# Talk:On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche in Ideological Work

This review is transcluded from Talk:On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche in Ideological Work/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --Ruling party (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Well-written. These are more suggestions than must. But here I go
"On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche in Ideological Work, colloquially known as the "Juche Speech", was a 28 December 1955 speech by Kim Il-sung that mentioned his Juche ideology by name for the first time."--> "On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche in Ideological Work, known as the "Juche Speech", was a speech delivered on 28 December 1955 by Kim Il-sung. The speech mentioned his Juche ideology by name for the first time."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"It is widely considered one of Kim's most important works and a "watershed moment" in North Korean history. " --> "It is considered one of Kim's most important works and a "watershed moment" in North Korean history."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"Views differ on whether it launched the Juche ideology or used the common Korean word juche more conservatively to assert that Koreans are the "juche" (subject) of the Korean revolution." --> "Views differ if the speech used the term Juche to launch an ideology or more conservatively to assert that the Korean people were the subject of the revolution."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"Many details of the exact time and setting of the speech are either unclear or have been backdated." -- "Details on when the speech was delivered and where remain unclear or have been backdated."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"The speech was delivered against a backdrop of factional strife within the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) following developments such as the Korean War, de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union, the Soviet–Yugoslav thaw, and economic problems. Kim criticizes the Soviet Koreans faction of "dogmatism" and "formalism" by citing various Soviet practices they had naively adopted. Most of the speech is not about Juche, but about ways in which to win the hearts and minds of South Koreans through propaganda." --> I feel like these sentences don't tie well together. They are about three different things. Can you try to connect them a bit better?
 Doing... I'll have to figure a way to put this more elegantly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I tried myself. See if you agree with my changes. --Ruling party (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
"North Korea started promoting Juche as a distinct ideology after Hwang Jang-yop re-discovered the speech. The speech was published for the first time in 1960 and in many subsequent, heavily edited revisions since." this sentence can probably be moved - or connected - with the sentence "Views differ on whether it launched the Juche ideology or used the common Korean word juche more conservatively to assert that Koreans are the "juche" (subject) of the Korean revolution." ... I'm guessing that those that don't view it as launching an ideology state it gained more prominence upon its rediscovery by Hwang Janp-yop?
 Doing... Good point. I'll think about how to put it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I tried myself. See if you agree with my changes.
 Doing... It's a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure if "views" can "believe" in something. It sounds a bit awkward from a grammatical point of view. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
"The general background of the speech is North Korea's defeat in the Korean War and the subsequent political turmoil within the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK)" --> "North Korea's defeat in the Korean War and the subsequent political turmoil within the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) served as the main backdrop and influence on the speech" (not my best sentence, but you understand)?
 Done. I've gone with your version. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"A third point of reference is the Soviet–Yugoslav thaw following the Tito–Stalin split that marked an opportunity to re-define the relationship between the Soviet Union and other communist countries." --> "Moreover, the Soviet–Yugoslav thaw marked an opportunity to re-define the relationship between the Soviet Union and other communist countries."
 Done, but don't you think mentioning the Tito–Stalin split split is important here? That's a point of reference that would be more familiar to a reader than the subsequent thaw, and it's also the indispensable background of the thaw. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Mhm... I understand why you feel its important, but I doubt the reader of this article—who began reading this "nerdy" topic (this is an article for those that are really interested in NOrth Korea)—need that link. I know how you feel—sometimes I put to much focus on linking to other articles than writing good sentences. You can of course write "Moreover, the Soviet–Yugoslav thaw marked an opportunity to re-define the relationship between the Soviet Union and other communist countries." "Moreover, the improvement in Soviet–Yugoslav after the Tito–Stalin split marked an opportunity to re-define North Korea's relationship with the Soviet Union and other communist countries." I would advise dropping "Tito-Stalin", but this is up to you :) --Ruling party (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done. "Tito-Stalin split" excluded. I think you're right here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The article links to the article New Course, which is referred to as an East German concept... What is correct here?
 Doing... As the article explains, the concept and policy originated in the Soviet Union. That article is a bit vague about scope: is it about New Course in general or only about it in East Germany? If it's the former then the link is fine. If it's the latter, it should be New Course (Soviet Union). It would not be the first time we have failed to cover a Soviet Union topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done OK, then this is not a problem.
"Much of the background is economic." - maybe a new paragraph?
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it correct to state the Yanans, the communists influenced by the CHinese, favoured the Soviet model? Isn't it more correct that the Soviet Koreans and the Yan'an considered it a better model than the one they currently had?
 Done, good point. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Central Committee of the WPK — since this refers to a specific time period, the correct link is 2nd Central Committee of the WPK.. Right? I think we Wikipedians need to be more precise when we write about a specific Central Committee of a given time period and the Central Committee as an institution in general.
