From: SCIENCE@MITVMA.BITNET
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Subject: A Maoist View of North Korea
Date: 25 Jul 92 08:02:31 GMT


A Line on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Maoist Internationalist Movement
PO Box 559
Cambridge, MA 02140

science@mitvma.mit.edu


by mc5

Amerikans are involved in the reunification issue of Korea
because there are 30,000 U.S. troops and thousands of nuclear
warheads stationed in the south allegedly to defend against
the north's imminent attack.

There is also a video out on the DPRK's living conditions. It
would be good to get some real recent info on their economy,
which is still partly shrouded for security reasons. The DPRK
may be one of the richest "socialist" countries out there. The
Amerikans and the South may be in for some surprises somewhere
down the line, which is not to say that communists are not in
for some unfortunate surprises in Korea.

What follows is simply where the DPRK falls relative to Maoism
theoretically. My sources are Kim Il Sung's book, On Juche in
Our Revolution, vol. 2 and Socialist Korea, Brun and Hersh,
eds.

Maoism
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) government
considers Korea to be one of the few colonized nations left in
the world. They don't even refer to Korea as semi-colonial.
(Kim, 135) In talks with the Americans in 1989, they said
their goal is to "be an independent, non-aligned and neutral
country."

DPRK leader Kim Il Sung has made "juche" the "sole guiding
idea of our Party" (Kim, 339)  for decades. "Juche" translated
means "self-reliance in the economy," military "self-defense"
and "political independence." (Kim, 372)

"It means the embodiment of independent and creative spirits;
the people must adopt an independent creative stand to solve
mainly by themselves all the problems arising from the
revolutionary struggle and constructive work." (Kim, 339)

According to Kim Il Sung, "flunkeyism and dogmatism" set back
the Korean revolution. In fact, the Comintern kicked out the
Korean party in 1928 because of so many factional fights among
small groups of Korean communists following other communists.
(Kim, 379)

By flunkeyism in this context, Kim Il Sung means copying the
ideologies of other communists in other countries. Flunkeyism
receives the brunt of his criticism, not dogmatism, partly
because flunkeyism is a general nation-wide problem in
ideology. "The flunkeyists claim that they have nothing which
is useful and that everything foreign is good." (Kim, 382)

During the Cultural Revolution in China and its aftermath, Kim
referred to China and the Soviet Union as socialist countries.
In the readings in the volume On Juche, Kim never criticizes
either country by name.

Instead he faults the Soviet Union for taking a "right
economist" stance of adopting capitalist management and profit
as a criterium of production. Many of his criticisms of the
Soviet Union would not sound good in the ears of Deng
Xiaoping.

On the other hand, Kim refers to China as making "left"
errors, namely dividing the people against each other,
undermining solidarity and saying the struggle to build
socialism will take several generations, maybe thousands of
years. (For a discussion of right and ultra-"Left" errors in
Kim's party in terms of the law of value, see (Kim, 188-98).
Comrades should be able to distinguish Kim's line from the
Maoist line and the Soviet line.)

In contrast, Kim believes that the material basis for
socialism can be completed simply by "working-classizing" the
peasantry, revolutionizing the middle classes through economic
construction success and pushing the ideological struggle
forward. (Kim, 12-13) He argues that Marx felt that socialism
would arise quickly in Germany and England because of their
advanced industry. He says Lenin saw socialism taking more
time because of the existence of a majority peasantry in
Russia. (Kim, 4)

He refers to the DPRK as in transition to socialism, the
complete victory of socialism, which is a lower phase of
communism according to Kim. Kim distinguishes the transition
to socialism from the dictatorship of the proletariat. Kim
believes a country or small region can become completely
socialist and even communist while the rest of the world still
suffers from imperialism. Apparently in Kim's eyes, national,
gender and intellectual divisions in society may exist while
people "produce according to ability and receive according to
need." For this reason dictatorship of the proletariat will be
necessary until imperialism dies according to Kim. (Kim, 2-15)

Not surprisingly, having rejected Mao's view of continuous
revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, Kim also
accepts Stalin's views of class struggle. Ironically, Hoxha,
Deng Xiaoping, Hua Guofeng and Kim Il Sung all basically had
the same view of class struggle, which includes 1) overthrown
landlords and capitalists, 2) foreign class enemies, 3) the
struggle to modernize the society and eliminate the peasantry
by industrializing it and 4) ideological struggle. Kim Il
Sung's view does not include a crucial item from Mao's view--
the existence of a new bourgeoisie in the party under the
dictatorship of the proletariat.

At the same time all four leaders Deng, Hua, Hoxha and Kim
have called for class struggle within the party at one time or
another. Most recently Deng Xiaoping joined the ranks by
saying there was a "bourgeois liberalising" influence in the
party in the person of Zhao Ziyang and that China was going to
become a "capitalist republic" if this influence were not
stopped. The funny thing about these Stalinists and pseudo-
Stalinists is that they don't notice you can't have a class
struggle within a party if there is no bourgeoisie in the
party to struggle against!

While Kim refers to flunkeyists in his own party, perhaps he
would say there is no one in his party who pushes a bourgeois
line. What about the Soviet Union though? Did it merely commit
rightist errors or is it now capitalist? And Albania?

Summing up Kim Il Sung's line
Kim Il Sung is correct to focus on his country's independence
from colonialism. Already the Korean people's just struggle
has wiped out the landlord class in its decadence and
dependency on foreign powers.

Kim Il Sung's position that you can't have communism until you
have a country freed from colonialism echoes Mao. The Korean
people will always be preoccupied until relatives are
reunited, foreign troops are expelled and economic and
cultural intercourse resumes.

MIM believes that even if the DPRK does have aggressive
intentions toward the South, that is Korea's business. The UN
did not protect Korea's national sovreignty by allowing the
U.S. invasion of Korea. Civil wars within countries should not
invite foreign intervention.

The constant tension on the Korean peninsula caused by the
imperialist intervention leaves the DPRK in a position unique
relative to other so-called socialist countries. Albania for
instance does not have the problem of foreign occupiers.

Perhaps the most parallel situation is the NPA base areas in
the Philippines or the EPLF situation in Eritrea until
recently. Even these comparisons are not quite right though
because the DPRK has a much better developed economy.

In any case, while MIM supports the Korean struggle for self-
determination, it faults Kim Il Sung and his party for
confusing the people's struggle on the question of the Soviet
Union and China. The ideological stance on these two countries
is not a matter of differing interpretations in different
countries. Communists everywhere must recognize the Soviet
Union, China and Albania as state-capitalist countries or risk
confusion and ideological bankruptcy.

It is also by now painfully clear that there was a bourgeoisie
in each of these parties. Communists everywhere do indeed
mourn the losses in the Soviet Union, China and Albania. Still
communists may be thankful that history has made the future
course of class struggle clearer. Through several parallel
experiences, communists learn that contradictions in the
relations of production will have their reflection and
embodiment in the ruling communist party itself.

In theory, Kim Il Sung has always put forward a radically
different political economy than the Soviet revisionists have.
Still even Kim Il Sung supporters Ellen Brun and Jacques Hersh
conclude as early as 1976 that the DPRK will end up choosing
between "politics in command" and Soviet-style state
capitalism. (Ellen Brun and Jacques Hersh, Socialist Korea: A
Case Study in the Strategy of Economic Development (NY:
Monthly Review, 1976),   p. 401)

From MIM's readings of documents and discussions with the DPRK
comrades, MIM fears that the DPRK has already slid into
blatant Soviet-style state-capitalism in practice. On this
point, MIM hopes to be proved wrong.

On the other hand, MIM is quite sure that no party can lead
its own society forward without correct bearings on the
international communist experience. As of the most recent
documents available, the DPRK still refers to the Soviet Union
and China as "socialist" countries, thus causing grave harm
and disillusionment to comrades abroad and within Korea.

In practice, MIM has two points to make in regard to Korea:
1. MIM supports Korean self-determination, particularly
against U.S. imperialism. MIM will not support a two countries
policy in regard to Korea. MIM should take care not to refer
to South Korea and North Korea as independent republics.

The end of the U.S. occupation of Korea and national
reunification would be positive steps for Korea in and of
themselves.

2. MIM criticizes Kim Il Sung's party for referring to Soviet
and Chinese state-capitalism as "socialist countries." Surely
the national aspirations of the Korean people cannot have
anything to do with the type of society that unleashes the
Beijing fascist massacre or an alliance with U.S. imperialism
as in the case of Gorbachev.

[This article was written before the government changed
in Albania. At this time, North Korea still claims to be
socialist. 7/24/92]