I largely agree with this.

My biggest point of agreement is that:

DPRK should he able to chart their own course.

It’s evident to me that this is not the case so long as the Kim regime is in charge.

My biggest disagreement is that we don’t really know what kind of wealth the regime controls; they aren’t exactly forthcoming with that information. From the outside though, they resemble the economic distribution of many other dictatorships propped up as client states by empires.

This was a pleasant conversation though; a nice break from telling fascists to get fucked.

Kim is the leader of the regime. Your argument sounds like capitalists who say “billionaires aren’t that wealthy, since their assets aren’t liquid.” Economic control is worth a hell of a lot more than currency.

You say that there is little economic stratification, but where were the deaths occuring during the famines of the 90s? How many of the Kims succumbed to starvation?

Yes, the US controls information and puts out propaganda as an imperialist regime. Controlling information is still a means of oppression, even when done by North Korea.

And again, the labor is “organized” by the regime. It’s shocking to me that you find this controversial. This arrangement would be akin to having a union managed by HR in a capitalist structure: a cover to control labor.

The website of the Korean Friendship Association states that “(The GFTUK) conducts ideological education to ensure its members fully understand the Juche idea and gets them to take part in socialist construction and the management of the socialist economy with the attitude befitting masters. It has its organizations in different branches of industry.” However, the North Korea Handbook states that the GFTUK is not designed to serve its members but the WPK. GFTUK is directly controlled by the Central Committee of the WPK.

Are you saying that the Kim regime doesn’t control the WPK?

I never said they were an imperialist system, just that the extreme economic stratification is counter to their claims to be a leftist country.

I also never claimed that the US didn’t devastate that region.

I also never said that property was not state owned; my point was that the state exists to serve the Kim regime. You can clearly see how wealth and privilege are tied to loyalty to the regime. Like I said: workers have some economic freedom, but only so far as the regime allows. While the workers “own” the means on paper, they have very little say in the economic distribution of said production. In effect, the Kim regime owns the means of production.

You’re making a claim that the North Koreans are happy with their situation, but like I said information is highly controlled there. Why is the regime so afraid of information getting in if that was a stable situation? Why is there a steady stream of defectors from the state (even under the threat of extreme violence)? Why is it illegal to collectively organize labor in North Korea? Isn’t that a foundational principle of Marxism? How can the workers advocate for their own rights if the only arm to do so is controlled by the violent regime, with incentives that are at odds?

What is the difference between a “strongman” and a head of state? What makes one socialist system with a leader acceptable and leftist, and another not? Are all leaders inherently antithetical to leftism, in your views? If so, then that disqualifies the vast majority of Marxism.

Good question! I’m not really sure the difference really matters. The leaders in a socialist or anarchist system are provisional and only serve at the pleasure of those they represent. This is in stark contrast to the NK system, where the lower classes have absolutely no say in their representation and next to no say in the economic sphere. How is this an improvement over even liberal capitalism?

When you hear Marxists talk about statelessness, there are two important factors. The first is that the state, in the eyes of Marxists, is distinct from administration, management, etc, the state is the instrument by which the ruling class, the one with firm control over the means of production, oppresses the other classes in society. The second is that the state can only disappear when class disappears, and class can only disappear when all production globally is collectivized. If any socialist state erased itself, its armies, its control over capital, etc, it would be invaded and collapsed immediately.

Another point that I largely agree with! The state is a means of consolidating power through all three avenues of control: sovereignty (exclusive use of force), secrecy (control of information), and charismatic competition for power (like the NK military). My issue is that North Korea is doing absolutely nothing to eliminate class distinctions; on the contrary, they use incredibly oppressive rule to prevent the lower classes from achieving anything approaching political or economic power.

Hierarchy of power is more of an anarchist critique than a Marxist critique. Anarchists see hierarchy in general as bad (with some caveats), while Marxists critique class dynamics. A full, late-stage communist society would lack a state, but would still have managers, administrators, and hierarchy (though no class).

An anarchistic society has managers, administrators, and voluntary hierarchy. It is about removing the means of oppression; it is a misconception that anarchism is against hierarchy in general (another point of agreement).

But this is all largely irrelevant to my larger point: what actually makes North Korea “leftist?” The oppressive state control, the violent oppression of the lower classes in favor of a ruling elite, the restriction of basic personal and economic freedoms, the intense control of information, control of movement, and oppressive violence are, again, what we would expect from a far-right dictatorship.

So again, what is actually leftist about North Korea? Even based in Marxism? Because a highly economically stratified society is not based on any definition of “leftist” I’ve ever heard. It looks like a right-wing dictatorship with a coat of red paint to me.

Who owns the means of production in North Korea? It sure doesn’t look like the workers to me.

I’m willing to listen to the answer to my question about North Korea from the other day, but I got nothing. Here, let me ask again:

There’s nothing “leftist” about a strongman controlling the means of production, and they’re definitely not advocating for a stateless society free of coercion. They also have a very strict heirarchy of power, so what exactly makes you think that the regime is leftist in any way? Those bedrock positions are the exact opposite from what one could expect from the left.

I wonder why you can’t answer it as a “real leftist?”

Oh, you don’t have an answer?

Didn’t think so.

There’s nothing “leftist” about a strongman controlling the means of production, and they’re definitely not advocating for a stateless society free of coercion. They also have a very strict heirarchy of power, so what exactly makes you think that the regime is leftist in any way? Those bedrock positions are the exact opposite from what one could expect from the left.