• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is North Korea a communistic State?

Is North Korea communistic?


  • Total voters
    24
These are not self-contained systems, that exist within given boundaries. Capitalism - and communism - are systems that require the universalization of the system in order to be able to operate. It is why capitalism spread so quickly across the globe in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is also why the Soviet Union collapsed. The unversalization of the system is built into the very foundation of the system itself; without it, it cannot survive.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.


How is this "Stalinism," exactly? Why is this attributed to Stalin? Why not any other of a couple dozen dictators?



Totalitarianism cannot exist outside of Orwell's novel and Lucas' film. It's physically impossible. I was pointing out the absurdity of calling the North Korean state totalitarian when it doesn't even apparently have electricity.

Maybe because you keep talking about a global system when I am discussing the ability of a nation to control a system within its borders to so great a degree that they exercise control. For example, within the US if you wish to engage in commerce you must do so under the laws and regulations in place, same with any other country. In a demand economy system you are told what to produce and how.

Is it hard to understand?
 
No North Korea is not communist, its not socialist. Its far from that. Its a country who openly follows the ideas of "juche" which is failed. Juche kind almost even be called fascist....
 
Maybe because you keep talking about a global system when I am discussing the ability of a nation to control a system within its borders to so great a degree that they exercise control. For example, within the US if you wish to engage in commerce you must do so under the laws and regulations in place, same with any other country. In a demand economy system you are told what to produce and how.

Is it hard to understand?

The reason I'm talking about global systems, and this is my point, is because these systems by their very nature are global. Sure, you can speak of the legal framework in each country being different (which is what I was referring to when I specifically said and italicized the word "policy" in my last post) but these countries are all going to be capitalist. The fundamental relations of production and property are going to be the same.

As for a "demand economy" [sic], that depends on what you mean by the term. A true command economy - i.e. a centrally planned economy - is going to necessitate the abolition of capitalist property relations.

No North Korea is not communist, its not socialist. Its far from that. Its a country who openly follows the ideas of "juche" which is failed. Juche kind almost even be called fascist....

The means of production are nationalized, therefore it cannot be fascist.
 
Whenever people like fonda and hillary and biden and such embrace them. it must be dictator like. Gore sends his people there and we are supposed to believe it was for spying on them. They probably took usa secrets to them.
 
How is this "Stalinism," exactly? Why is this attributed to Stalin? Why not any other of a couple dozen dictators?

He was the first to do what I described. Many economists built on the theories of John Maynard Keynes while following his basic theory. They're still Keynesian, because he was the first in that school.

Totalitarianism cannot exist outside of Orwell's novel and Lucas' film. It's physically impossible. I was pointing out the absurdity of calling the North Korean state totalitarian when it doesn't even apparently have electricity.

A totalitarian state need not control every single facet of its citizen's lives. Not even Big Brother could do this.

Totalitarian | Define Totalitarian at Dictionary.com

to·tal·i·tar·i·an   
[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn]
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
 
He was the first to do what I described. Many economists built on the theories of John Maynard Keynes while following his basic theory. They're still Keynesian, because he was the first in that school.

Um, no he wasn't. There's centuries of history of rulers doing this...

A totalitarian state need not control every single facet of its citizen's lives. Not even Big Brother could do this.

Totalitarian | Define Totalitarian at Dictionary.com

to·tal·i·tar·i·an   
[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn]
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Going to dictionary.com is a really stupid thing to do. It's here equating totalitarianism with authoritarianism, for example, which is idiotic.
 
Um, no he wasn't. There's centuries of history of rulers doing this...

None were able to do this to the degree to which Stalin did or dressed up this type of repression in the guise of Marxism. Again, we are getting into yet another stupid semantics debate.

Going to dictionary.com is a really stupid thing to do. It's here equating totalitarianism with authoritarianism, for example, which is idiotic.

Webster's says the same thing. Again, you are taking this too literally. Even Big Brother could not control everything its people did in 1984. Was the regime depicted not totalitarian? Totalitarianism like liberal democracy does not have an absolutist definition. I can't shout fire in a crowded theater, but this doesn't disqualify the US from being a liberal democracy. North Korea has the most repressive government in the world and few regimes come close to its repressiveness in history. I really have very little interest in debating terms with you that most of the English-speaking world already agrees upon the meaning of. In the end the North Korean Communist Party will work to further and maintain its own power above all else, just like Stalin's Communist Party or the Nazis. The window dressing of ideology is largely irrelevent.
 
