Juche Overtakes Zig Forums

lol

not an argument

Those are not mutually exclusive. It has a planned economy and I wouldnt be so pedantic to say they arent socialist, but I am very unconvinced that it is actually run by workers and not by entrenched beaurachratic and military castes claiming to act on their behalf. I really doubt that there is democratic control of the workplace/significant leverage of workers over distribution of resources. Which is understandable considering the circumstances of trying to maintain sovereignty from US imperialism at all costs, but I am baffled by how many people think that the model that necessitates is desireable in itself instead of a necessary but unfortunate historical contingency.

This is completely false.
korean-books.com.kp/KBMbooks/en/work/leader2/3013.pdf

Attached: E80F0AF9-EBA0-4A30-8914-550DD7BC6DEA.jpeg (988x1279, 673.39K)

I dunno what you mean by idealist. It might be idealist, but I think the defense of it is usually something like "it is based on the material conditions of Korea etc."

I don't know how true that is either because it affords a confidence that the KWP has the priorities of western leftists, and that they are entirely driven by communist goals. I don't believe that, the genesis of the DPRK was in anti-colonial, national self-determination and communism. Because of their embattled position, I think it is safe to say that the former has taken precedence over the latter, even if the DPRK still harbors a structural tendency towards socialist distribution of work and the social product.

relationship, but it is not merely a class concept. Naturally, the masses
of the people consist of different classes and strata. In order to
distinguish whether one is a member of the masses of the people or
not, his social and class status should be considered, but this must
not be regarded as absolute. Man's ideas and behaviour are not
subject solely to the influence of his social and class status. If he
undergoes revolutionary influence and acquires progressive ideas, he
can serve the masses of the people regardless of his social and class
status. The basic criterion for deciding whether one is a member of
the masses of the people or not is not one's social and class origin,
but one's ideas.
of socialism and communism. Anyone who loves the country, the
people and the nation can serve the people and accordingly, is qualified to be a member of the masses of the people.
From such a point of view, at every stage of the revolution, the
great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung united everyone who was
ideologically ready to serve the fatherland, the people and the nation
into one revolutionary force, and he successfully carried out the
revolution and construction. Our Party trusts people of different
classes and strata who are interested in the revolution.

This is what I'm talking about. I can see how collaboration between 3rd world proles and other classes could potentially be a good strategic move for immediate anti-imperialist ends, but to say that classes even are CAPABLE of working together to serve a nebulous, non-economic classification like "the People" and "the Masses" is absolutely an idealist deviation from Marxism. And I'm not trying to cherry pick, much of that document is a very nice polemic regarding good socialist and anti-imperial positions with some insightful nuance about the way in which certain ideals do need to be concieved of to understand and work towards material development, but a statement like this that assumes feudal institutions/the bourgeosie are fine as long as they serve the People is very non-Marxist at the very least and I would even say anti-Marxist.

if it is one of the longest lasting socialist states today how is it idealism

then you either reject or don't understand the theory of vanguardism. Read Lenin.
I don't understand what you'd consider a state run by workers. Are they part time state actors when they're not at the factory?
Marx said that on the eve of the revolution all forces of reaction would be against us. So it is understandable to have a high military focus when literally ALL FORCES OF REACTION are agianst the DRPK

why? what is wrong with the DPRK model?

Attached: 51B48C57-816E-47DD-B550-F7E45A4C7E91.jpeg (2060x1236, 314.86K)

replied to you here>>2833164

So you've made 3 or 4 posts on leftpol and one here despite there clearly being generals for this trash? GJ user. You truly are a warrior..

Considering it was formulated by a 12 year old, yes.

Of course, thats not what I'm saying, and that's not what that text I quoted is saying. Read that excerpt it again, it isnt talking about class origins, it is saying that belonging to the bourgeoisie is okay as long as you work on behalf of the people, very very different.