No, it’s not right. Socialization is a process that happens in socialism (and even capitalism) that forms the economic basis for capitalism. It’s crucial for the working classes to have siezed and gained state power, ie political power and supremacy to develop society in their interest. Public ownership being the principal aspect of the economy goes along with that.

Workers in socialism collectively own the commanding heights of the economy, sometimes much more as in the DPRK. They are not an underclass, they are the ruling class. Communism isn’t inevitable, much can go wrong as was seen with the dissolution of the once great USSR. However, it remains that socialism is a process, and that process involves developing towards communism as is economically compelled.

If a country is on the socialist road, it is moving towards communism. Communism is built on collectivized production and distribution, and this is economically compelled by the centralization of markets and even more compelled once socialized production becomes the principal aspect of the economy.

Sure, but socialism has little to do with taxes directly. That’s my point.

I know this has been driven home before, but the idea that socialism is just spending other’s money is absurd.

The point I am trying to drive home is that if I am to build socialism in a given country, I can of course begin with an analysis of existing class society and the material conditions surrounding me. I can look to successes elswehere, and compare the general and the particular. What I cannot do is treat different societies as models or templates to emulate. Perhaps specific elements can be, but the particularities of each country determine the nature of socialist construction, and the fact that nothing is static means that socialism is a process and not an end.

You’re implying that the DPRK being Hell on Earth is a fact as self-evident as self-harm being bad, without any need for investigation or a care for the facts at hand beyond pure instinct.

Agreed!

As far as I know it wasn’t grown for recreational use, but for the utility in the plant for textiles and potentially medicinal use.

In this case, it is literally true that hemp growers were given medals for astounding performance.

I’m curious what you mean by model then. Does your thought process rely on seeing what works elsewhere first, or discovering and implementing all prior knowledge to the creation of new solutions?

Either way, socialism is broadly characterized by public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. I’m a Marxist-Leninist.

There’s a difference between “utopianism,” trying to find the perfect model and emulating it, and scientific socialism, ie Marxism.

In our country, once a backward, colonial semi-feudal society, we could not literally accept the Marxist theory which had been advanced on the premises of the socio-historical conditions of the developed European capitalist countries, or the Leninist theory presented in the situation of Russia where capitalism was developed to the secondary grade. We had had to find a solution to every problem arising in the revolution by racking our own brains and with our own efforts to suit our country’s socio-historical conditions. Immediately after liberation we started building a new society under the situation in which our country was divided into north and south and we were in direct confrontation with the US imperialists; this situation urgently required us to solve every problem from the standpoint of Juche.

• Kim Jong Il

The DPRK took what they could from soviet experience, but had to adapt to their own conditions. They did not merely copy the soviet model, but had to find solutions for their own problems that the soviets never ran into. That’s why I am criticizing the idea that we can find a better “model,” we can merely take the same methodology and apply it to our own conditions.

In China there’s a saying: “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” This describes the Chinese experience with socialism, developing Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The Korean experience can be thought of in much the same way, as a Korean way of socialism suited to Korean conditions. We will all have to discover our own socialist characteristics through the path of building socialism.

Countries do not go by “models” like that. They form based on their existing conditions, and may have similarities or differences depending on their material conditions. The US Empire cannot dogmatically copy the DPRK even if it wanted to, as they are too different in conditions. That’s why socialism is scientific and not utopian, there is no “model” to find.

Not sure what you mean, if you don’t live in China, Vietnam, Laos, the DPRK, Cuba, or potentially Venezuela, then I don’t think your country is really socialist. Either way, my point is that universal conscription isn’t at all the same as slavery.

You may oppose it, but you also likely do not live in a socialist country. Understanding why socialist countries have the policies they do requires understanding their situations. For example, in Cuba, sending doctors to the rural areas helped provide medical access to people who never had it before. These programs are not at all comparable to slavery, but are pro-social policies decided within a class, not imposed by one class onto the rest.

In an ideal world, no country would even have a reason to have universal conscription. We do not live in an ideal world, though, we live in the era of dying imperialism, where the US Empire could lash out at any moment. In these circumstances, the decision to implement universal conscription is entitely rational. Further, I am not purely speaking of children, but also full adults getting their medical degrees and having to give back to the system by going to the areas most in need for a time.

As for democracy, the book I linked is the best source I’ve found.

Slavery is largely forced labor to achieve economic ends, universal conscription is similar to how people are forced to go to school in most societies, or how doctors and other educated fields are sent to rural and underdeveloped areas in socialist systems upon graduating. There isn’t a class of exploiters and exploited, it’s the proletariat organizing itself in self-defense during the passive phase of an active war. Calling it slavery equates it to slavery in the Statesian south, where slave owners brutally exploited a class of slaves. The reason I bring up other countries is to show that this isn’t simply a policy preference, but something decided upon because of its practical necessity in real, existing conditions.

As for stats on those who lose elections, I don’t have any. I wouldn’t imagine it would be a high number given that it’s essentially an approval round for candidates, rather than their first exposure.

Again, universal conscription cannot be removed from its necessary context: the DPRK is under constant threat. It isn’t literally slavery, it’s a policy that has important context, and isn’t done for profit but to satisfy the justified need for security and deterrence.

As for direct democracy, the DPRK has approval based voting. Candidates that are selected run unopposed, on a “yes/no” basis. Elections are not treated like political theater, there’s a comprehensive candidate selection system in the Democratic Front, with direct elections from bottom to top at the approval level. I recommend reading more from the linked book, the snippet I showed is just a tiny portion.

Gotcha. I’ll address these in order.

Lack of Democracy in the DPRK?

The DPRK has a form of socialist democracy largely similar to the USSR and PRC, but adapted to the unique conditions of the DPRK’s existence and history. From Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:

The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.

How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels. As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.

To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability

As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.

I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting.

Universal Conscription

The DPRK is still at war, as is the ROK and US Empire. The ROK also has universal conscription. This is a strategic necessity for deterrence at the present moment, and as such cannot be compared to a country at peacetime.

Nationalism

The DPRK’s nationalism is from a socialist perspective, national unity against imperialism and colonialism. The DPRK is in fact extremely internationalist as well. The DPRK has played a similar role internationally as Cuba, supporting anti-imperialist movements around the world. From aiding the African National Congress by training millitants, to supporting Palestinian liberation, the DPRK has never been Korean supremacist. The Black Panther Party maintained good relations with the DPRK, visiting it and teaching Juche to Statesians.

Poverty

The DPRK is poor. It’s under brutal sanctions, and like Cuba, does more with what it has thanks to its socialist system than capitalist countries would be able to. Because of the policy of nuclear deterrence, and the socialist system, the DPRK has managed to recover from historic flooding and the dissolution of the USSR into a poor but socially oriented, rising economy. Pyongyang in particular has been booming with massive expansions, and the 20x10 initiative has steadily been patching up the problem of rural underdevelopment.

To top it off, famine is now far more under control than it was during the 90s, when weather disaster combined with the dissolution of the USSR and the DPRK’s hostile environment to agriculture resulted in tragedy. Now, however, this is far more under control:

Conclusion

The DPRK is incredibly misunderstood. It isn’t a secret paradise, but it isn’t Hell either. It’s real, existing socialism, and delivers results we can expect socialism to deliver in such harsh, hostile conditions. Their rise from being subject to genocide to a stable, functional society despite brutal sanctions is to be respected and studied, not opposed.

Why not?