Um, no he wasn't. There's centuries of history of rulers doing this...



Going to dictionary.com is a really stupid thing to do. It's here equating totalitarianism with authoritarianism, for example, which is idiotic.

1. The definition provided said "authoritarian" not "authoritarianism" - I'd say to look up the definitions, but it seems you don't like dictionaries. :)

2. The reason words have meanings is so we can all understand each other - if you don't have a mutual understanding of a term's definition the conversations go down hill real quick.
 
Last edited:
No North Korea is not communist, its not socialist. Its far from that. Its a country who openly follows the ideas of "juche" which is failed. Juche kind almost even be called fascist....
Take a look at the definition of socialism. North Korea fits the definition of socialism. Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just because it is a hell hole does not make it less socialist. It is not facist, because that requires a regulated market economy. Juche is not an independant economic system.

If North Korea was successful, then you would have applauded them for being a successful socialist state. How do we know? Because socialists applauded China under Mao even though it was hardly successful and just as bad as North Korea.
 
Last edited:
Depends how you define Communist.

Marx explicitly wrote that a Communist country would be ruled by the worker. And since the only people left after a Communist revolution would be workers, it would be direct democracy (scary **** eh?). Due to there only be workers, there would be a classless society. North Korea fails those two criteria right off the bat.

Moreso, Marx wrote that a Communist nation does not trade with the West. North Korea at least matches this partially, but not by choice. For the same reason China and the Former USSR fail this test (and the earlier two, gang of 6 anyone, worker rule my ***?). And more importantly, Marx wrote against Capitalism and property rights. China and Russia have brought those back with some caveats, and North Korea has property rights for its elite class.

If we stick with the actual definition of Communism, North Korea fails pretty hard in almost all categories. The problem with defining Communism based on the actions of those in the past 50 years is that it renders Communism to mean whatever self proclaimed Communists have done. Which include strong property rights, a ruling elite with little to no voice by the people, export oriented economies focusing on the West and frameworks to encourage capitalism. The idiotic idea of defining Communism not by what Marx wrote but by what "communists" have done is that it renders most countries in the world at some point in their history Communist. Is that intelligent? No. Does that produce any thing of value? No. So why do some people use it? Probably because they first don't know what Communism actually is and don't realize they just classified Switzerland as Communist.

That was a thoughtful and well-written post. Though I dislike the theory of communism for its principles and aftermaths, I understand your points and I respect you for them.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the definition of socialism.
Ok yes, lets take a look at socialism.
Here is what socialism is in the most basic nutshell (i find myself posting this ever other ****ing post...)
Socialism is a theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. Basically the workers own the workplace and make decisions together. Now tell me how in North Korea where the oligarchy (the select few in the gov), and the higher powers make decisions and the workers are merely slaves and pawns in their game and do as they are told. Tell me how that is anywhere close to socialism?

North Korea fits the definition of socialism. Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No its not. And im glad your knowledge of socialism and research on the topic is merely wikipedia! Good job!

Just because it is a hell hole does not make it less socialist.
Well its not socialist. Just because its name has something to do with socialism does not mean its socialist. Ever heard of a misnomer?
Was the NAZI party socialist because it had something to do with socialism and workers in its name?

It is not facist, because that requires a regulated market economy.
This might blow your mind: "Red Fascism"

Juche is not an independant economic system.
Actually Juche has a lot do with the economy. Sense its the ideology on how Norh Korea will become a self sufficient nation..

If North Korea was successful, then you would have applauded them for being a successful socialist state.
No i actually would of not at all.
The USSR one could argue was successful and i do not applaud the USSR at all.
China is supposedly "socialist" because their name says so and i do not applaud them at all...

How do we know?
Well your the one asking the questions.

Because socialists applauded China under Mao even though it was hardly successful and just as bad as North Korea.

Well a lot of Mao's programs were succesfuly. But i do not look to Mao as a positive influence on this world and defiantly do not applaud the man.
Way to generalize about everything :doh
 
Socialism is a theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. Basically the workers own the workplace and make decisions together.

That's a reasonable definition of socialism based on what Marx wrote. The USSR considered themselves socialist because they had the government own all businesses or the means of production and thus called it community owned, i.e. Marxist. However, Marx himself envisioned the workers themselves owning the companies they worked for. It would have been more like the workers all owning stock. The big question then boils down to if the Soviet total governmental control of all business meets Marx's definition of the workers owning the means of production.
 
