Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
Forum Index » 'Communist' States » Democratic People's Republic of Korea » What is Juche? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3 ][ Next ]
 25 Nov 2011, 11:36
Marx is agreeing with me.
22 Mar 2012, 17:19
Juche simply means self-sufficiency in food and other market products without resorting to imports or the like. It works. Kim-jong Il prescribed the correct remedies. Grain harvests have been successful for the last 12 years. Look at the North Korean crowd who cried at Kim Jong Il's funeral. See how well dressed and how well fed they are. Some were just simply overweight or fat.
19 May 2012, 00:33
Kim Il Sung - Anti-Marxist nationalist
Quotes from KIS that how the true nature of his "ideology" and practice: Quote: Won Tai Sohn : Kim Il Sung and Korea's Struggle Of course, Marxist aren't "against" capitalism because it's "wicked" but this quote undoubtedly shows his anti-Marixst thinking. Quote: Kim Il Sung : With the Century No comment. 21 May 2012, 00:30
I fail to see how Juche even closely resembles Marxism at all.
★I AM A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY★"
☮★☭★☭☮ Pro Palestine, Pro Working class, Pro Union, Pro Progressive Tax, Pro Democracy, Pro Syndicalism, Pro Socialist 20 Jun 2012, 21:14
Loz wrote: Loz wrote: Cherry picking quotes? I suggest you read the entire passage for a fuller understanding and stop grasping at the straws; "...I told him, "but most Koreans living in the US have been brain washed by anti-communists and they don't have a correct understanding of North Korea. There aren't many who are knowledgeable about communism in Korea Korea," I continued. "Some of those opposed to reunification are afraid of communism and others are skeptical about how capitalists would be treated." The president (Kim Il Sung) interjected: "We are building communism to provide for all the people. What is bad about that? People who are opposed to communism say that it is evil; they even claim that we have horns on our heads. When I met the Reverend Bill Grham I asked him, 'excuse me, are there any horns on my head?' and he had a good laugh. Another problem is how to treat 'wicked capitalists' as the Rev. Mun Ik Hwan expresses the term." Kim Il Sung continued. "I think that depends on how we view them. Capitalists should not be considered 'wicked' because they exploit others; the point is whether they sell out the interests of their country or nation. Those who earn for the nation re laudable; those with money should donate money for the sake of their country. That would decrease the number of wicked capitalists! What is the use of defining those to be eliminated among a large number? There is no need to do so: let them earn their food and style of living, for if they are not cruel to those who work for them they will be left to their own devices. Frankly speaking, wicked capitalists probably don't number more than one percent of their total numbers." The president continued: "There is no point in building communism on an island if you're living there along. I have written in my reminiscences that not many capitalists could be defined as being wicked. When I say this to others, many admit that communism is excellent." Kim Il Sung said that that is the kind of communism being built in Korea, dding: "There is no purpose in going a long way to make enemies in large numbers. We are going to make as few people our enemies as possible. We insist that a person not be subjugated to others and must refrain from doing things that are harmful to the nation; then everyone can be our friend." This clearly shows that he is not anti-Marxist. 20 Jun 2012, 22:43
No, actually this distinction between "good" and "bad" capital is a fascist invention. Marx would criticize the hell out of this.
20 Jun 2012, 23:06
The traitor bourgeoisie have always been one of the strongest allies of Communism. Marx knew this better than most. There are distinctions among the bourgeoisie, and these cracks are our way to crush them. If they were one unified bloc we'd never have a chance.
 لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 20 Jun 2012, 23:23
But it's still wrong to put too much stress on that fact. Our revolution is not some intrigue in which we use some bourgeois to defeat others. The bourgeoisie can never act as a unified bloc - in fact, you can't even find two bourgeois who would be ready to form a bloc together because every kind of offer of cooperation of one bourgeois towards another is always just an attempt to outsmart a competitor. The bourgeoisie cannot escape its individualism because competition is their nature. Collective class action completely escapes them.
20 Jun 2012, 23:39
Yeah they can, it's this little mechanism called fascism.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 20 Jun 2012, 23:46
lol no. The last years of German fascism were completely irrational from a political or economical point of view. They just kept gassing Jews so IG Farben could continue making a shitload of money with Zyklon B even though it would have been much smarter for the bourgeoisie to work together and spend these resources on trying to actually win the war.
