TIL that North Korea is neoliberal, too

>In this rapidly changing international scenario, the DPRK, which had become heavily dependent on subsided trade with its former communist partners during the Cold War, found itself with no economic safety net. At the same time, the country was hit by a series of droughts and floods, along with a sudden shortage of energy sources. This devastated an agriculture system almost entirely dependent on chemical fertilisers and mechanised irrigation.
>The crisis caught many North Koreans by surprise, and it was aggravated by economic mismanagement. It should be noted that the Public Distribution System did not collapse altogether, but the degree of functioning of the system varied between different provinces. Between 1994 and 1998, GDP declined by almost half. This, in combination with the progressive dysfunction of the PDS, severely reduced access to food, medications, and primary goods, leading to a famine and to the general deterioration of the population’s ability to withstand further calamities.

1. This is a better materialist analysis of North Korean State capitalism than most ☭TANKIE☭s can manage.
2. Downsizing the public sector? Slashing welfare rolls? Smells a little like Thatcherism to me.

Other urls found in this thread:


I'm just going to preempt the inevitable "defense of the DPRK" debate by saying that if you actually give a shit about advancing socialism in a global context, then you have nothing to gain by defending or "supporting" North Korea. The DPRK was and is crippled by Western imperialism, but it has no realistic ability on its own to advance the material conditions of its people towards communism, and has never professed any interest in advancing socialism beyond its own borders. There are no theoretical lessons to be learned from studying North Korea's economic or political structure, other than observing what not to do.

Being pro-DPRK in this day and age is nothing but anti-American and vulgar "anti-imperialist" circlejerking. If you truly give a shit about socialism, why not spend more time studying and criticizing the South, which is far more economically fertile and in some ways far more dystopian and in need of revolutionary change than the stunted North.

You're absolute right, but these people overwhelmingly do not "give a shit about advancing socialism in a global context". Asserites and Nazbols seem to be predominant here.

nah dude, those are just "m"-"l", jucheand maoists

asserites and nazbols are a meme

Why didn't you post this in the DPRK thread?

Disgusting 1st world chauvinist arrogance. You literally make me sick to my stomach. Hope your shitstain town catches a Korean ICBM

Because what REALLY matters are nationalist geopolitical divisions on a map, not social classes.


So what you are saying is that due to the fall of their economic base, the soviet union, they were forced to participate in the global market or starve rather than keep ideological purity? so basically they did what Cuba is doing but to a lesser extent?

And what would be the alternative, full neoliberal capitalism? I am from a socialist org in a small country and I have no illusions about the fact we will have to keep private property since an autarky is impossible. We will have to kick out EU industry and bring in Russian or Chinese industry and in these sectors there will be rampant capitalism because we need to build an industrial base, we won't even touch the middle class and we will have to work with some of the national bourgs because otherwise we will have jack shit for industry. There are just no conditions for anything better but it is still better than foreign hegemony of our economy. In the beggining what matters is establishing a DoTP and having the economy working on your terms even if it is capitalist. I really have no idea how you morons expect an isolated small country under sanctions to keep a purely socialist mode of production, but also fail to understand that these concessions to capital are made only in select economic sectors while the rest of the economy produces for use. Only large industrial countries can afford to only have a minor presence in the global market. I really dont see how the fuck you expect the norks to support revolutionaries on an international scale under the conditions of a siege. I wish you fucking burgers remembered from time to time that Korea was unified and socialist before American occupation.

I don't think there is anything more damaging to socialism than you colledge champagne socialists screeching not true socialism at any attempt at socialist politics, while your movements have never amounted to your own scrutiny. Your excuse is either that there are no conditions yet and we should lay down and die or that you would somehow with a flick of your wrist do away with any need for participation in the global market, we will just magically build socialism and all previous attempts failed because of some spooky bureaucracy or because people weren't free enough in some vague sense, or that somehow your big man would've been better than whoever was administrator at the time. It's fucking childish and has no real consideration for how things actually work at the present time nor do I ever see an argument for what should be done, only vague allusions to abolishing commodity production, dictatorship of the proletariat or establishing socialism. It is very tiring.

your country made those divisions you sack of shit

This is already sort of wrong. China doesn't contribute to more than 18% of North Korea's economy at all. And now it's probably less, considering they banned coal trade.
It's a bunch of hot takes and speculation to say the least.
Bullshit. You have massive North Korean infrastructure projects in the DPRK that provide full employment.

The fact you unironically wrote that the DPRK is "neoliberal" shows that you are truly a demagogue. Why didn't you post this in the DPRK general?

Just a question, you are this guy, right?

So you obviously have an agenda to misinform and discredit about the DPRK because it somehow contradicts your ideological complex. It's kind of funny how your argument is "muh black market" which originated in the 90s due to the Arduous March. Nobody denies this, not even the offical North Korean position.

