Can any of you explain what is Juche? I looked everywhere about it but I only found criticism with imperialist comments, also the online newspaper that I get my info from (because it isn't corrupted) doesn't write anything about the Juche ideology.
In the Soviet Union you destroy free-market, In America free-market destroys you
Juche as a concept is very hard to grasp. I'm currently in the process of reading tons of stuff about it - the sources, the actual stuff that Kim and his son have written - so I might be able to help you in a few weeks. At the moment I'm still trying to understand it really.
What I've grasped until now is the following:
Juche as a world view is centered around the popular masses and around the revolution. It analyzes the ways in which class struggle appears and plays a role under socialism (an issue that - as far as I know - was largely ignored by Lenin, first, but only lightly, touched upon by Stalin and then first discussed in detail by Mao, so this is quite a recent development in Marxist ideology). From a Juche viewpoint, revolution is an ongoing process under socialism, and it defines things not by what they are, but what they do; this is a connection to the Leninist philosophy of praxis, I believe. This means that a fighter against imperialism is a proletarian from a Juche viewpoint, because the proletariat is defined as the subject of liberation. The fight for socialism, then, prolatarizes or "working-classizes" the fighter and this way, the concept of proletariat is liberated from its sociological origins. It also seems to be a tenet of Juche that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer only restricted to the socialist phase. In fact, for Juche, the "transition phase", "socialism", "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "communism" are separate things that can take place at the same time in different combinations, so Juche postulates that there can be communism (for everybody according to their needs) under the dictatorship of the proletariat within the boundaries of the Korean nation.
It's EXTREMELY interesting.
Kim Jong Il talks a bit more about the Juche idea in this article:
So, they're essentially arbitrarily saying that if you fight imperialism you can be a proletarian, because a proletarian as far as the kims are concerned is no longer an individual who sells his labour to a capitalist, but this abstract "subject of liberation." That's pretty unscientific.
I'm not convinced, frankly. Seems like it has more in common with Hegel than Marx.
Last edited by Jingle_Bombs on 16 Jan 2011, 17:24, edited 1 time in total.
This topic was split from the International Brigade to Defend DPRK thread in V&P. I felt that Red Armenian would find better answers here, and it would have been too off-topic for the matter at hand. - KW
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
Well it's terribly metaphysical to say that a proletarian is somebody who sells their labour power, isn't it? I mean, that stops under the dictatorship of the proletariat. And even though they don't sell their labour power anymore, they're still proletarians, hence the name of the stage... Also you don't stop being proletarian when you're fired, you know.
But it doesn't stop. Unless you're saying in socialism nobody earns a wage.
That's not selling of labour power. Who, exactly, do you think the proletarian would sell his labor power to under socialism? Who do the enterprises belong to? Right, the whole people. So you're essentially postulating that the proletarian sells his labour power to the whole people, which includes himself. Have you ever sold something to yourself?
Actually, he sells it to the state, and the state is not "the whole people". It's a body with a mandate from the workers to rule over them. Or not, as was the case in the USSR. Claiming the state is the people is just quoting pseudo-philosophical garbage from soviet pamphlets.
If that's your conception of socialism, you're not a socialist but a state capitalist. Of course the means of production belong to the whole people under socialism, that's one of the basic tenets.
You're selling it to other workers. The State, as a business representative of the People, buys labor (at its value) from proletarians to produce things. This is not the cessation of being proletarian but the expansion of proletarianization to every individual in society.
As to the Juche concept of a proletarian I am left with half-agreement half-disagreement. On the one hand they are 'Spiritually Proletarian' in that by fighting for liberation they are fighting for us. But they can still be bourgeoisie though if they still privately own a segment of the means of production and have not turned them over to the organization. I guess you could say I agree with the concept so long as the economic angle is not forgotten.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
Guys. Read Marx.
Marxist economics is a critique of capitalist political economy. It is NOT a description of economic rules that is valid under every system. Marxist economics describes capitalism, perioid. Das Kapital contains no information WHATSOEVER that would be useful for socialist economics; that is one of the huge mistakes that socialist states have made in the past. The labor theory of value applies to capitalism. There is no value under socialism. There are no commodities under (developed) socialism; at the very least, there is no commodity production in the sphere of production (i.e. no selling of labor power because labor power has ceased to be a commodity).
Look what Marx says in the very beginning of Capital, Vol. II:
In a sentence: Exploitation and the sale of labor power are inseparable from each other. The end of exploitation ends the "commodity-ness" (commoditification?) of labor power and of all other goods, too. Without a market (and there is no market under socialism) it's superfluous to speak of commodities, anyway.
Ulrike Meinhof (of the Red Army Faction) addresses this. In one of her last texts, she defends her comrade-in-arms, Andreas Baader, from bourgeois accusations that he, as a "non-proletarian" can't be a guerilla fighter anyways.
She then goes on to quote Sartre:
She goes on to explain:
When the workers have left the factory, they surely aren't proletarians anymore from a socio-economical point of view. But it is a necessity for them to leave the factory, and with it, their socio-economical proletarian credentials, behind, to become revolutionaries, or subjects of liberation.
The simple fact is that being a revolutionary is a proletarian occupation. The bourgeoisie can join this occupation but they must cease to economically be bourgeoisie to do so.
As for socialism: our goal is to render a uni-class society that can eventually grow into classlessness. Socialism is not classlessness, it's the next step in rendering down classes into non-existence.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
Exactly. If we assume for a moment is correct, if I, hypothetically speaking am the owner of a large weapons manufacturer in the west, that decides to sell its goods to North Korea where they will be used against the South or the United States in a future conflict, I'm now apparently a proletarian. Which is absurd.
Does this also mean all the big western contractors that got involved with soviet industrialisation in the 1930s were proletarians also?
How do you pronounce it?
Free love, not trade!
Choo-chay or Jew-chay.
Is there alot of difference between Juche and Stalinism? Because that description sounds a bit like socialism in one country, and the DPRK's government features alot of aspects similar to Stalin's USSR. I might be way off though.
Free love, not trade!
Juche at its core is an independent man-centered philosophy, and has no problems coupling with the ideology of Marxist-Leninism. One could argue that there are merely methods according to the nation.
I post Here
Juche is nationalist, Stalinism isn't. Juche is also in conflict with dialectical materialism (which is itself an integral part of Stalinism).
I'm not sure I get Juche anymore now than I did before. Interesting though.
I can see some parallels between Stalinist USSR and DPRK.
I hope you guys keep this thread up, I'd be interested in learning more about Juche.
Read Marx yourself.
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ ... a/ch01.htm
Part one, 3rd paragraph.
[/quote]Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor. [/quote]
"You can become a Communist only when you enrich your mind with a knowledge of all the treasures created by mankind."
Alternative Display:Mobile view