NKorea is indeed a communistic state.

No more so then the United States is Communistic.

No state is "communist", it seems, because in the theory communism works, and all these states don't.

That made absolutely no sense. In theory Communism doesn't work in theory (in a human context), and that has no bearing upon the failure to actual be Communist.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I really have very little interest in debating terms with you that most of the English-speaking world already agrees upon the meaning of.

I suggest you look into criticisms of totalitarianism theory. I also suggest you learn the history of totalitarianism theory, whose original purpose was to equate the USSR under Stalin with NAZI Germany under Hitler as a propaganda weapon in the Cold War.

In the end the North Korean Communist Party will work to further and maintain its own power above all else

The Korean Communist Party hasn't existed since 1946; the ruling party is the Korean Workers' Party. And how do you know how much power the KWP has? There has been speculation that the North Korean military leadership has significantly greater power than those in the KWP, and that Jung Il is actually overseen by the military leadership. Certainly we can't corroborate this, but we also can't make assumptions either way regardless, as you and everyone else so very much love to do.

TheDemSocialist said:
Well its not socialist.

Its economic base in the sense that the economy is nationalized is socialist.

This might blow your mind: "Red Fascism"

There is no such thing as "Red Fascism". That's like saying "Capitalist Communism". It makes no sense whatsoever.

obvious child said:
As I understand Marx, he railed against trade with the West as it empowered the Bourgeoisie and tied the economy of a country to the Capitalism of the West, furthering it from Communist Ideals.

What on earth are you talking about? Quote please? Because he never wrote about trade between socialist and capitalist countries, as the concept didn't even exist until Socialism In One Country was developed by the Stalin crowd (and even then the concept was devoid of meaning).
 
I suggest you look into criticisms of totalitarianism theory. I also suggest you learn the history of totalitarianism theory, whose original purpose was to equate the USSR under Stalin with NAZI Germany under Hitler as a propaganda weapon in the Cold War.


I suggest you look into this: We need as many perspectives and ideas as possible to solve this country's and this world's problems. A society needs to be robust, resilient and ready to adapt on the fly; that is not possible socially or economically with a command center. Go democracy. Power to the people. Wooo. Yeeehaw.
 
Last edited:
Socialism is a theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. Basically the workers own the workplace and make decisions together. Now tell me how in North Korea where the oligarchy (the select few in the gov), and the higher powers make decisions and the workers are merely slaves and pawns in their game and do as they are told. Tell me how that is anywhere close to socialism?

No its not. And im glad your knowledge of socialism and research on the topic is merely wikipedia! Good job!
Socialism got nothing with being successful. You are saying that if the interest of all is not acknowledged, then it is not socialism. Which means you have to be successful to be socialist. That is bull****! Also, you don't have to own the work place, that is only a variant of socialism.

Wikipedia is the best source for definitions because both of us can change the definition. If you believe wikipedia is wrong, then feel welcome to change it.

Well its not socialist. Just because its name has something to do with socialism does not mean its socialist. Ever heard of a misnomer?
Was the NAZI party socialist because it had something to do with socialism and workers in its name?
Where did I use the name as an argument. I used a formal definition, and North Korea fits the definiton. Your rebutual is to make your own definition where you are requiring a country to be successful to be socialist, or at least noncorrupt. I can do the same, and then Pinochet's chile was not capitalist, because his system didn't maximize economic output.


This might blow your mind: "Red Fascism"
there is no such thing as red facism.


No i actually would of not at all.
The USSR one could argue was successful and i do not applaud the USSR at all.
China is supposedly "socialist" because their name says so and i do not applaud them at all...

Well a lot of Mao's programs were succesfuly. But i do not look to Mao as a positive influence on this world and defiantly do not applaud the man.
Way to generalize about everything :doh
USSR was not successful, so your argument does not make sense. A successful state do not hold their own people as prisoners. If USSR was successful, you would have used them as an argument for socialism.

But you know very well that your "brothers" applauded Mao back in the 70s for being a great socialist before they knew how horrible he was. China under Mao wasn't any more socialist than North Korea was. They even applauded Pol Pot before they knew what he did. Then he suddenly wasn't socialist anymore when they found out what he did.

