necessarily left-wing. If the state is not sensetive to people's needs and unrepresentative, it cannot be socialist. The basic idea, the very fundamental idea behind socialism is that power is shared by the collective. If all meaningful power is in the hands of a concentrated totalitarian state elite, then the state cannot claim to be socialist or representative of collective interests.

They were at first empowered, but society realigns by itself, even with state interference. I'd say Communism is flawed simply by this aspect.

What do you mean "realigns by itself"?

The workers were empowered to the extent that they had the ability to empower themselves during the revolution. Once Lenin assumed power, he almost immediately attacked the power of grass roots democracy. Some of the worst crimes commited by the Soviet Union, were done precisely to crush the workers into the line. The Soviet state may have worshipped the worker, but they refused to serve the working class.

See above. Social classes were at first eliminated (obviously discounting the ruling dictatorship, which is a key aspect of Communism)

No, they were not. Under Stalin, for example, class differences were glaring.

This is not required for a singular Socialist state. Only when the Proletariat has taken over the entire world can they disintegrate their dictatorship, and abolish "state". However, before the state is abolished, the Proletariat must rule as a dictatorship (Marx called this the final dictatorship)
C'mon, even I know all of this, and I know relatively little about the reds.

The dictatorship term does not refer to the concentration of power to a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie. So if power is concentrated to an ideological, military-bureocratic managerial class (or caste) like in the USSR, and this caste and its institutions are all-powerful, unregulated and unaccountable, there wont be any meaningful power left to the proletariat, and a new class of capitalists is created to reign over them, one that wears fur-hats.

 

[Virote_Considon]

2. those definitions of left and right wing economic policy work only within capitalism. if you call a communist left wing, you have to see that the "state" in marxist theory constitutes the people itself, no state apparatus. that was not the case in lenins ussr after he had destroyed the soviet system, therefore his policy was right wing as opposed to left wing communist policy.

Lenin, nor any Communist, could not destroy the state structure so long as there were other sovereign states. It is just an impossibility, because as soon as such an event would have happened, the remaining states surrounding Russia would have been able to swoop in and impose their own states. That was why it was so important for the Communists to have a worldwide revolution. Russia was just to be the starting point.

Furthermore, I do not see how playing power politics caused Lenin's government to be right-wing. The Soviet was destroyed to stop it posing a threat to the Bolsheviks.

if you want to talk about the history of the ussr, you cant use french terminology a hundred percent analogous.

The fact that it is a French term does not render it obsolete. You can see that there was a state controlled economy, and this is the essence what the description of "left wing" has become.

taking absolute power within an existing parliamentary system and then melting it with the existing capitalist economy is not socialist.

But forcible redistribution and control of the economy by the state for the purposes of having a more collectivist economy is socialist, and this was the aims and the outcome.

yes. french defintion. but it's not communist, and that was what was argued about.

State control of the economy is a phase in Communism. You force society to change directly from a Capitalist economy to a Communist economy, particularly if it must still deal diplomatically and economically with a mostly Capitalist world.

a misunderstood terminus. the dictatorship in theory would have ended by the time the russian revolution had ended. not to speak of the capitalist economic system that was intact in the ussr after '21. a socialist state is not supposed to be capitalist. (captain obvious strikes again)

The dictatorship could not end until such a time as the world was under Communist rule, which was not the case at the end of the 1917 revolution.

Not really. These royalists simply wanted to protect the existing power concentrations.

And that stops them supporting the already established capitalism which keeps them successful how?

Not really. For example, the nazis crushed organized labour, and Hitler's antiparlamentarism was intrinsically right-wing, so in exact accordance with rightist doctrine, that I wouldn't be suprised if Milton Friedman, who has made similar pronouncements, was plagiarizing him. According to Hitler, parlamentary democracy was harmful to private entrepreneurialism and had to be crushed. Friedman made a starkly similar statement about the end of Pinochet's regime, when he said that, I'm paraphrasing, "the increasing political freedom tends to decrease economic freedom."

Hitler's regime was a "regime of the bosses", extremely profitable and strongly favourable of corporate monopoly, albeit bureocratic. The actual social policies and promised job creation were all modest and hugely hyped by propaganda.

Hitler also nationalized major industries and started large-scale public works projects for the unemployed- two big no-no's for those in the right wing

There's nothing left wing about it. Statism is not necessarily left-wing. If the state is not sensetive to people's needs and unrepresentative, it cannot be socialist. The basic idea, the very fundamental idea behind socialism is that power is shared by the collective. If all meaningful power is in the hands of a concentrated totalitarian state elite, then the state cannot claim to be socialist or representative of collective interests.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. All I'm seeing is that you seem to say Socialism is some kind of interchangeable term for liberal democracy. Could you please re-phrase?