21 Jun 2012, 00:30
Firstly the fascist bourgeoisie is normally out of power because they're nuts. Secondly fascism isn't about being smart it's about crushing communists.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 21 Jun 2012, 04:18
Quote: Eh, the full passage is even more condemning. Quote: Capitalists are OK as long as they aren't cruel to thoe who work for them... Quote: Unsurprising, given Kimilsungist theory and practice. Kimilsungism rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat ( which as Lenin says is violence not restricted by any law ) in favour of appeasing the national bourgeoisie or "not-wicked capitalists". "Making as few enemies as possible" is a code word for appeasing reactionaries. Quote: No. Quote: As A. Speer noted, the Reich would have had more resources for the fight against the Allies had they not simply gassed or starved all these Jews and Soviet POWs and others. 21 Jun 2012, 04:42
Loz wrote: Loz wrote: Once again you have misunderstood the passage. Kim Il Sung is not saying that any sort of "kind" capitalists (they do not exist) should be able to exploit freely without harm in the DPRK. Kim Il Sung is not saying that capitalists are "OK" to function in a communist society. The intense socialist ideological education in the North is evident of this. If you actually read the passage carefully, what Kim Il Sung is saying is about the question of national reunification. That is the crux you have missed entirely. It illustrates his peaceful reunification intentions: “Our Party maintains that the country should be reunified by founding a Federal Republic through the establishment of a unified national government on the condition that the north and the south recognize and tolerate each other’s ideas and social systems, a government in which the two sides are represented on an equal footing and under which they exercise regional autonomy with equal rights and duties.” This was the point Kim Il Sung was trying to make in the passage. It is not about "allowing" capitalists to exercise "un-harmful" exploitation in a socialist nation, but is rather a peaceful reunification strategy. Reunification cannot be about the North 'communizing' the south, or the south 'capitalizing' the North, as either will lead to war. 21 Jun 2012, 04:57
Quote: In fact he does ( in other quotes ): A Democratic People’s Republic … must be built by forming a democratic united front … which embraces … even the national capitalists”. From the beginning our policy in regard to the national bourgeoisie was not only to carry out the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic revolution together with them, but also to take them along with us to a socialist, communist society. The capitalist elements still remaining in town and country will have to be … remoulded along socialist lines, instead of expropriating them See: viewtopic.php?f=131&t=52098 Of course if you meant "communist society", then we know that capitalists cannot exist in it. Quote: I don't know about "intense socialist education" but i know that capitalists most certainly exist in NK and are growing in strenght, according to one member here who travels there a lot. Quote: Yes, that's the most important thing. More important that socialism and communism, as it seems. Quote: What? One country-two systems? This is ridiculous and only serves to further condemn Kimilsungism. Equal rights and duties and "footings" for capitalists.... 21 Jun 2012, 18:17
Dagoth Ur wrote: I don't know if this is the case today. Fascism is creeping back in all sorts of places, and there is essentially no left to oppose it. Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job 21 Jun 2012, 19:55
Actually there is a very broad left, and growing. It's just all leftist leadership is absent so this leftism is just being channeled into liberalism and social-democracy.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 21 Jun 2012, 20:04
Dagoth Ur wrote: that's probably a great way of putting it. Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job 22 Jun 2012, 23:48
Loz wrote: Quote: More cherry picking? That pathetic article holds as much weight as a piece of paper. It blows everything out of proportion and it also ignores the historical setting in the year 1945, the beginning of building a new, free country, absolved from the Japanese occupation. Since unlike you, I own and read the speech in its entirety, allow me to type down the portion of the speech you are hopelessly and fallaciously misrepresenting: Which road should liberated Korea take? The most important and fundamental problem we must take into account in deciding on this is that Korea was a colony of Japanese imperialism for a long time. Because of Japanese imperialist rule, Korea's capitalist development was greatly retarded and its social system remained colonial, retaining many of the vestiges of feudalism. The feudal relations of exploitation are especially predominant in our countryside. The Korean people, therefore, are faced today with the task of carrying out an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic revolution and building a Democratic People's Republic. Who then is to lead this revolution, the working class or the capitalist class? In collaboration with the Japanese imperialism in the past, the capitalist class of Korea exploited and oppressed the Korean people and deceived the people with slogans of "national reform" and "self-government of the nation". Of course, we do not mean that there were no national capitalists at all who were against Japanese imperialism. It was the working class of Korea that courageously fought Japanese imperialism to the bitter end. Though the Communist Party of Korea, founded in 1925, was dissolved in 1928 due to factional strife, that did not mean the end of the communist movement. From the 1930's on, the communists of Korea fought valiantly against Japanese imperialism, weapons in hand. It goes without saying that the capitalist class of Korea capitulated to Japanese imperialism and collaborated with it is not entitled to lead the revolution. Only the working class that bravely fought Japanese imperialism to the end can and must lead the Korean revolution. In determining our course, we must also take into consideration the favorable international situation prevailing after World War II and, along with this, the fact that the armed forces of the United States, an imperialist country, and the Soviet Union, a socialist state, are stationed in the south and the