Fact is, North Korea is the most socialist country in the world today, and that's why it is such a hell hole. The hierarchies come because it is the natural state of human being. When you get power, you will keep it. Also, socialist leaders tend to be horrible people, because they are so arrogant. That makes them horrible leaders. They tend to kill political opponents and they stop caring about their own people when things start to go wrong. Since they can't be wrong, it must be the people who are lazy and don't want to do their fair share.
 
Also, you don't have to own the work place, that is only a variant of socialism.

Actually, that's the crux of socialism. That was central to Marx's theory that the proletariat would own the means of production instead of the bourgeois.

USSR was not successful, so your argument does not make sense. A successful state do not hold their own people as prisoners. If USSR was successful, you would have used them as an argument for socialism.

The USSR was successful at certain things and unsuccessful at others. Any reasonable evaluation of their space exploration program would have to call it successful. They were also highly successful at aeronautics and with the creation of weaponry and scientific research. Their Olympic athletes were also highly successful. What they weren't successful at was in creating a good standard of living for their masses or in creating personal freedoms. They were totalitarian in their mentality. They had been so under monarchy and they continued that way under communism.
 
Actually, that's the crux of socialism. That was central to Marx's theory that the proletariat would own the means of production instead of the bourgeois.
First off, I was talking about owning their own workplace, not owning the means of production. In North Korea the people own the means of production, collectively.

Secondly, marxism is not the same as socialism. Marx is not the founder of socialism, the ideas came from France. Marxism is only a variant of socialism, North Korea do not follow marxism.

The USSR was successful at certain things and unsuccessful at others. Any reasonable evaluation of their space exploration program would have to call it successful. They were also highly successful at aeronautics and with the creation of weaponry and scientific research. Their Olympic athletes were also highly successful. What they weren't successful at was in creating a good standard of living for their masses or in creating personal freedoms. They were totalitarian in their mentality. They had been so under monarchy and they continued that way under communism.
I said they are not successfull overall. A country which hold their own people as prisoners in their own country is not successfull. They may have done well in olympics, but they are not successful because they can do well in olympics.

If Soviet was successful, and they had no gulags and didn't hold their own people as prisoners. Then socialists would have used Soviet as a model for socialism, because socialist used China as a model for socialism in the 70s. Too many socialist define socialism to be a successful state who attempts socialism, and I have met few socialist who are willing to accept any definition apart from their own. Their own definition varies from socialist to socialist.
 
I suggest you look into criticisms of totalitarianism theory. I also suggest you learn the history of totalitarianism theory, whose original purpose was to equate the USSR under Stalin with NAZI Germany under Hitler as a propaganda weapon in the Cold War.

I suggest you stop bitching about the common usage of a term. And I would compare the two regimes with North Korea, as both states tried to exert massive control over their citizens, like few other regimes before or since.

The Korean Communist Party hasn't existed since 1946; the ruling party is the Korean Workers' Party. And how do you know how much power the KWP has?

I stand corrected; I fail to see how this affects my point.

There has been speculation that the North Korean military leadership has significantly greater power than those in the KWP, and that Jung Il is actually overseen by the military leadership.

Again, I don't see how this affects anything or makes the North Korean government any less repressive.

Certainly we can't corroborate this, but we also can't make assumptions either way regardless,as you and everyone else so very much love to do.

I'm simply using totalitarianism as it is defined in the dictionary and the overwhelming mass of people who know what I'm talking about when I use the word.
 
:peace
Korean Workers Party

Wasn't the ruling party in the USSR called the Communist Workers Party? Guess the Koreans just wanted their country's name there.
 
As for the OP, I think that this answers his question best:

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

1984
 
Last edited:
Its economic base in the sense that the economy is nationalized is socialist.

Well if you mean that the government owns it and the workers take direct orders from the government that is not much of socialism. How do the workers have a say in what is going on? How do the workers own the means of production?
That is not socialism.

There is no such thing as "Red Fascism". That's like saying "Capitalist Communism". It makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes there is such thing as Red Fascism. People who hijack the name of socialism such as Stalin and warp it into something entirley other. Such as Stalin, and this awful North Korean regime. Sense when is socialism you take direct orders from the state and the workers have no say and do not own the means of production? How is that socialism? How is "communism" having a cult of personality around one man who is "god"? How is "communism" have a giant government tell you how to live your life? How is that at all communism or socialism?
Red Fascism (Voline against totalitarianism)
 
I like to call the North Koreans hard core corrupt Communists. Kim il-Sung and Kim Jong-il have take communism to a whole new level. I think they are some of history's most successful leaders. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom