The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Fanny Cradock

I have a question about North Korea that I'm hoping people might be able to clear up. Perhaps the discussion that sparked this post is really just splitting hairs, but I contend that NK is officially a Socialist State as outlined in their constitution. Beyond this there is no other official title. To this end - and only on paper - it grants its citizens certain democratic freedoms, which I happen to think is different from officially stating that you are both a socialist and a democratic State. However, there is the counter argument that on paper (and as per the State's full title, DPRK) it is both a Socialist State and a democracy.

Is this disagreement actually both sides of the same coin?

Fanny Cradock

Perhaps this is better suited to political theory

ei.sdraob

dont be fooled by the word democratic in its title, many other basket case countries had and are putting that word in their title, which is a perversion

yes you can vote in n korea, but only for one guy/party, the rest are crushed and so are the people

thats not a democracy thats a sham

as was discussed in parallel thread recently, socialism has a "funny" tendency to descent into totalitarianism and has sadly done that many times in past

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget the Democratic Republic of Germany.:pac:

Democracy is nearly always seen as a requirement for legitimacy, hence totalitarian and corrupt states will nearly always claim to be democratic to add a veneer of validity to their rule.

Another modern example is Russia which has a constitution which is, on paper, liberal and democratic in nature. In practice, it is an authoritarian, selectively capitalist kleptocracy. Freedom House calls it "decorative democracy"; where the government grudgingly pays lip service to democracy in order to base itself in authority. However, it does all it can to steer the outcome.

Fanny Cradock

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I realise that it is all a sham. The Dear Leader is the only choice - which amounts to no choice. But my query revolves around their official status - what they say about themselves to the world, what they pretend. According to their constitution (update in '09 but the '89 constitution is more readily available and searchable) it is a socialist republic that grants its citizens democratic rights - albeit limited rights. Other than "democratic" appearing in the State's name and some promises of democratic liberties in its constitution, I'm unsure if NK is on paper officially a socialist republic that grants it's citizens limited democratic rights, or is it a democratic socialist republic. It's a subtle difference, and one that obviously only exists in the fantasy of NK officialdom, yet I believe that it remains a difference nevertheless. Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree?

Iwasfrozen

I'm not sure you really understand what Socialism is. Socialism and democracy are not alien subjects that do not go hand in hand, in fact quite the opposite, one can not have Socialist state without democracy.

We have never had a true Socialist country, only authoritarian regimes pretending to be socialist.

SeanW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a subtle difference, and one that obviously only exists in the fantasy of NK officialdom.

Got it in one, methinks.

comeraghs

don´t forget the Peoples Republic of Cork ... is that a democracy?

Fanny Cradock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not sure you really understand what Socialism is.

It is very possible. But I also don't think you understand what I am asking. This is my fault. In my opening post I should have said socialist republic. I later corrected this error.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialism and democracy are not alien subjects that do not go hand in hand.

I never said they were I asked if the DPRK is officially a Socialist Republic that grants its citizens certain democratic rights (lies, of course) is it also officially considered to be a democracy.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

in fact quite the opposite, one can not have Socialist state without democracy.

I'm talking about a socialist republic, specifically the DPRK. But if what you say is true - that one cant have socialism without some form of democracy - then I guess I was wrong, and NK pretends that it is officially a socialist republic and a democratic State.

Iwasfrozen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is very possible. But I also don't think you understand what I am asking. This is my fault. In my opening post I should have said socialist republic. I later corrected this error.

Socialist Republics should in theory be Democratic, in fact theoratically as much as possible from factories to farms should be Democratic.

However theory does not often work out as planned as we saw with Stalin or Kim Il Sung where those that come to power do not want to give it up to the people. As the old saying goes, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I never said they were I asked if the DPRK is officially a Socialist Republic that grants its citizens certain democratic rights (lies, of course) is it also officially considered to be a democracy.

No, North Korea is no longer a Socialist and is now apparently a "Songun" state.

However when it was a Socialist country it had official nodes to Democracy, however these where ignored.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm talking about a socialist republic, specifically the DPRK. But if what you say is true - that one cant have socialism without some form of democracy - then I guess I was wrong, and NK pretends that it is officially a socialist republic and a democratic State.

Basically yes, one can not have true socialism without Democracy.