# Note: This was translated from English to German to English again for multiple different posts and comments, so mistakes are probable to occur in translation. I apologise for this beforehand

This whole "Juche has replaced dialectical and historical materialism with idealism" thing is utter nonsense if you've ever read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, or Trotsky.

In The German Ideology (MECW Vol. 5), Marx and Engels develop the materialist conception of history with a focus on human activity:

\>"The premises we start from are not arbitrary, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction is possible only in the imagination. They are real individuals, their activity, and the material conditions under which they live, both those they find and those produced by their activity. ... This conception of history rests on our ability to elucidate the real production process, starting from the material production of life itself, and to understand the form of interaction associated with and created by this mode of production. ... As individuals express their lives, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with the The way in which they produce. The essence of individuals thus depends on the material conditions that determine their production.”

Historical materialism is therefore grounded in human productive activity, that is, in human beings who transform nature and society and are simultaneously transformed by them.

Marx further elaborates on this in his Theses on Feuerbach (MECW Vol. 5):

\>“The main deficiency of all previous materialism, including Feuerbach’s, is that the thing, reality, sensibility is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. … The convergence of changing circumstances and human activity or self-transformation can only be conceived and rationally understood as revolutionary practice.”

\>“The main deficiency of all previous materialism, including Feuerbach’s, is that the thing, reality, sensibility is understood only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. … The convergence of changing circumstances and human activity or self-transformation can only be conceived and rationally understood as revolutionary practice.”

The anti-Jucheist's understanding of materialism is the materialism criticized by Marx. The Juche-oriented, human-centered, dialectical materialist worldview is precisely that worldview which considers sensory human activity, practice, not subjectively, nor does the anti-Jucheist take into account changing circumstances and human activity or self-transformation.

In "What Is to Be Done?" (1902, Collected Works, Vol. 5):

"The history of all countries shows that the working class can only develop a trade union consciousness by its own efforts… The theory of socialism, on the other hand, arose from the philosophical, historical, and economic theories of educated representatives of the propertied classes, of intellectuals… Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement." Lenin here clarifies the necessity of conscious, organized human intervention.

A similar quote to the one below can be found in "Karl Marx" (1914, Collected Works, Vol. 21) this is merely a paraphrasing of what Plekhanov adds to this: Lenin explains, as does more accurately Plechanov:

"Marxism by no means denies the role of the individual in history… People shape their own history, but… the role of individuals or parties is limited by the respective stage of historical development, by the objective social environment… The personal characteristics of political figures… can determine the outcome of a given situation… the role of the subjective factor is ultimately decisive for the history of mankind."

Stalin said:

"…the superstructure is not merely a reflection of the material base, but an active force that either accelerates or retards the development of the material base … New ideas and theories only emerge after social development has presented society with new tasks… They become an extremely effective force that enables the solution of these new tasks…"

And:

"…the people who operate the means of production and produce material value thanks to their production experience and craftsmanship constitute the productive forces of society… Production is therefore, at all times and under all conditions, social production."

Plekhanov, who, although he later became a revisionist and in practice distanced himself from original Marxism, was in his theories the steadfast, anti-revisionist theoretical father of unadulterated Russian Marxism, expressed himself as follows (again, it is paraphrased to some degree due to mistakes which may have occurred in translation):

"In the second half of the 1870s, the late Kablitz wrote an article entitled 'The Mind and the Senses as Factors of Progress,' in which, referring to Spencer, he argued that the senses played the main role in human progress and the mind only a secondary, indeed a subordinate, role. \[...\] Materialists were already accused of harboring tendencies toward quietism even before they had developed their dialectical conception of nature and history. \[...\] There is no doubt that the materialist conception of the human will is entirely compatible with the most energetic practical activity. \[...\] When we say that a person views his activities as an unavoidable link in the chain of unavoidable events, we mean, among other things, that for For these people, the lack of free will is synonymous with incapacity—inaction—and this lack of free will is reflected in their thinking as the impossibility of acting differently than they do. This very psychological state is expressed in Luther's famous words, "Here I stand, I can do no other," and it is thanks to these words that people summon the most indomitable energy and accomplish the most astonishing deeds.

"A great man is not great because his personal qualities lend individual characteristics to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities that best enable him to serve the great social needs of his time, needs that have arisen for general and particular reasons. \[...\] In his book on heroes and hero worship, Carlyle calls great men 'beginners.' This is a very apt expression. A great man is a beginner precisely because he sees further than others and desires more intensely. He solves the scientific problems of his time, points to the new social needs that have arisen from the preceding development of social relations, and takes the initiative to satisfy these needs." He is a hero. But not in the sense that he can halt or alter the natural course of things, but in the sense that his actions are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course. Therein lies his whole significance; therein lies his whole power. But this significance and this power are limited by the conditions of his era. \[...\] The possibility—the “inevitability,” if you will—of the appearance of a particular individual in a given period is determined by general and particular causes. \[...\] No important person can impose on society conditions that no longer correspond to the state of these forces or that do not yet correspond to them. \[...\] Thus, the personal qualities of leading figures determine the individual characteristics of historical events, and the element of chance, as already mentioned, always plays a role in the course of these events, the direction of which is ultimately determined by so-called general causes, that is, by the development of the productive forces and the natural relations between people in the social production process. \[...\]"

\[On Factors and Individuals:\]

Individual causes cannot bring about fundamental changes in the workings of general and particular causes, which also determine the direction and limits of the influence of individual causes. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that history would have taken a different course had the individual causes influencing it been replaced by other causes of the same kind.