 Done, oh yes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"According to Dongseo University professor B. R. Myers, it is likelier that it was the small-scale event of propagandists identified in the subtitle because downplaying the importance of the event in the subtitle would have served no conceivable purpose" ---> "According to Dongseo University professor B. R. Myers, it is likelier that it was the small-scale event of propagandists because downplaying the importance of the event in the subtitle would have served no conceivable purpose"
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"It is possible that the writer Han Sorya influenced Kim Il-sung to wage his campaign against the Soviet Koreans' faction specifically on the literary front (i.e. among propaganda workers)" For someone who doesn't know that much of the North it may be difficult to understand why literary conflict is important to this article and why it is mentioned. Maybe add one or two sentences that explain its relation to the rest of the chapter?
 Doing.... There is certainly a lot to be written about this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood.
 Done! Please let me know if it's not too confusing. The series of purges up to 1955/1957 involved all the factions (except for Kapsan) in rather complex interlinked relations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Standing Committee of the Central Committee --> 2nd Standing Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea (the specific institution in this time period).
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical to very short chapters as "Political independence from the Soviet Union", but if you want to keep it you should.
 Doing.... I'll take a look at sources but if they all repeat the same central claim, I might merge the section to another one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood.
 Done. Decided to call the section "Criticism of factionalists and the Soviet Union". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
" (the opposite of object, which is acted upon)" I have higher education and I still find this difficult to comprehend. Anyway to explain it easier? I also like using notes to explain texts, but again, you're choice.
 Doing.... This simple distinction that works in virtually every other language, European or not, always gets garbled in English. Even Myers feels compelled to lighten the mood by quoting Warhol, to paraphrase: I don't like the word subject(ive) because I never know what people mean by it. I'll try to give a simple dictionary of philosophy definition. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood.
 Done. I hope this clears things up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
"This passage contains a specific paraphrase of Lenin (and Engels) that was not considered provocative back then" ---> "This passage contains a specific paraphrase of Lenin and Engels that was not considered provocative back then."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"Much of the criticism is presented in a rambling fashion, suggesting that Kim either went off the script or was speaking from sparse notes" — This has to be a subjective opinion by someone.. Right? It's seems like a harsh verdict by someone at least.
 Done, this is Myers' opinion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"South Korean state" --> "South Korean capitalist state" ? .. My suggestion, no biggy.
 Doing... I see your point, but I don't think it's super relevant here. The conflict was and is about more things. Ultimately, Kim was opposed to a rival Korean state that happened to be capitalist, not a rival capitalist state that happened to be Korean. Plus South Korea wasn't exactly a capitalist poster boy at this period of time long before the Miracle on the Han began to be seen.
Understood. I agree with you.
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
"In advertisements for the volume in the magazine Kulloja, seven individual works were highlighted in chronological order and the Juche speech came last, suggesting that it was not considered the most important at the time." --> "In advertisements for the volume in the magazine Kulloja, seven individual works were highlighted in chronological order and the Juche speech came last, suggesting that it was not considered that important at the time."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Is advertisements the correct term? Does a society like the NK have advertisement as understood by us?
 Doing... "Advertisements" is the word used in the source. Granted, a blurb about a tome like this in the party theoretical journal does not match our idea of an "advertisement". Perhaps I'll think of some other word. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Advertising might be correct.
 Done. We basically seem to agree, I've left "advertisements" in place. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
"The speech was not only followed by purges by also industrial programs culminating in the Chollima Movement." --> "The speech was followed up with purges and industrial programs culminating in the Chollima Movement."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"This, given the political backdrop of the speech, leads David-West to conclude that Kim wanted to espouse rather than discard Stalinism in both politics and economics and that the speech was a reaction to de-Stalinization. David-West calls it "an emergency writ of mandamus, commanding the party and government not to abandon the autarkic economic policies and political program upon which the DPRK regime was founded in 1948." --> "This leads David-West to conclude that Kim wanted to pursue rather than discard Stalinism and that the speech was a reaction to de-Stalinization. He further believed it "an emergency writ of mandamus, commanding the party and government not to abandon the autarkic economic policies and political program upon which the DPRK regime was founded in 1948."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"The speech has been published many times in various editions" --> "The speech has been republished several times."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Very good. I have only one comment. A communist society can't introduce liberal policies - a communist is by definition anti-liberal (at least the Tito brand). A communist can, however, introduce policies that liberalize society and which leads to liberalization. Important here. Western/liberal democratic scholars have conceived the term liberalization to describe policies that make communist societies a tiny bit more similar to our societies. It describes in this sense change which we would define as a positive direction. However, Tito did not introduce liberal reforms.