Some problems so people get less. Shocker. Fucc off burger.

If you recognize the weakness of the socialist cause, and the necessity to work within existing capitalist economic and class structures, and the inability to transcend those structures, then why don't you just cease with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' nonsense and become social democrats? You'll probably get a lot more done much quicker and with a lot less potential violence. Because the utilitarian improvement of peoples' lives is what matters first, we'll worry about communism later, just get those unions strengthened and that welfare expanded while you screech about imperialism and wave your national flags. Then you end up voting for the centrist neoliberal candidate anyways the moment the far right starts gaining ground.

North Korea is not an attractive path to socialism for other nations, unless it's accompanied by careful and reflective criticism on what works, what doesn't work, and how to avoid collapsing into another post-Soviet capitalist state, just with red flags and surplus AKs. This blanket defense of the DPRK accomplishes nothing, and it's an expression of weakness and ressentiment among online leftists. You're not winning any converts among the working people by trying to directly refute the dismal political and economic conditions of North Korea. No one is convinced that Kim Jong-Un or Xi Jinping or whatever Great Leader actually is gonna flip the socialism switch and make everything better if only the ebul Anglo-Zionist capitalists would just disappear. It's all just wishful thinking and empty posturing and it makes you look weak, weak, weak.

OP here.

Because North Korea is just a social democracy on steroids. When I criticize the ☭TANKIE☭s, I'm -also- criticizing you. You're no better than they are.

Oh lol, that's why.

Then explain to me what is the great alternative to defending one of the last remaining socialist states. Sure, there might be a lot of people not liking the DPRK, but what does that matter in the end? We have nothing else to go for us.

You need to explain your position if you want to be taken seriously. Again, there is a DPRK thread in the catalog where you are welcome to contribute.

If the North Koreans had been capable of abolishing the commodity form and the law of value, they wouldn't need social welfare programmes - or a State to administer them.
The DPRK, structurally, is little different from the succdem's beloved Nordic Paradise. Both have high degrees of public expenditure [which are slowly eroding in both contexts, because the law of value is no respecter of persons] which would be completely unnecessary had they been capable of abolishing capitalism.
But capitalism cannot be abolished in one country, because the preconditions for it require a globalized working-class The DPRK in this view is literally no different whatsoever from Glorious Sweden, except that it happens to be on the receiving end of the geopolitical shitstorm.
The good news is that North Korea's problems aren't endogenous to its domestic economy. The bad news is that its problems are inherent to its position as an isolated capitalist society.

Damn right, Sionista! Go back to reddit, this board belongs to the Nazbol Gang

What do you mean by that? I'm pretty sure anybody would have a hard time abolishing the law of value in a capitalist world. The question is, does the law of value regulate production? It clearly doesn't in North Korea, you'd be a fool to argue otherwise. As for commodity production, commodities do exist in the DPRK as they are sold on the market place, but they are produced for use, which doesn't give them the commoditiy character of capitalism. Commodity fetishism doesn' exist in North Korea. Many items in the DPRK are not commodities - such as the many products which are distributed according to a gift economy.
What the fuck you mean? Again, there is no labor market or unemployment in the DPRK. Are you implying that disabled or old people shouldn't have access to the common funds?
Nothing is "eroding" in North Korea. The economy is growing faster than South Korea. A socialist economy is not subjected to the contradictions of capitalism. Feel free to point out the boom-and-bust cycles, falling rate of profit or monopolization in North Korea.
I agree with you insofar that North Korea doesn't possess the resources it needs to sustain itself. I blame the sanctions.
To think the DPRK is a capitalist society is utter nonsense. Where is the private property? Where is the wage labor? Where is the production for profit? Where is the individual allocation of surplus value?

Not only would you "have a hard time" doing it, you LITERALLY COULD NOT DO IT sitting on an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism. If the law of value regulates production in all the nations you trade with, it will INEVITABLY regulate production in your own nation also.

Strange that 'Communist' North Korea hasn't abolished social classes.
The very fact that North Korea has an economy that is 'growing' and that can be measured by the same metrics as capitalism is proof-positive that it is, in fact, capitalist.
All in the "black market", which the North Korean State unofficially sanctions, except when it needs to make a show of anti-corruption for propaganda purposes.

there is no such weakness in a socialist cause, there is only weakness in small states that are under economic sanctions by most of the world. Which brings me to my second point, if the norks are only a social democracy with the social relations of a socdem country, why are they under sanction and threat of war from the NATO bloc? Couldn't be just the red flags otherwise Cuba would be in a far worse place today. Secondly, you are dishonest to claim the mode of production and social relations in soviet style socialist states are equivalent to socdem states. I'd know, I come from an ex soviet state and the social democracy we had afterward is not the same in any regard. All you are doing is clutching to your idealized socialism without any idea how it would be implemented. But you are not arguing in good faith so I am not continuing this conversation.