It never occurred to the "esteemed sociologist" that the perspective of "factors" is alien to dialectical materialism and that only someone completely incapable of logical thought could see in it a justification for so-called quietism. \[...\] Historical materialism does not deny the role of the individual, of the personality, in history, but considers this role within its historical context.

\[...\] Historical materialism does not deny the role of the individual, of the personality, in history, but considers this role within its historical context.

\[...\] Thus, we can rightly conclude that man, with the right characteristics at the right time, endowed with essential socio-material qualities, effects the concrete, decisive "coloring" and acceleration/deceleration within the objective limits set by productive forces and class relations.

Surely one can expect that those who make critical accusations against Juche have also dealt with the Juche idea and are therefore aware of the connections, right? Okay, here are a few quotes from President Kim Il-sung and General Kim Jong-il:

From Kim Jong Il, On the Juche Idea (Dissertation to the National Seminar on the Juche Idea, March 31, 1982):

“The Juche Idea is the precious fruit of the Leader’s profound and comprehensive ideological and theoretical work… With the creation of the great Juche Idea, the Leader opened a new path to victory in the revolution for the working class and the masses of the people, initiating a historic turning point in the realization of the people’s revolutionary goal. The Juche Idea is an unchanging guiding principle of the Korean revolution and a great revolutionary banner of our time…

1. THE ORIGINS OF THE JUCHE IDEA

A progressive idea plays a vital role in socio-historical progress. When the masses are guided by a progressive idea, they can significantly shape history… Only the revolutionary ideas of the working class can meet the needs of the to adequately reflect the times and the aspirations of the masses and to give a strong impetus to socio-historical development… The Juche idea arose from this practical necessity of the Korean revolution. The revolution is a struggle to fulfill the masses' desire for independence by mobilizing their forces. It is a struggle of the masses for their liberation… The duty of revolutionaries is to go among the masses, the masters of the revolution, to educate them, organize them, and inspire them to fight. The revolutionary forces should also be trained from the ranks of the masses, and all problems that arise in the revolutionary struggle should likewise be solved by their wisdom and strength… The revolution in every country should be carried out responsibly, independently, and creatively by its own people, the masters, in accordance with the specific circumstances. Independence and creativity are the fundamental prerequisites of a revolutionary movement, the communist movement.

2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE JUCHE IDEA

The leader made it clear that man is a social being with independence, creativity, and consciousness. Human beings are creative beings, that is, inventive social beings. Creativity is a characteristic of social beings who change the world and shape their destiny purposefully and consciously. Through their creativity, humans transform nature and society for their own benefit and advantage by altering the old and creating the new.

If we want to carry out the revolution and construction according to the Juche idea, we must apply the creative method both in developing the policies, strategies, and tactics of the revolution and in implementing them. Applying the creative method to solve all problems that arise in the revolution and construction in accordance with the actual circumstances, by relying on the creativity of the people—this is the principle to which the revolutionary movement should always strictly adhere.

3. The Sociohistorical Principles of the Juche Idea

1. The Masses Are the Subject of Social History

The Juche idea was the first to clarify that the masses are the subject of history. They are the subject of social history and the driving force of social progress. History unfolds through the struggle of the masses for independence.

3. The socio-historical movement is a creative movement of the masses.

The revolutionary movement is a creative movement of the masses. Only by adhering to this principle can the masses fully unleash their creative power and find appropriate paths and means to energetically advance the revolution and reconstruction.

4. The people's consciousness of independence plays the decisive role in the revolutionary struggle.

The independent ideological consciousness of the masses plays the decisive role in the revolutionary movement. Prioritizing ideological consciousness over all other tasks is a prerequisite for a revolution that rests on the consciousness and enthusiasm of the masses.

From Kim Il Sung's speech "On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche Ideology in Ideological Work" (Speech to Party Propagandists and Agitators, December 28, 1955):

"The main shortcomings of ideological work are the failure to thoroughly examine all matters and the absence of Juche ideology. It may not be accurate to say that Juche ideology is absent, but in fact, it is not yet firmly established… We are not involved in the revolution of any other country, but in the Korean revolution. This Korean revolution represents Juche ideology in the ideological work of our Party. Therefore, all ideological work must be subordinate to the interests of the Korean revolution… In order to carry out a revolution in Korea, we must know Korean history and geography, as well as the customs of the Korean people. Only then is it possible to educate our people in a way appropriate to them… It is of the utmost importance to study the history of our country and the struggle of our people and to…" to make widely known to the working people… Only if we educate our people… Only if we reflect on the history of their own struggle and its traditions can we strengthen their national pride and rouse the masses to revolutionary struggle. … The absence of Juche ideology in propaganda has caused great damage to party work. … We should seriously address our own affairs and study them thoroughly. Otherwise, we will not be able to creatively solve the new problems that we encounter in practice, one after the other, in a way that is appropriate to our actual circumstances.

Only if we reflect on the history of their own struggle and its traditions can we strengthen their national pride and rouse the broad masses to revolutionary struggle. … The absence of Juche ideology in propaganda has caused great damage to party work. … We should seriously address our own affairs and study them thoroughly. Otherwise, we will not be able to solve the new problems that we encounter in practice, one after the other, in a way that is appropriate to our actual circumstances. From Kim Jong Il's speech "Let Us Advance Under the Banner of Marxism-Leninism and the Juche Idea" (May 3, 1983):

"In short, the Juche idea means that the masses of the people are the masters of revolution and construction and are their driving force… The revolutionary movement is a creative movement of the masses and therefore requires maintaining a creative attitude… To maintain this creative attitude, the principle should be applied to solve all problems according to their specific circumstances with the creative power of the masses… The independent ideological consciousness of the masses plays a crucial role in the revolutionary movement… The Juche-oriented attitude and principles set forth by the Great Leader, Comrade Kim Il Sung, are consistent with the principles of the communist movement and Marxism-Leninism… Only through the correct application of Marxism-Leninism from the Juche perspective can communists develop their full strength and realize their treasure by creating new "To further enrich revolutionary ideas and theories."

\`\`\`

\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`)\`\`\`)\]) enrich revolutionary ideas and theories.\]\`

\` ... The strong focus on the working masses, upon which the Juche idea is based, is often portrayed as anti-materialist and anti-dialectical, even though neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin nor Stalin nor Trotsky nor Kim Il-sung nor Kim Jong-il denied the autonomy of the working people in the revolution and its construction, nor their role within the dialectical materialist worldview.

From Kim Jong-il: “The Juche philosophy is an original revolutionary philosophy” (Discourse, Kulloya, July 26, 1996).

This directly addresses deviations, reaffirms the premises of dialectical/historical materialism and human-centrism as progress, and refutes claims of a departure from the Juche philosophy:

“Recently, the opinion has been expressed that some of our social scientists have held a false, party-line-contrary view in explaining the Juche philosophy… These social scientists are still trying to explain the basic principles of the To explain Juche philosophy from the perspective of the general law of development of the material world, rather than to explain it in terms of clarifying the law of social movement. Proponents of this view say their argument aims to prove that Juche philosophy is also a further development of Marxist-materialist dialectics. In explaining and disseminating Juche philosophy, we do not need to convince people that Juche philosophy is a further development of Marxist-materialist dialectics. It is true that our party does not… The dogmatic approach of Marxist-materialist dialectics has been analyzed from the perspective of Juche philosophy, and new explanations have been provided for a number of problems. However, the further development of materialism and dialectics does not constitute the core of Juche philosophy.

Juche philosophy is an independent philosophy that has developed and systematized with its own principles. Their historical contribution to the development of philosophical thought lies not in the further development of Marxist materialist dialectics, but in the clarification of new philosophical principles that place humanity at the center. Marxist philosophy addressed the relationship between matter and consciousness, between being and thought, as a fundamental question of philosophy and proved the primacy of the material, the primacy of being. On this basis, it clarified that the world consists of matter and is changed and developed through its movement. Juche philosophy addressed the relationship between world and humanity, as well as humanity's position and role in the world, as a fundamental question of philosophy and clarified the interrelationships. philosophical principle that man is the master of everything and decides everything…“af5429

On Humancentrism as Part of Dialectical Materialism (without abandoning it):

“The new worldview of Juche philosophy does not deny the worldview of dialectical materialism. Rather, Juche philosophy considers it its premise. The Juche worldview, that the world is dominated and transformed by man, is inconceivable without the materialistic-dialectical understanding of the nature of the objective material world and the general law of its motion. From the idealistic view that the world is something mysterious, one cannot conclude that man dominates the world, and from the metaphysical view that the world is unchanging, one cannot deduce that man can transform the world. The Juche worldview, that the world is dominated and transformed by man, can only be justified if the materialistic-dialectical understanding of the world is acknowledged—that the world consists of matter and is incessantly changing.” and developed. Despite some limitations and imperfections of Marxist materialist dialectics, its fundamental principles are scientific and valid. Therefore, we say that Juche philosophy considers materialist dialectics its premise.

That the worldview of materialist dialectics is the premise of Juche philosophy does not mean that Juche philosophy merely inherited and further developed materialist dialectics. Only on the basis of the essential characteristics of humankind as social beings with independence, creativity, and consciousness, as scientifically presented by Juche philosophy, could the fundamental principle that humankind is the master of the world and plays the decisive role in its transformation be clarified.

On historical materialism and the negation of mechanical abandonment:

By establishing the Juche perspective on social history, the Juche conception of history, on the basis of the human-centered philosophical principle, Juche philosophy has They overcame the limitations of the previous socio-historical perspective. Marxist philosophy established the socio-historical perspective of dialectical materialism, or more precisely, historical materialism, which applies the general law of development of the material world to social history. Of course, we do not deny the historical value of historical materialism. It made an important contribution to overcoming the reactionary and unscientific socio-historical perspective based on idealism and metaphysics. Since humankind lives in the objective material world and society is inextricably linked to nature, the general law of development of the material world acts upon social phenomena. However, if one overlooks the fact that social movement follows its own laws and mechanically applies the general law of development of the material world to social phenomena, a one-sided understanding of social history inevitably arises.

“Social movement changes and develops according to its own laws. It is the movement of humankind, which dominates and transforms the world… The greatest limitation of the materialist conception of history is that it overlooks the specific law of social movement.” could not explain it correctly…“

From Kim Jong-il: “On Juche Philosophy” (Collection, including “On Some Questions for Understanding Juche Philosophy,” 1974, and related works)

“Juche Philosophy is a new philosophy founded by the Great Leader, Comrade Kim Il Sung. It is a fully developed and systematized philosophy that places man at its center… Juche Philosophy elevates man’s position and role in the world to the fundamental question of philosophy and clarifies the philosophical principle that man is the master of all and decides all things.”

