In the the North-South artillery exchange & aftermath thread, I saw a post about the DPRK Constitution that made me a bit curious. I was going to ask there, but I didn't want to start something that could derail the topic too much, and I think it deserves its own topic anyway.
Original post here: viewtopic.php?f=117&t=49514&p=818820#p818820
The Immortal Goon wrote:
TIG then posted this article:
I'd heard similar claims made in the past, and many news sources as well as Wikipedia have said the same things back in September/October of 2009. On the other hand, I also found this response from the Korean Friendship Association's web site (http://www.korea-dpr.com/forum/?p=252):
I can't read Korean, but I did find a supposed English translation here: http://asiamatters.blogspot.com/2009/10 ... -2009.html
A search for "Communism" yielded no results, but there were plenty of references to "Socialism". Of course, there's also the issue that it could have been a translation problem, so I don't really know.
In light of these contradicting statements and information, I just like to know what you guys make of it here. Some starter questions immediately off the top of my head: What purposes could it serve to remove references to "Communism" (assuming that is what was done) for the DPRK. What purpose would it serve the West to say that the DPRK is no longer "Communist" and that it has amended its constitution to reflect this—after all, with all the Cold War generation still around, why would it matter if an "enemy" state has "Communism" in its constitution? I was under the impression that Marxism-Leninism did serve as one of the foundations for "Juche", and I definitely recall reading something that Kim Jong-il wrote that explicitly references Marxism-Leninism in the title, as well, which means that M-L is a part of the state's official ideology—so why is this not reflected in the constitution (and as the KFA states, it was not a part of the previous version of the constitution), if Juche has some basis in it? Lastly, why all these contradicting statements? I've come to expect this regarding the DPRK, but even over its constitution, something that is spelled out and not like policies that we don't know about, it just baffles me.
Any further thoughts beyond my starter questions would be appreciated also.
P.S. Apologies if this has ever been brought up before. Search function is not cooperating with me right now, so if there is already a thread, please point me in the right direction. Thanks.
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
This is another example of how the West puts a spin on things.
No DPRK official has ever said this, nor is this their value.
Also not true. Songun has already been effect for over a decade and a half, and it did not "replace" anything.
That article loses all credibility at this point.
I have publications from as late as 2001 that glorify Marxist-Leninism and Marxism in general. Communism , Marxist-Leninism and socialism are still state values. There is no evidence to prove that the DPRK abandoned communism, socialism and Marxist-Leninism. Go search on KCNA, you can see references to Marxism/M-L in late (and early) articles.
That article is inaccurate for server reasons. Nowhere has anyone from the DPRK said that the reasons for the revision was "difficulties to realize Communism ideals". Nor was communism replaced by "Songun". Songun has been in effect for over a decade and a half, and it has no need to replace anything. Greater emphasis is placed on socialism, which is the current goal of the state. Also, the constitution never contained the words "Marxist-Leninism" in the first place. To say that the DPRK "abandoned communism" or "replaced communism" is greatly in error, as the state currently actively supports socialism and communism.
In fact, terms referring to socialism was increased in number in the latest revision.
Here is the official 2009 DPRK constitution:
The Immortal Goon wrote:
If he really did say this, I cannot do anything but laugh, as 1) he is wrong, as one can just look at the very first article of the latest constitution to see that socialism is still the state value, and thus his error is uncovered 2) he has accused me many times stating "sourceless" information 3) he, as someone who considers himself "Marxist" spouts Western disinformation as if it were the truth, without any investigations from both sides.
The word "communism" was dropped from the latest constitution, and therein lies the false interpretations of this action. This action is no way "abandoning communism" or "recognizing that communism does not work". Communism is still a goal, but the immediate circumstances dictates that the emphasis be placed upon strengthening the current socialist system. That is the immediate goal. Not to "drop" communism in favor of socialism. Both are still supported. As to what purpose? My best guess is the emphasis that would be placed upon socialism, the current goal. And that is the very nature of revisions. Of course, the West mis-interprets this as saying that the DPRK "dropped communism," you can see how this could be used in favor of the US.
I post Here
Seriously just read the first few articles of the constitution, and you'll see that it is, at least de jure, very much a socialist state. Even if it didn't use the word "socialist" at all, it would be one. And well, due to the current geopolitical climate it's a bit useless to talk about transition to communism. Survival obviously has higher priority than that.
Alternative Display:Mobile view