north with the 38th parallel as the demarcation line, and the fact that our Party is not yet very strong. To build a Democratic People's Republic, a united front should be formed of all patriotic, democratic forces, including not only the working class and the peasantry but also the national capitalists. Only in the course of struggling - not in words but in deeds- for the founding of a People's Republic can we win the masses to our side. We must realize that the intellectuals, religious people, and capitalists, too, are now stirring though not in an organized way. They are unorganized at present but as our organization and forces grow stronger, they will gradually organize themselves. Seen in this light, we cannot ignore the nationalist forces at the present stage and should not place obstacles in the way of the formation of the national united front by alienating them in an unprincipled matter. Owing to the vicious propaganda launched against it by the Japanese imperialists and the harm done it by the functionalists in the past, the Communist Party does not yet have the support of the broad masses, and some sections of the masses who are not politically awakened still harbor illusions about the nationalists. Needless to say, since our united front is a front for the building of a Democratic People's Republic, a coalition with the lackeys of Japanese imperialism is utterly inconceivable. We can and should join hands with those national capitalists with a conscience who want to build an independent and democratic state. Only the formation of a united front of this type will enable us to build a Democratic People's Republic and rally the masses of people in all walks of life. The Communist Party must not be inert or passive in this struggle. Communists should play the most active and positive role in the struggle to establish a Democratic People's Republic and should stand at the head of the masses and lead them forward. Only when they do this will the masses follow the Communist Party. The national capitalists will always waver in the course of this struggle. Experience shows that they frequently deceive the masses or betray the national interests to look after their own narrow class interests. They are afraid of the revolutionary advance of the masses and are apt to vacillate as the revolution proceeds. We should, therefore, promote unity with the national capitalists even when they fail to display enthusiasm for and vacillate in the work of building a Democratic People's Republic but, on the other hand, we should constantly expose and criticize their criminal acts and vacillation. This is the only way we can bring the masses to see the national capitalists clearly in their true colours, and at the same time, to understand to the full the policies of the Communist Party. [...] The national capitalists, too, are very much afraid of our struggle against the remnants of Japanese imperialism, for they also served this imperialism more or less in the past, it is wrong to argue that we should not expose and criticize their criminal acts while we are calling for national united front. In the united front we should adhere strictly to the principle of struggling with them while uniting with them. This alone will heighten the political consciousness of the working class and make it possible to overcome the vacillating nature of the national capitalists. ~The Building of New Korea and the National United Front And, another passage regarding the petite bourgeoisie "national capitalists"; [...] quite a few of them have a different attitude and approach from those of the working class and other working masses. Particularly non-comprador capitalists and some other circles, because of their class limitations, are wavering, instead of working enthusiastically for national-building. If, because of this, we shun them and keep them at a distance, they will go over to the enemy. We must include in the united front all those who are not the targets of our revolution, despite their irresolute attitude and vacillation in nation-building; we must work in unity with them, overcoming through struggle the negative practices that may be apparent among them. Thus our united front will be a nationwide organization which will knit closely all patriotic and democratic forces. [...] However, the aim of our united front should not be to set up a capitalist system in Korea, under the pretext of opposing the feudal system. The capitalist system is a system for a mere handful of privileged to the toiling masses. At present certain people are maneuvering to set up a bourgeois government and establish a capitalist system in our country. If a capitalist system was set up in Korea, our country could not prosper and develop; further, it would turn into an imperialist colony again and our people would be destined to become a people without country of their own as before. ~On the Question of the National United Front In 1945, Korea was ready to start developing a nation. After the Japanese was defeated, most of the "wicked" capitalists and land-owners moved to south Korea, with heavy US presence. All of the capitalists who moved to the south were pro-Japanese. With this in mind, there were "national capitalists," the petite bourgeoisie who decided to stay in the North. Kim Il Sung's goal was not to fight against these minor capitalists in the North, but to criticize them for their actions and educate them, so that they would see the errors of their ways, and eventually convert them. So, Kim Il Sung's intentions to convert these "national capitalists" into communists, so that they do not go over to the enemy sounds like a valid reason to me. Loz wrote: I too saw the many pictures and commentaries he posted as well, but his analysis of the political and social economics in the DPRK is flawed. 23 Jun 2012, 01:24
Quote: The article does not criticize the united front with national capitalists against imperialism, there's no need for these big quotes. Quote: Whether they "converted" or not does not really matter. What matters is that there has been no dictatorship of the proletariat in NK and that it never got past the stage of "national-democratic revolution". That's the main point of the article. Quote: Why and how?
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||||
Forum Index » 'Communist' States » Democratic People's Republic of Korea » What is Juche? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3 ][ Next ]
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