Juche Philosophy “Materialist dialectics had already established that the world consists of matter, not consciousness or ideas, and that it moves, changes, and develops according to its own laws… Juche philosophy answered a new question: Who is the master of the world, and what is the driving force behind its transformation? It clarified a new understanding of the world, namely that nature and society are dominated and transformed by humankind…” Continuing on the topic of human-centrism within materialism:

“The Marxist classics established the materialist dialectical view of the human question… Although they established this view, they did not provide a complete explanation for the essential characteristics of humankind as the master and shaper of nature and society. Juche philosophy was the first to make clear that independence, creativity, and consciousness are the essential characteristics of humankind as a social being.”

So, what are Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il really saying? They are saying that dialectical and historical materialism are the foundation of the Juche idea. However, classical Marxist materialism and the Juche idea answer two different questions.

Note: This was translated from English to German to English again for multiple different posts and comments, so mistakes are probable to occur in translation. I apologise for this beforehand

This whole "Juche has replaced dialectical and historical materialism with idealism" thing is utter nonsense if you've ever read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, or Trotsky.

In The German Ideology (MECW Vol. 5), Marx and Engels develop the materialist conception of history with a focus on human activity:

>"The premises we start from are not arbitrary, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction is possible only in the imagination. They are real individuals, their activity, and the material conditions under which they live, both those they find and those produced by their activity. ... This conception of history rests on our ability to elucidate the real production process, starting from the material production of life itself, and to understand the form of interaction associated with and created by this mode of production. ... As individuals express their lives, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with the The way in which they produce. The essence of individuals thus depends on the material conditions that determine their production.”

Historical materialism is therefore grounded in human productive activity, that is, in human beings who transform nature and society and are simultaneously transformed by them.

Marx further elaborates on this in his Theses on Feuerbach (MECW Vol. 5):

>“The main deficiency of all previous materialism, including Feuerbach’s, is that the thing, reality, sensibility is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. … The convergence of changing circumstances and human activity or self-transformation can only be conceived and rationally understood as revolutionary practice.”

>“The main deficiency of all previous materialism, including Feuerbach’s, is that the thing, reality, sensibility is understood only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. … The convergence of changing circumstances and human activity or self-transformation can only be conceived and rationally understood as revolutionary practice.”

The anti-Jucheist's understanding of materialism is the materialism criticized by Marx. The Juche-oriented, human-centered, dialectical materialist worldview is precisely that worldview which considers sensory human activity, practice, not subjectively, nor does the anti-Jucheist take into account changing circumstances and human activity or self-transformation.

In "What Is to Be Done?" (1902, Collected Works, Vol. 5):

"The history of all countries shows that the working class can only develop a trade union consciousness by its own efforts… The theory of socialism, on the other hand, arose from the philosophical, historical, and economic theories of educated representatives of the propertied classes, of intellectuals… Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement." Lenin here clarifies the necessity of conscious, organized human intervention.

A similar quote to the one below can be found in "Karl Marx" (1914, Collected Works, Vol. 21) this is merely a paraphrasing of what Plekhanov adds to this: Lenin explains, as does more accurately Plechanov:

"Marxism by no means denies the role of the individual in history… People shape their own history, but… the role of individuals or parties is limited by the respective stage of historical development, by the objective social environment… The personal characteristics of political figures… can determine the outcome of a given situation… the role of the subjective factor is ultimately decisive for the history of mankind."

Stalin said:

"…the superstructure is not merely a reflection of the material base, but an active force that either accelerates or retards the development of the material base … New ideas and theories only emerge after social development has presented society with new tasks… They become an extremely effective force that enables the solution of these new tasks…"

And:

"…the people who operate the means of production and produce material value thanks to their production experience and craftsmanship constitute the productive forces of society… Production is therefore, at all times and under all conditions, social production."

Plekhanov, who, although he later became a revisionist and in practice distanced himself from original Marxism, was in his theories the steadfast, anti-revisionist theoretical father of unadulterated Russian Marxism, expressed himself as follows (again, it is paraphrased to some degree due to mistakes which may have occurred in translation):

"In the second half of the 1870s, the late Kablitz wrote an article entitled 'The Mind and the Senses as Factors of Progress,' in which, referring to Spencer, he argued that the senses played the main role in human progress and the mind only a secondary, indeed a subordinate, role. [...] Materialists were already accused of harboring tendencies toward quietism even before they had developed their dialectical conception of nature and history. [...] There is no doubt that the materialist conception of the human will is entirely compatible with the most energetic practical activity. [...] When we say that a person views his activities as an unavoidable link in the chain of unavoidable events, we mean, among other things, that for For these people, the lack of free will is synonymous with incapacity—inaction—and this lack of free will is reflected in their thinking as the impossibility of acting differently than they do. This very psychological state is expressed in Luther's famous words, "Here I stand, I can do no other," and it is thanks to these words that people summon the most indomitable energy and accomplish the most astonishing deeds.