What do you mean "realigns by itself"?

I mean, you try to change the structure of society, it will eventually find a way to change itself back.

The workers were empowered to the extent that they had the ability to empower themselves during the revolution. Once Lenin assumed power, he almost immediately attacked the power of grass roots democracy. Some of the worst crimes commited by the Soviet Union, were done precisely to crush the workers into the line. The Soviet state may have worshipped the worker, but they refused to serve the working class.

As I said earlier, it is more to do with power politics than anything else

No, they were not. Under Stalin, for example, class differences were glaring.

I have not seen anything regarding this, so I'll take your word for it.

The dictatorship term does not refer to the concentration of power to a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie. So if power is concentrated to an ideological, military-bureocratic managerial class (or caste) like in the USSR, and this caste and its institutions are all-powerful, unregulated and unaccountable, there wont be any meaningful power left to the proletariat, and a new class of capitalists is created to reign over them, one that wears fur-hats.

It does not need a singular dictator, no, although such an event without a single stand-out leader is pretty uncommon

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Wait what? People from a Communist nation fleeing into a Communist nation?!

Pretty perplexing.....

 

[Winner]

that's some fancy new definiton made up by some american political scientists and has nothing to do with the definitions from 1921...
and according to this definition fascism is left wing
fact is lenin did take over the ussr, destroyed the soviets (against heavy resistance in st. petersburg and ukraine, was quite a bloody mess) and implemented the NEP, making the ussr a state monopoly capitalism...

This "fancy new definition" makes a lot of sense when you want to categorize political ideologies. The old left-right subdivision no longer works, it is actually quite misleading. Why should Nazism be a far right ideology, when it is in fact very similar to Soviet Bolshevism, it just kills people according to different key.

what happened in north korea... is some crazy shite, and the result is some very weird dictatorship, not a communist piece of land...

Yeah, it's not communist, despite is claims to be communist and it acts like communist. Good that we have such an expert here!

and i've seen stalinists making better analysises of the history of the soviet union and communism than this one...

And I've seen hundreds of such smartass comments from people who actually knew nothing...

Maybe, but the South would rescue them, and the new government would quickly reunite ties and cordial relations I'm sure.

I don't think so. South Korea is actually afraid that it will have to spend astronomical amount of money to get the North on its feet. It would be MUCH worse that what Western Germany had to do for the East, after the reunification.

 

[Princeps]

Hitler also nationalized major industries and started large-scale public works projects for the unemployed- two big no-no's for those in the right wing

No he didn't. Hitler famously stated that you don't need to nationalize the industries if you can nationalize the people. 90 % of the German industry remained in private hands and their owners were given fairly free hands in internal affairs.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. All I'm seeing is that you seem to say Socialism is some kind of interchangeable term for liberal democracy. Could you please re-phrase?

Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc, in the community as a whole. If this control is concentrated to a secretive, unaccountable totalitarian institution, there's no socialism.

 

[holy king]

This "fancy new definition" makes a lot of sense when you want to categorize political ideologies. The old left-right subdivision no longer works, it is actually quite misleading. Why should Nazism be a far right ideology, when it is in fact very similar to Soviet Bolshevism, it just kills people according to different key.

charles manson and scipio africanus also killed people according to a different key. does that mean they followed the same ideology?

The fact that it is a French term does not render it obsolete. You can see that there was a state controlled economy, and this is the essence what the description of "left wing" has become.

this only works within a capitalist system. a feudal system is also "state controlled", but not left wing.
but, yeah since the ussr was a capitalist sate, you could call it left wing. but not from the perspective of left wing socialists from 1921.

Lenin, nor any Communist, could not destroy the state structure so long as there were other sovereign states. It is just an impossibility, because as soon as such an event would have happened, the remaining states surrounding Russia would have been able to swoop in and impose their own states. That was why it was so important for the Communists to have a worldwide revolution. Russia was just to be the starting point.

Furthermore, I do not see how playing power politics caused Lenin's government to be right-wing. The Soviet was destroyed to stop it posing a threat to the Bolsheviks.

i have yet to be be told why a socialist entity could not maintain an army. i'm quite sure the seamen of kronstadt were anarchist/socialist, though still able to maintain a hirarchic chain of command during battle against lenin's troops.