In practice no.

What would you define North Korea as? I feel like we are jaded by propaganda

My (mind you relatively uneducated) take is that they’re still in the phase of state-based command economy as of rn. The state itself owns most of the industry and agriculture and they’re still aiming to accrue foreign investment, but it’s a planned economy before anything else

“Defensive alliance”

Socialism is first and foremost an economic mode of production. Just like capitalism is one. This is how Saudi Arabia and Sweden are both capitalist despie having vastly different governments. I would say the DPR Korea is a socialist economy. The means of production are socially owned, the economy is planned for use and not for profit, there is currency control and internally many aspects of commodity production are being phased out.

This doesn't condone or reject any of its political system, which is a different question altogether.

Juche is a more idealist variant of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is more materialist (meaning less concerned with abstract concepts like patriotism, nationhood, the Korean race, destiny, stuff like that). Juche is definitely a variant of socialism, but it is more like a nephew of Marxism-Leninism than a son of it.

BTW the idea that DPR Korea completely repudiated Marxism-Leninism is completely false, but I still see people throw it around all the time online. They still teach Marx and Lenin and have their books everywhere.

DPR Korea was more open towards the world before 1991. My buddy went to Namibia and saw that DPR Korea built them a museum against German colonialism there. Stuff like that is why DPR Korea still has a relatively good connection to many African nations.

Anyway, after 1991, DPR Korea lost access to Soviet imports, which they relied heavily on to farm and fertilize crops and their tractors. Add a historically dry season and a major famine occurred which led to many people dying. This was the phase where DPR Korea closed itself off to the world more.

It is more a desperate attempt to uphold the political system by any means possible. If their political situation would be more relaxed, they would open up more again.

BTW, their relationship with China is very open and they have regular border passages with China. I talked to a girl who was Chinese of North Korean descent and visited DPR Korea a few times. The perception of DPR Korea is totally different in China, especially for people in North China. For them, it's a poor country with a very orderly system rather than the 1984 hermit kingdom dystopia that the West sees it as.

I can't even laugh at stuff like this anymore. There have been so many of these extreme, overnight 180s in the past 2 decades when it comes to national/global events. It doesn't infuriate or frustrate me anymore; I can't even bother to be cynical towards it. It just overwhelms me with hopelessness tbh.

One KTT user said this image was fake and that it was from Rambo 3 because he misunderstood a Tweet and a bunch of idiots liked his post. Some guys here are really morons

Those 180s you mention will hopefully expose liberalism as the illusion it is. Marxism actually was developed as a response to liberalism. Engels very early on said that liberalism and capitalism cannot fulfill Enlightenment values, since any freedom and every right is always bogged down by the supremacy of private property and profits. All their values go only as far as private property rights allow them.

This might be one of the very few things you and me disagree on

If you view socialism in a purely economic way, as in who owns the MoP, and to what end it's used, I guess you could argue that it's a very flawed version of socialism. But if we look further than that, and question whether it's communist in the sense that it's the "real movement to abolish the present state of things", and that abolishing of the present state of things is understood as the liberation of the proletariat, I find it hard to see how we can call DPRK communist.

Of course, a***yzing their economy gives us the easiest and quickest answers, and they're not unimportant at all, but it has to be seen in context of their material conditions, and of course their ideology matters too if we want to see what broader course they're trying taking, and their official ideology Juche doesn't even claim to be Marxist anymore and the amount of references made to communism and Marx and Lenin varies a lot on the times that they're in.

In "On the Juche Idea", Kim Jong-il said that Juche is not a creative application of Marxism–Leninism, but rather "a new era in the development of human history". And something else that's pretty interesting:

"In his early years of revolutionary activities, the leader Kim Il-sung was well versed in Marxism-Leninism. But he did not confine himself to applying Marxism-Leninism to the Korean revolution but pioneered a new phase of revolutionary theory from a steadfast Juche-based standpoint and resolved the problems arising in the revolutionary practice from a unique angle."

Does it mean Juche is an actual theoretical contribution to Marxism in the way that Maoism was to Marxism-Leninism? I don't think so. The idea really doesn't go much deeper than unironic full isolationism, self-reliance at all cost, even if that means spending a ridiculous high amount on the military even during peacetime (#1 worldwide in terms of percentage of GDP). A centrally planned economy sure is helpful to attain those goals, but are they using it to bring about the liberation of the proletariat? I personally don't see how they are

I would even argue that if we were to see the end of the conditions that lead them to be so isolated and compelled to spend so much on their military, would see their economy have a much fewer characteristics that we would call "socialist".

Tldr: are they socialist? Depending on your definition, it's a deeply flawed version of socialism. Is it Marxist? Imo no, they barely even claim to be Marxist themselves.

If the past 30 years of domestic and global policy/governance in the West (including its allies and economic parallels) hasn't exposed liberalism for what it is yet, it's extremely hard to believe anything ever will, especially since those extreme 180s have been happening much more frequently over the last decade and have seemed to expose nothing but the inevitable anmesia of the news media cycle (which nowadays includes social media, particularly platforms like Twitter and Reddit where a topical newsfeed is a primary feature of its design).