"A great man is not great because his personal qualities lend individual characteristics to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities that best enable him to serve the great social needs of his time, needs that have arisen for general and particular reasons. [...] In his book on heroes and hero worship, Carlyle calls great men 'beginners.' This is a very apt expression. A great man is a beginner precisely because he sees further than others and desires more intensely. He solves the scientific problems of his time, points to the new social needs that have arisen from the preceding development of social relations, and takes the initiative to satisfy these needs." He is a hero. But not in the sense that he can halt or alter the natural course of things, but in the sense that his actions are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course. Therein lies his whole significance; therein lies his whole power. But this significance and this power are limited by the conditions of his era. [...] The possibility—the “inevitability,” if you will—of the appearance of a particular individual in a given period is determined by general and particular causes. [...] No important person can impose on society conditions that no longer correspond to the state of these forces or that do not yet correspond to them. [...] Thus, the personal qualities of leading figures determine the individual characteristics of historical events, and the element of chance, as already mentioned, always plays a role in the course of these events, the direction of which is ultimately determined by so-called general causes, that is, by the development of the productive forces and the natural relations between people in the social production process. [...]"

[On Factors and Individuals:]

Individual causes cannot bring about fundamental changes in the workings of general and particular causes, which also determine the direction and limits of the influence of individual causes. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that history would have taken a different course had the individual causes influencing it been replaced by other causes of the same kind.

It never occurred to the "esteemed sociologist" that the perspective of "factors" is alien to dialectical materialism and that only someone completely incapable of logical thought could see in it a justification for so-called quietism. [...] Historical materialism does not deny the role of the individual, of the personality, in history, but considers this role within its historical context.

[...] Historical materialism does not deny the role of the individual, of the personality, in history, but considers this role within its historical context.

[...] Thus, we can rightly conclude that man, with the right characteristics at the right time, endowed with essential socio-material qualities, effects the concrete, decisive "coloring" and acceleration/deceleration within the objective limits set by productive forces and class relations.

Surely one can expect that those who make critical accusations against Juche have also dealt with the Juche idea and are therefore aware of the connections, right? Okay, here are a few quotes from President Kim Il-sung and General Kim Jong-il:

From Kim Jong Il, On the Juche Idea (Dissertation to the National Seminar on the Juche Idea, March 31, 1982):

“The Juche Idea is the precious fruit of the Leader’s profound and comprehensive ideological and theoretical work… With the creation of the great Juche Idea, the Leader opened a new path to victory in the revolution for the working class and the masses of the people, initiating a historic turning point in the realization of the people’s revolutionary goal. The Juche Idea is an unchanging guiding principle of the Korean revolution and a great revolutionary banner of our time…

1. THE ORIGINS OF THE JUCHE IDEA

A progressive idea plays a vital role in socio-historical progress. When the masses are guided by a progressive idea, they can significantly shape history… Only the revolutionary ideas of the working class can meet the needs of the to adequately reflect the times and the aspirations of the masses and to give a strong impetus to socio-historical development… The Juche idea arose from this practical necessity of the Korean revolution. The revolution is a struggle to fulfill the masses' desire for independence by mobilizing their forces. It is a struggle of the masses for their liberation… The duty of revolutionaries is to go among the masses, the masters of the revolution, to educate them, organize them, and inspire them to fight. The revolutionary forces should also be trained from the ranks of the masses, and all problems that arise in the revolutionary struggle should likewise be solved by their wisdom and strength… The revolution in every country should be carried out responsibly, independently, and creatively by its own people, the masters, in accordance with the specific circumstances. Independence and creativity are the fundamental prerequisites of a revolutionary movement, the communist movement.

2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE JUCHE IDEA

The leader made it clear that man is a social being with independence, creativity, and consciousness. Human beings are creative beings, that is, inventive social beings. Creativity is a characteristic of social beings who change the world and shape their destiny purposefully and consciously. Through their creativity, humans transform nature and society for their own benefit and advantage by altering the old and creating the new.

If we want to carry out the revolution and construction according to the Juche idea, we must apply the creative method both in developing the policies, strategies, and tactics of the revolution and in implementing them. Applying the creative method to solve all problems that arise in the revolution and construction in accordance with the actual circumstances, by relying on the creativity of the people—this is the principle to which the revolutionary movement should always strictly adhere.

3. The Sociohistorical Principles of the Juche Idea

1. The Masses Are the Subject of Social History

The Juche idea was the first to clarify that the masses are the subject of history. They are the subject of social history and the driving force of social progress. History unfolds through the struggle of the masses for independence.

3. The socio-historical movement is a creative movement of the masses.

The revolutionary movement is a creative movement of the masses. Only by adhering to this principle can the masses fully unleash their creative power and find appropriate paths and means to energetically advance the revolution and reconstruction.

4. The people's consciousness of independence plays the decisive role in the revolutionary struggle.

The independent ideological consciousness of the masses plays the decisive role in the revolutionary movement. Prioritizing ideological consciousness over all other tasks is a prerequisite for a revolution that rests on the consciousness and enthusiasm of the masses.

From Kim Il Sung's speech "On Eliminating Dogmatism and Formalism and Establishing Juche Ideology in Ideological Work" (Speech to Party Propagandists and Agitators, December 28, 1955):

"The main shortcomings of ideological work are the failure to thoroughly examine all matters and the absence of Juche ideology. It may not be accurate to say that Juche ideology is absent, but in fact, it is not yet firmly established… We are not involved in the revolution of any other country, but in the Korean revolution. This Korean revolution represents Juche ideology in the ideological work of our Party. Therefore, all ideological work must be subordinate to the interests of the Korean revolution… In order to carry out a revolution in Korea, we must know Korean history and geography, as well as the customs of the Korean people. Only then is it possible to educate our people in a way appropriate to them… It is of the utmost importance to study the history of our country and the struggle of our people and to…" to make widely known to the working people… Only if we educate our people… Only if we reflect on the history of their own struggle and its traditions can we strengthen their national pride and rouse the masses to revolutionary struggle. … The absence of Juche ideology in propaganda has caused great damage to party work. … We should seriously address our own affairs and study them thoroughly. Otherwise, we will not be able to creatively solve the new problems that we encounter in practice, one after the other, in a way that is appropriate to our actual circumstances.