Good point, but I don't think the article makes this claim anywhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
haha sorry this is from another review :P --Ruling party (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
@Finnusertop: All in all a very good article. I've learnt stuff I did not know.
If you feel my suggestions are bad or have better suggestions please inform me. Unlike Kim Il-sung, I'm no god. --Ruling party (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: thank you for taking up the review. I've addressed some of your concerns above, but the rest need a bit of thinking. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: No problem. It was a good read. No pressure. Just take you're time. I made some edits today—I was a bit inspired. I propose that you check if the edits are up to you're article standard. --Ruling party (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ruling party: sorry for taking a few days off with this article. I've done improvements now. Please tell me what you think! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Massive improvements here. The flow of the article has increased considerably with you're last edits. I have still some more remarks.
@Ruling party:. Done some improvements again. You don't let this one pass easily – I like your style! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The sentence below. What about starting with Han Sorya's speech? When it was held, its content and then talk about Kim? It is after all a new paragraph so you can :)
"It is possible that the writer Han Sorya influenced Kim Il-sung to wage his campaign against propaganda workers with a Soviet Korean background.[10] Han had given a speech on the day before, which Kim references in his own.[11] Kim's speech credits Han for uncovering[12] "big ideological errors" on the literary front,[13] and promotes him to the leadership of the literary establishment
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I made som changes to the "Dogmatism and formalism" section. One sentence was "Criticism of both dogmatism and formalism occured in the Soviet Union as a result of de-Stalinization". Which is interesting since you write over "Kim faulted the propaganda workers for supporting de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union". Kim Il-sung was participating, in his own very skeptical way, in de-Stalinization and was still a part of the Soviet school but opposed others being inspired by the Soviets? I, of course, guess the answer is that he was playing games.
 Done. It is certainly ironic. For Kim, it was de-Stalinization that made his foreign policy re-alignment under the guise of literary criticism both necessary and possible. It's clear that Kim was playing games. I do not think he was genuinely concerned with questions like how to print tables of contents. "Dogmatism" and "formalism" were vague enough liturgies to be employed for whatever criticism, much like "revisionism". The Soviet reformers used criticism of the terms for goals that were the opposite of Kim's. During the Stalin era, no criticism was possible. Now, any criticism was possible using the same formula (which adds another layer of irony: criticism of formalism was essentially, well formalist!). At any rate, I agree with your changes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
YOu write WWII. What about World War II (or whatever it is called in Korea)?
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I also feel that "Criticism of factionalists and the Soviet Union" and "Dogmatism and formalism" can be merged. See below.
In the speech, "Dogmatism" refers to the rigid application of Soviet communism and had already been used in that sense in China. Likewise, "formalism" had meant an emphasis on the Soviet form of communism at the expense of the actual substance of revolution that needs to take local conditions into account.[25] In this sense, the speech was grounded in traditional Marxist–Leninist thinking of the time. Criticism of both dogmatism and formalism occurred in the Soviet Union as a result of de-Stalinization.[26] However, despite the title, only the first half of the speech deals with juche, dogmatism, and formalism. The rest is on encouraging an uprising in South Korea.[27]
When Kim delivered the speech in December 1955, his most acute concern in domestic politics was how to reconcile two factions within the WPK rival to his: the Soviet Koreans faction and the Yan'an faction.[18] Having been at first reluctant to take sides publicly, Kim felt vulnerable to critique by opponents after he had mismanaged the country's economy. Thus, the speech specifically criticizes leading Soviet Koreans.[19] Of those that had already been purged, Pak Hon-yong and Yi Sung-yop, were identified by name.[20] Kim also accuses the factionalists of having sought to bring the South Korean writer Yi Kwang-su, who had notoriously collaborated with the Japanese during WWII, to North Korea. While this plan materialized during the Korean War, it was foiled by Yi's death on the way.[21] Kim's main focus, however, was on still active officials: Pak Yong-bin, Ki Sok-bok, Chong Yul, Chon Tong-hyok, and Pak Chang-ok.[20]
...
Why? Because it sets up why the speech was made in the first place. It was a criticism of those who sought to carbon copy foreign models to Korean soil. The Yanans and the Soviet Koreans, of course, wanted to make carbon copies (or models that were highly influenced by the Soviet and/or Chinese examples). The first paragraph in "Dogmatism and formalism" could also be tied in with the paragraph below.