The sheer amount of propaganda and the unrivaled ease of its infection in the 21st century has been consistently working towards an narrative in which liberalism is both a peerless narrator and sociopolitical ideal. The consistent and very public exile of the various groups casually labeled as "far/alt-right" in media (and by its junkies), along with the equally consistent but relatively understated infiltration and dismemberment of classical leftist groups/movements — both online and IRL — seems to be closing in on the final steps of establishing that narrative, if it's not already there.

I personally see socialism as an economic mode of production. Socialism doesn't even have to be Marxist (although this is what most socialists are).

Just like capitalism can exist in monarchies, democracies, dictatorships etc., the same applies for socialism. So the economic questions don't always cross over to political questions, although they are nonetheless heavily connected.

What I would criticize is the political side of the DPRK, but not necessarily the economic side of it. However, the political actions will always inform the economic actions and vice versa.

Communism for me isn't just a movement to abolish things (this is a quote that Dengists love to use), but rather another economic mode of production that we sometimes call full communism (moneyless stateless classless society). The economics here are so advanced that politics itself becomes somewhat redudant.

This is why a country can have a communist government (communism as a political goal) and only a socialist economy, like the USSR.

Or some countries had a socialist government (dictatorship of the proletariat) while having a capitalist economy, like Burkina Faso did

For me, the DPRK has a socialist economy and a Jucheist government.

The question is if Jucheism itself is socialist or communist. I personally think yes, but it is a non-Marxist form of socialism, even though Marxism is the root of it. It is not Marxist because it isn't based on materialism, it doesn't use the labor theory of value and other theoretical contributions of Marxism, and it doesn't seem to want to progress towards a communist economy.

I think Ghadafi had another socialist system that wasn't Marxist
I can see why u disagree tho

People increasingly not being able to pay their bills will do more for socialism than 30 years of media hypocrisy will. We must remain pessimistic in our minds and optimistic in our hearts. Anything else is counter-productive and ends you in post-leftist Nick Landian la-la-land.

I personally see socialism as an economic mode of production. Socialism doesn't even have to be Marxist (although this is what most socialists are).

Just like capitalism can exist in monarchies, democracies, dictatorships etc., the same applies for socialism. So the economic questions don't always cross over to political questions, although they are nonetheless heavily connected.

I mean I agree with this, I wouldn't necessarily oppose calling the DPRK socialist, I wouldn't call them Marxist tho.

Communism for me isn't just a movement to abolish things (this is a quote that Dengists love to use), but rather another economic mode of production that we sometimes call full communism (moneyless stateless classless society).

I think it's both honestly. I know Dengist abuse that quote, but if that quote about it being a movement has no legitimacy then you end up being an ultraleft armchairists who say none of these governments were ever communist because they never abolished the commodity form. So I think communism is both the end-goal and the movement to achieve that goal.

The question is if Jucheism itself is socialist or communist. I personally think yes, but it is a non-Marxist form of socialism, even though Marxism is the root of it. It is not Marxist because it isn't based on materialism, it doesn't use the labor theory of value and other theoretical contributions of Marxism, and it doesn't seem to want to progress towards a communist economy.

Fully agreed

My heart was nearly drained of all its optimism after seeing Nancy Pelosi on MSNBC in 2017 talking about her first meeting Trump, and saying "I miss George W. Bush. I wish he were president now. I wish Mitt Romney was president. I wish John McCain was president." And everyone with her agreed.

Then all the swooning in articles and social media that came afterwards over "wholesome" pictures of Bush Jr. painting and "adorable" candids of him and Ellen DeGeneres laughing at a sports game. Of course this isn't as bad as Pelosi's gleeful exclamation, but I mean Christ.

That 180 was a hard one to stomach

There have been crazier 180s tbh Fidel was welcomed in the US as a hero before they tried to assasinate him like 638 times

In the end, media portrayals play a part for sure, but the material conditions will always ultimately decide what revolutionary potential there is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

Oh i dont disagree. It's just hard to be optimistic about the possibility of revolution, or even a unified movement with material demands being established in order to have the potential of revolutionary action.

On a related note:

You and @ARCADE_GOON should check out the films General Report (1977) and General Report II: The New Abduction of Europe (2015). Both directed by Pere Portabella, one of the first senators democratically elected in Spain after Franco's death and the current leader of Fundacion Alternativas. I think you guys would dig them.

Both of them documentaries about major political movements in Spain, mainly comprised of filmed roundtables. Part 1 deals with citizens and figureheads during the Spanish Transition, while Part 2 is about the organizing, corruption, and ultimate failure of the attempted Catalan separatist movement after Spain's recent financial crash, and the aftermath.

Both films are available to watch on Mubi, which you can get a 7 day free trial of and cancel after

@krishna_bound you might be interested in these as well

Every day I hear anarchists say that true communism has no hierarchies which is just dumb. Communism has no social class. Hierarchies are still required in a realistic world

is anybody up on wakefield’s influence on marx? i just now been reading about wakefield and that s*** is interesting....
s*** kinda funny

holy F***

i wasn’t even paying attention to politics like that when that happened but.... jesus

Radlibs are running words with meaning like genocide, psy op, and eugenics through so many flighty hysteric cycles that they've lost all meaning and legitimacy.

I can respect anarchists who are anarchists because they think that for whatever that a revolution that doesn't abolish the state right away will ultimately fail, even if I disagree. But for a lot of em they just found an ideology for their feeling of NO YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO

true ancap s***