Only if we reflect on the history of their own struggle and its traditions can we strengthen their national pride and rouse the broad masses to revolutionary struggle. … The absence of Juche ideology in propaganda has caused great damage to party work. … We should seriously address our own affairs and study them thoroughly. Otherwise, we will not be able to solve the new problems that we encounter in practice, one after the other, in a way that is appropriate to our actual circumstances. From Kim Jong Il's speech "Let Us Advance Under the Banner of Marxism-Leninism and the Juche Idea" (May 3, 1983):

"In short, the Juche idea means that the masses of the people are the masters of revolution and construction and are their driving force… The revolutionary movement is a creative movement of the masses and therefore requires maintaining a creative attitude… To maintain this creative attitude, the principle should be applied to solve all problems according to their specific circumstances with the creative power of the masses… The independent ideological consciousness of the masses plays a crucial role in the revolutionary movement… The Juche-oriented attitude and principles set forth by the Great Leader, Comrade Kim Il Sung, are consistent with the principles of the communist movement and Marxism-Leninism… Only through the correct application of Marxism-Leninism from the Juche perspective can communists develop their full strength and realize their treasure by creating new "To further enrich revolutionary ideas and theories."

```

``````````````````)```)]) enrich revolutionary ideas and theories.]`

` ... The strong focus on the working masses, upon which the Juche idea is based, is often portrayed as anti-materialist and anti-dialectical, even though neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin nor Stalin nor Trotsky nor Kim Il-sung nor Kim Jong-il denied the autonomy of the working people in the revolution and its construction, nor their role within the dialectical materialist worldview.

From Kim Jong-il: “The Juche philosophy is an original revolutionary philosophy” (Discourse, Kulloya, July 26, 1996).

This directly addresses deviations, reaffirms the premises of dialectical/historical materialism and human-centrism as progress, and refutes claims of a departure from the Juche philosophy:

“Recently, the opinion has been expressed that some of our social scientists have held a false, party-line-contrary view in explaining the Juche philosophy… These social scientists are still trying to explain the basic principles of the To explain Juche philosophy from the perspective of the general law of development of the material world, rather than to explain it in terms of clarifying the law of social movement. Proponents of this view say their argument aims to prove that Juche philosophy is also a further development of Marxist-materialist dialectics. In explaining and disseminating Juche philosophy, we do not need to convince people that Juche philosophy is a further development of Marxist-materialist dialectics. It is true that our party does not… The dogmatic approach of Marxist-materialist dialectics has been analyzed from the perspective of Juche philosophy, and new explanations have been provided for a number of problems. However, the further development of materialism and dialectics does not constitute the core of Juche philosophy.

Juche philosophy is an independent philosophy that has developed and systematized with its own principles. Their historical contribution to the development of philosophical thought lies not in the further development of Marxist materialist dialectics, but in the clarification of new philosophical principles that place humanity at the center. Marxist philosophy addressed the relationship between matter and consciousness, between being and thought, as a fundamental question of philosophy and proved the primacy of the material, the primacy of being. On this basis, it clarified that the world consists of matter and is changed and developed through its movement. Juche philosophy addressed the relationship between world and humanity, as well as humanity's position and role in the world, as a fundamental question of philosophy and clarified the interrelationships. philosophical principle that man is the master of everything and decides everything…“af5429

On Humancentrism as Part of Dialectical Materialism (without abandoning it):

“The new worldview of Juche philosophy does not deny the worldview of dialectical materialism. Rather, Juche philosophy considers it its premise. The Juche worldview, that the world is dominated and transformed by man, is inconceivable without the materialistic-dialectical understanding of the nature of the objective material world and the general law of its motion. From the idealistic view that the world is something mysterious, one cannot conclude that man dominates the world, and from the metaphysical view that the world is unchanging, one cannot deduce that man can transform the world. The Juche worldview, that the world is dominated and transformed by man, can only be justified if the materialistic-dialectical understanding of the world is acknowledged—that the world consists of matter and is incessantly changing.” and developed. Despite some limitations and imperfections of Marxist materialist dialectics, its fundamental principles are scientific and valid. Therefore, we say that Juche philosophy considers materialist dialectics its premise.

That the worldview of materialist dialectics is the premise of Juche philosophy does not mean that Juche philosophy merely inherited and further developed materialist dialectics. Only on the basis of the essential characteristics of humankind as social beings with independence, creativity, and consciousness, as scientifically presented by Juche philosophy, could the fundamental principle that humankind is the master of the world and plays the decisive role in its transformation be clarified.