"According to Suh, the speech is anti-Soviet and pro-Chinese. Kim lists many Soviet practices that he finds unsuited to Korea: printing tables of contents at the back instead of the front of books, headlines copied from Pravda, pictures of Siberia, Mayakovsky and Pushkin hung in public places. In contrast, Kim calls for adopting the Chinese rectification campaign to Korea.[23] James F. Person calls this an attempt to abandon sadae ("serving the great") attitude (sadaejuui) and "decolonize the Korean mind"
When that is said. The article is splendid. I really feel like it has improved considerably. This article will be a GA very soon. --Ruling party (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done. I moved stuff around to the order you present. Is that what you wanted? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Massive improvement. Two more notes and than I will pass it
"Thus, the speech specifically criticizes leading Soviet Koreans.[24] Of those that had already been purged, Pak Hon-yong and Yi Sung-yop, were identified by name." ... It sounds to me, when reading this, that you're claiming that Pak Hon-yong and Yi Sung-yop, were Soviet Koreans... But maybe I'm reading to much into it?
You use the term factions a lot.. Were the Soviet Koreans ever a faction with a clear leader and values? Most likely the answer to that question is no. The only two factions that have existed within the WPK, as far I know, is Pak Hon-yong's WPSK and the Kapsans. As several papers make clear is that, while there was obviously an element of ideological closeness between (for instance) the Yanans, they never acted as a group. For example, several Yanans opposed the August Faction Incident, and several Soviet Koreans supported Kim Il-sung. Hak Soon Paik goes so far as to claim that the Soviet Koreans were never a separate faction. They were moved to North Korea with the intention of strengthening Kim Il-sung—nothing more. To quote Scalapino and Lee:
"To place too much emphasis upon factional affiliation is probably a mistake, especially concerning the so-called Soviet and Yan'an factions. Defectors have often stated that the factional divisions were neither as clear-cut nor as meaningful in all cases as non-Communist sources alleged. Moreover, as a careful survey of this period reveals, increasingly the only meaningful faction was coming to be Kim Il-sung, and the crucial factor, one's personal relationship to Kim, irrespective of one's background. Nevertheless, there were differences in background, educational experience, and even culture that stemmed from the heterogeneous nature of the Korean revolutionary movement. And this did constitute a political problem, as the Korean Communists themselves readily admitted. While factionalism may not have been as important as some South Korean writers have indicated, and undoubtedly involved many more ambivalent and poorly defined factions, it remained a crucial issue in this period
However... Disagreements between WP editors are allowed. I will pass the article when you complete task 1. You can decide if you want to heed my advice on point 2 or not. --Ruling party (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ruling party: I've fixed your first point and discussed the second one below.
 Done. Good catch, ammended.
 Done. I think you have a good point. In fact, the question would probably make a good academic paper or thesis. Kim certainly employs the terms "faction" and "factionalist" a lot. As you know, those terms carry a significant meaning in Marxist–Leninist theory. Since the proletariat is structurally uniform in its interests, so should the working class party be uniform in its line. Any deviation from party line is not simply differences in opinion but some misguided form of Marxism, or worse, outright counterrevolutionary. Clearly, in addition to this orthodox Marxist definition of factionalism, the term is also laden with a general sentiment of moral reprehension. Disloyalty is universally condemned.
As we've discussed before, "factionalism" was something of a trope in Korean communism. It plagued the Korean Communist Party and North Koreans were clearly traumatized by this. On the other hand, it was the failure of the Communist Party that allowed Kim to emerge and to maintain an arm's length from the Soviets. Evidently factionalism was a big problem in the early WPNK/WPK as well. The factions just weren't well-defined and would interact in complex ways.
Most scholars simply go with this terminology. Indeed, your quote from Scalapino and Lee is the first time I've seen any criticism of it. It would be interesting to probe why scholars generally don't see a problem here. They are not Marxist–Leninistis, so factionalism is not an objective deviation to them. Neither should they succumb to moralism when they encounter disloyal behavior in the object of their study. All in all, a highly interesting topic, but since most scholars don't see an issue with the language, I don't think we should make it one here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Great answer!!! Lenin's ban on factions had far more wide-ranging consequences than he could foresee. Most social democratic parties have a ban on faction, a sure sign of their early Leninist influence, but the Stalinists abused it. The North Koreans can't allow it(without it hurting the Kim's) and the Chinese are afraid of it, while the Laotia, Vietnamese and Cubans accept it (as long as it's not made public).
After rereading everything again three times I–it seems–am a bit of liar. One more thing, and than the review is over. You write Kim Il-sung had "mismanaged the country's economy". Which, as a statement on Wikipedia, either needs to be qualified by one or two more sentences or neutralised. Maybe I'm wrong, but at this point the failure was that of initiating the Korean War and the consequences of that decision. This was in 1955 so are talking about the mismanagement of economic reconstruction or the problems of economic reconstruction? --Ruling party (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done, Ruling party. I think I've answered the question now. It is about the age old debate about light and heavy industry, which would come to haunt Kim many times. In the mid-1950s, it was specifically in the context of reconstruction after the war. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Congrats! --Ruling party (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)