The DPRK is an extremely militarised state, with poor public involvement in decision-making, poor infrastructure, and a still proletarianized populace.
You can argue that that's because of the American-Korean war and outside aggression, and that the small nation of the DPRK has very limited options, and that there's little else you or I could do if either of us were in charge. And I'd agree with you, at least to an extent.
I agree that it's not a model insofar as the material conditions of Korea are different than elsewhere, but that also yes, their system is the way it is in large part due to conditions of siege socialism imposed on them (mostly) by the US, which of course wouldn't apply to a post-revolutionary US.
The form and structure of the government of the DPRK looks just like any other modern nation, as well as the form and structure of work. The DPRK participates in global markets, still retains the structure of the firm, of the work-week; still has merchant and political classes.
[The] working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.
In fact, as with Cuba, economic growth and relief in recent years have been largely due to liberalisation, not state-planning or purity of thought. This isn't really surprising as both nations are quite isolated, but as good communists we shouldn't cover our ears and pretend it isn't true.
It might be tempting to group nations into categories of good and bad. The bad ones are America, they're imperialist, they're capitalist; the bad ones are socialist, they hate America. And then, we might be tempted to look at the nations in the "good" category and envy them, to say "Yes, that is what we want, here. That is what we are fighting for". And the temptation is great when you live in the Great Satan. But this is a deeply idealist way of thinking. It dulls the sharpness of any critique you might make.
The liberals think this way; they simply have their categories reversed. But, either way, to claim "socialist" or "capitalist" becomes a moral claim rather than an analysis. Like the joke posts where "you have 30 seconds to pick a side" where it's a Wikipedia cutout of a war, and you're supposed to decide which half of the belligerents you like better. Who you "root for".
Well, I think a couple things need to be considered here:
First, the conditions in Korea and Cuba are unlike those in the imperial core in that they come from backgrounds of historically underdeveloped capitalism and have had their growth stymied greatly by economic sanctions. Liberal reforms are an extemely useful way for these countries to build up the productive forces that Marx assumed would already exist when proletarian revolutions occurred. An agrarian society, one coming just out of feudalism, can't develop straight into a more advanced form of socialism just because socialism is such a good idea; the forces of production must be sufficiently developed first.
The circumstances would obviously be different in a developed, fully industrialized nation like the US or UK, but again this would be due to the differing material conditions, not the ruling parties of these socialist countries just not doing socialism right.
I also haven't read anything about the DPRK liberalizing their economy recently.
Second, features that are shared in common with capitalist production will inevitably exist under socialism as part of the process of building communism. For example, commodity production exists under socialism and will exist in every socialist country basically until world socialism exists. It can't just be willed out of existince, at the very least because trade is necessary and global trade currently exists under conditions of global capitalism; to acquire needed goods on the market, goods have to be produced for sale on the market in exchange. But also, again because of historical underdevelopment, many socialist countries maintain internal markets, such as the farmers' markets in the DPRK, in the absence of more efficient forms of central planning that aren't yet possible.
But regardless, these workers aren't proletarian since they aren't employed by capitalists who appropriate the value they produce.
As far as classifying countries as good or bad, I think it's reasonable, as socialists, to classify those countries that act against the interests of the global proletariat as bad, and those who act in their interests as good; imperialists bad, anti-imperialists good. Rooting for socialist countries is internationalism.
Ok, but why not?
The DPRK is an extremely militarised state, with poor public involvement in decision-making, poor infrastructure, and a still proletarianized populace.
You can argue that that's because of the American-Korean war and outside aggression, and that the small nation of the DPRK has very limited options, and that there's little else you or I could do if either of us were in charge. And I'd agree with you, at least to an extent.
But that's also not the goal.
I agree that it's not a model insofar as the material conditions of Korea are different than elsewhere, but that also yes, their system is the way it is in large part due to conditions of siege socialism imposed on them (mostly) by the US, which of course wouldn't apply to a post-revolutionary US.
How so?
In what sense?
The form and structure of the government of the DPRK looks just like any other modern nation, as well as the form and structure of work. The DPRK participates in global markets, still retains the structure of the firm, of the work-week; still has merchant and political classes.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm
In fact, as with Cuba, economic growth and relief in recent years have been largely due to liberalisation, not state-planning or purity of thought. This isn't really surprising as both nations are quite isolated, but as good communists we shouldn't cover our ears and pretend it isn't true.
It might be tempting to group nations into categories of good and bad. The bad ones are America, they're imperialist, they're capitalist; the bad ones are socialist, they hate America. And then, we might be tempted to look at the nations in the "good" category and envy them, to say "Yes, that is what we want, here. That is what we are fighting for". And the temptation is great when you live in the Great Satan. But this is a deeply idealist way of thinking. It dulls the sharpness of any critique you might make.
The liberals think this way; they simply have their categories reversed. But, either way, to claim "socialist" or "capitalist" becomes a moral claim rather than an analysis. Like the joke posts where "you have 30 seconds to pick a side" where it's a Wikipedia cutout of a war, and you're supposed to decide which half of the belligerents you like better. Who you "root for".
Well, I think a couple things need to be considered here:
First, the conditions in Korea and Cuba are unlike those in the imperial core in that they come from backgrounds of historically underdeveloped capitalism and have had their growth stymied greatly by economic sanctions. Liberal reforms are an extemely useful way for these countries to build up the productive forces that Marx assumed would already exist when proletarian revolutions occurred. An agrarian society, one coming just out of feudalism, can't develop straight into a more advanced form of socialism just because socialism is such a good idea; the forces of production must be sufficiently developed first.
The circumstances would obviously be different in a developed, fully industrialized nation like the US or UK, but again this would be due to the differing material conditions, not the ruling parties of these socialist countries just not doing socialism right.
I also haven't read anything about the DPRK liberalizing their economy recently.
Second, features that are shared in common with capitalist production will inevitably exist under socialism as part of the process of building communism. For example, commodity production exists under socialism and will exist in every socialist country basically until world socialism exists. It can't just be willed out of existince, at the very least because trade is necessary and global trade currently exists under conditions of global capitalism; to acquire needed goods on the market, goods have to be produced for sale on the market in exchange. But also, again because of historical underdevelopment, many socialist countries maintain internal markets, such as the farmers' markets in the DPRK, in the absence of more efficient forms of central planning that aren't yet possible.
But regardless, these workers aren't proletarian since they aren't employed by capitalists who appropriate the value they produce.
As far as classifying countries as good or bad, I think it's reasonable, as socialists, to classify those countries that act against the interests of the global proletariat as bad, and those who act in their interests as good; imperialists bad, anti-imperialists good. Rooting for socialist countries is internationalism.