On historical materialism and the negation of mechanical abandonment:

By establishing the Juche perspective on social history, the Juche conception of history, on the basis of the human-centered philosophical principle, Juche philosophy has They overcame the limitations of the previous socio-historical perspective. Marxist philosophy established the socio-historical perspective of dialectical materialism, or more precisely, historical materialism, which applies the general law of development of the material world to social history. Of course, we do not deny the historical value of historical materialism. It made an important contribution to overcoming the reactionary and unscientific socio-historical perspective based on idealism and metaphysics. Since humankind lives in the objective material world and society is inextricably linked to nature, the general law of development of the material world acts upon social phenomena. However, if one overlooks the fact that social movement follows its own laws and mechanically applies the general law of development of the material world to social phenomena, a one-sided understanding of social history inevitably arises.

“Social movement changes and develops according to its own laws. It is the movement of humankind, which dominates and transforms the world… The greatest limitation of the materialist conception of history is that it overlooks the specific law of social movement.” could not explain it correctly…“

From Kim Jong-il: “On Juche Philosophy” (Collection, including “On Some Questions for Understanding Juche Philosophy,” 1974, and related works)

“Juche Philosophy is a new philosophy founded by the Great Leader, Comrade Kim Il Sung. It is a fully developed and systematized philosophy that places man at its center… Juche Philosophy elevates man’s position and role in the world to the fundamental question of philosophy and clarifies the philosophical principle that man is the master of all and decides all things.”

Juche Philosophy “Materialist dialectics had already established that the world consists of matter, not consciousness or ideas, and that it moves, changes, and develops according to its own laws… Juche philosophy answered a new question: Who is the master of the world, and what is the driving force behind its transformation? It clarified a new understanding of the world, namely that nature and society are dominated and transformed by humankind…” Continuing on the topic of human-centrism within materialism:

“The Marxist classics established the materialist dialectical view of the human question… Although they established this view, they did not provide a complete explanation for the essential characteristics of humankind as the master and shaper of nature and society. Juche philosophy was the first to make clear that independence, creativity, and consciousness are the essential characteristics of humankind as a social being.”

So, what are Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il really saying? They are saying that dialectical and historical materialism are the foundation of the Juche idea. However, classical Marxist materialism and the Juche idea answer two different questions.

Rejecting dialectical materialism? No, quite the opposite: The man-centred ideology of juche-oriented communism is essentially based upon Marx saying that man indeed makes his own history and that man is always occupied with revolutionising society and itself, creating thereby that which was not there before. It's directly rooted in Marx

In the German Ideology (MECW Vol. 5), Marx and Engels elaborate the materialist conception while centering human activity:

“The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. ... This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with and created by this mode of production... As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.”

So, historical materialism lies in human productive activity, i.e. man transforming nature and society.

Marx in Theses on Feuerbach (MECW Vol. 5) further grounds this:

“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism, that of Feuerbach included, is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. ... The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.”

Your understanding of materialism is the materialism criticised by Marx, the Juche-oriented Man-centric materialistic World outlook is precisely the World Outlook which takes into consideration the sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively, the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing

In What Is to Be Done? (1902, Collected Works Vol. 5):

“The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness... The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals... Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.”

Lenin herein elucidates the need for conscious, organized human intervention

Something similar to the quote I provide below here was said in In Karl Marx (1914, Collected Works Vol. 21), but in addition to this, Plekhanov says this too: Lenin states [that]:

“Marxism does not at all deny the role of the individual in history... Men make their own history, but... the role played by individuals or parties is circumscribed by the given level of historical development, by the objective social environment... The personal qualities of political figures... can determine the outcome in a given situation... the role of the subjective factor is ultimately decisive in human history.”

Stalin said:

“...the superstructure is not only a reflection of the base, but an active force which hastens or retards the development of the base... New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of society has set new tasks before society... They become a most potent force which facilitates the solution of the new tasks...”

And:

“...the people who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain production experience and labor skill, all these elements jointly constitute the productive forces of society... Production, therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social production.”

Plekhanov, who, although he became a revisionist later on and departed from actual original Marxism in practice, in his theories was the staunch anti-revisionist theoretical father of Russian untainted Marxism, stated the following things:

“In the second half of the ’seventies the late Kablitz wrote an article entitled, The Mind and the Senses as Factors of Progress, in which, referring to Spencer, he argued that the senses played the principal role in human progress, and that the mind played only a secondary role, and quite a subordinate one at that. [...]

Materialists began to be accused of betraying leanings towards quietism even before they had worked out their dialectical conception of Nature and of history. [...] There cannot be the slightest doubt that the materialist conception of the human will is quite compatible with the most vigorous practical activity. [...]

When we say that a certain individual regards his activities as an inevitable link in the chain of inevitable events, we mean, among other things, that for this individual, lack of free will is tantamount to incapability of inaction, and that this lack of free will is reflected in his mind as the impossibility of acting differently from the way he is acting. This is precisely the psychological mood that can be expressed in the celebrated words of Luther: ‘Here I stand, I can do no other,’ and thanks to which men display the most indomitable energy, perform the most astonishing feats.”

“A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes. [...]

Carlyle, in his book on heroes and hero-worship, calls great men ‘beginners.’ This is a very happy expression. A great man is precisely a beginner because he sees farther than others, and desires more strongly than others. He solves the scientific problems of his time, points to the new social needs created by the preceding development of social relations; he takes the initiative in satisfying these needs. He is a hero. But not in the sense that he can stop, or change, the natural course of things, but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course. Herein lies all his significance; herein lies his whole power. But this significance and this power are limited by the conditions of his epoch. [...]

