Maoism on international trade relations MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT POSITION PAPER ON KOREA Last edit: August 26 1992 A Line on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea 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]