It's not as if two capitalist countries can't go to war, or sanction one another for propagandistic reasons. The entire recent history of Iran and Russia is proof-positive of this.
'Social democracy' is not a one-size-fits-all category. There are obvious differences between North Korea and the ex-Eastern Bloc social democracies which have become gradually more obvious as the falling rate of profit has manifested more rapidly in the Eastern Bloc. But this does not mean that the social relations within those countries were tangibly different.
'Idealized' socialism is believing against all evidence that a marginal capitalist nation has in fact abolished the law of value and is socialist. Marx used 'utopian socialism' to refer to theorists of socialism who had a concrete vision that would have to be implemented after the revolution.
I have no such vision. My conceit is that revolution is driven by material need, and that the conditions immediately antecedent to revolution determine the course of that revolution in a concrete way. I have NO 'idealized' socialism at all.

lmao you are literally doing what I said you'd do here. None of what you said means shit to me as a factory worker. What the fuck does that even mean? Are you going to drive out foreign capital which can exploit me but move to the neighboring country just when I get sick of their shit and go on strike? Are you for collectivization of all industry? Really, you are? Then what the fuck do we do after that, considering that we have been put under sanction and our industry needs to be built up to stand on it's feet, and we can't even produce machinery and such because we have no heavy industry in the first place to even build new factories, since all such industry has been demolished after we were 'liberated'? What about the management of such industry in the first place? self-management? That's how you get nepotism among workers themselves. decentralized planning? takes forever. Central Planning? Better watch those fucking administrators so they don't get lazy on the job and cut corners to cut their work hours. What about my labor? How is my labor valued and what represents it in society? What do I get from a day of work? What do we do about the gypsies which don't do fucking anything and who have refused both soviet and social democratic measures to assimilation because of their traditions? But what about the church, the bishop says gays are sinners yet you are giving them rights? I want to take away their rights and so do 80% of the population because their entire concept of homosexuality is trough the church and the EU liberal portrayal which fucking disgusts the average prole. So are they allowed to do this if it is a true socialist, dictatorship of the proletariat in which the proletariat decide on both social and economic issues? What about the useless middle class which can't exist without large production (factories), do we start violently collectivizing their shit even though this would create a large portion of society militantly against you, ready to take up arms for foreign capital & would be funded by it, or do you leave them be and tie them up with regulations because they can't do shit without wide scale production anyways? What about my healthcare, the fucking SNS took that away. Will we have workplace democracy again like in the old days, will we have soviets? Will we produce for use again instead of for exchange?

What you said doesn't mean SHIT in any context, you are totally disconnected from the Marxist theory you read or it's practical application.

All of these issues - every single one - are solved by the elimination of commodity production. You can sit back and tick through each, see how they link back to production for exchange, and realize the implications of production for use on them.

But no. That requires reading. And thought. Neither of which you're capable of.

yeah that's nice and all comrade but seriously now what should we do? You still haven't told me shit.

If you weren't some pseud pissbaby you'd be able to present arguments based on the books you've read instead of just repeating shit any mook would know if he opened up wage labor and capital once. Anyone who has spat at Marx knows that revolution is driven by material need and that the conditions immediately antecedent to revolution determine the course of the revolution, that is basic "base-superstructure" shit. You might as well have told me that the revolution would be dialectically decided, it doesn't mean jack in the practical sense. It is only a very broad explanation of marxist analysis.

So then, tell me in concrete terms how should production for exchange be abolished tomorrow? What needs to be done at an economic level? What needs to be done at a societal level? Be very specific and concrete.

Question to people who know: why was Cuba able to better weather the collapse of the Soviet Union than was DPRK, dramatically so? Is it simply down to DPRK being poor agricultural land?

Pretty sure that plays a major role
Also, juche is fucking shitty, but Castro's system was actually something that the Cuban people could work with.

No, the ruling class did.

Korea is much more reliant on their neighbors for resources to sustain their economy than Cuba. Also fidel was god tier at promoting cuban """"self"""" sufficiency (mostly meaning getting essential resources from places besides the US and its allies)

DPRK is in a much shittier geopolitical location and have very bad farming land, meaning that they had to import fertilizers, fuel etc to keep up their economy. They also stubbornly refused to privatize the majority of their industry while Cuba has privatized a staggering amount of their industry to keep living conditions and growth positive in Cuba, since it's lost it's socialist economic base. I don't even know if the DPRK is in a place where it could do something like that. There are worries from some of my comrades that went to Cuba that Cuba went too far with privatization, that capitalism is definitely gaining a political presence