The possibility — the ‘inevitability,’ if you will — of the appearance of a given individual in a given period is determined by the general and particular causes. [...] No great man can foist on society relations which no longer conform to the state of these forces, or which do not yet conform to them. [...]

Thus, the personal qualities of leading people determine the individual features of historical events, and the accidental element in the sense that we have indicated always plays some role in the course of these events, the trend of which is determined in the last analysis by so-called general causes, i.e. actually by the development of productive forces and the natural relations between men in the social process of production. [...]

[On accidents and individuals:] Individual causes cannot bring about fundamental changes in the operation of general and particular causes which, moreover, determine the trend and limits of the influence of individual causes. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that history would have had different features had the individual causes which had influenced it been replaced by other causes of the same order.”

“It never occurred to the ‘esteemed sociologist’ that the ‘factors’ point of view is alien to dialectical materialism, and that only one who is utterly incapable of thinking logically can see in it any justification of so-called quietism. [...]

Historical materialism does not dismiss the role of the individual, of personality, in history, but sees this role in its historical context.”

So we may, and accurately so, declare that Man, with the right qualities at the right conjuncture, imbued with essential social-material qualities, provide the concrete, decisive “coloring” and acceleration/retardation within objective limits set by productive forces and class relations.

Dieses ganze „Juche hat den dialektischen und historischen Materialismus für den Idealismus ausgetauscht" ist völliger Quatsch, wenn man jemals Marx, Engels, Lenin und Stalin oder Trotsky gelesen hat

In der Deutschen Ideologie (MEW Bd. 5) entwickeln Marx und Engels die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung mit dem Fokus auf die menschliche Tätigkeit:

>„Die Prämissen, von denen wir ausgehen, sind nicht willkürlich, keine Dogmen, sondern reale Prämissen, von denen Abstraktion nur in der Vorstellung möglich ist. Es sind die realen Individuen, ihre Tätigkeit und die materiellen Bedingungen, unter denen sie leben, sowohl jene, die sie vorfinden, als auch jene, die durch ihre Tätigkeit hervorgebracht werden. … Diese Geschichtsauffassung beruht auf unserer Fähigkeit, den realen Produktionsprozess, ausgehend von der materiellen Produktion des Lebens selbst, darzulegen und die mit dieser Produktionsweise verbundene und durch sie geschaffene Form des Umgangs zu begreifen. … Wie Individuen ihr Leben ausdrücken, so sind sie. Was sie sind, fällt also mit ihrer Produktion zusammen, sowohl mit dem, was sie produzieren, als auch mit der Art und Weise, wie sie produzieren. Das Wesen der Individuen hängt somit von den materiellen Bedingungen ab, die ihre Produktion bestimmen.“

Der historische Materialismus gründet also in der menschlichen Produktivtätigkeit, d. h. im Menschen, der Natur und Gesellschaft umgestaltet und zugleich von dieser, selbst umgestaltet wird.

Marx begründet dies in seinen Thesen über Feuerbach (MECW Bd. 5) weiter:

>„Der Hauptmangel des gesamten bisherigen Materialismus, einschließlich des Feuerbachschen, besteht darin, dass die Sache, die Wirklichkeit, die Sinnlichkeit nur in der Form des Objekts oder der Betrachtung, nicht aber als sinnliche menschliche Tätigkeit, Praxis, nicht subjektiv, begriffen wird. … Das Zusammentreffen von sich ändernden Umständen und menschlicher Tätigkeit oder Selbstveränderung kann nur als revolutionäre Praxis begriffen und rational verstanden werden.“

Des Anti-Jucheistens' Verständnis von Materialismus ist der von Marx kritisierte Materialismus, die Juche-orientierte, menschenzentrierte materialistische Weltanschauung ist genau jene Weltanschauung, die die sinnliche menschliche Tätigkeit, Praxis, nicht subjektiv, die sich ändernden Umstände und die menschliche Tätigkeit oder Selbstveränderung berücksichtigt.

In „Was tun?“ (1902, Gesammelte Werke, Band 5):

>„Die Geschichte aller Länder zeigt, dass die Arbeiterklasse aus eigener Kraft nur ein gewerkschaftliches Bewusstsein entwickeln kann … Die Theorie des Sozialismus hingegen entstand aus den philosophischen, historischen und ökonomischen Theorien gebildeter Vertreter der besitzenden Klassen, von Intellektuellen … Ohne revolutionäre Theorie kann es keine revolutionäre Bewegung geben.“ Lenin verdeutlicht hier die Notwendigkeit eines bewussten, organisierten menschlichen Eingreifens.

Ähnliches wie das untenstehende Zitat findet sich in „Karl Marx“ (1914, Gesammelte Werke, Band 21). Plechanow ergänzt dies: Lenin erklärt:

>„Der Marxismus leugnet keineswegs die Rolle des Einzelnen in der Geschichte … Die Menschen gestalten ihre eigene Geschichte, aber … die Rolle von Einzelpersonen oder Parteien ist durch den jeweiligen Stand der historischen Entwicklung, durch das objektive soziale Umfeld begrenzt … Die persönlichen Eigenschaften politischer Persönlichkeiten … können den Ausgang einer gegebenen Situation bestimmen … die Rolle des subjektiven Faktors ist letztlich entscheidend für die Menschheitsgeschichte.“

Stalin sagte:

>„…der Überbau ist nicht nur ein Spiegelbild des Fundaments, sondern eine aktive Kraft, die die Entwicklung des Fundaments beschleunigt oder hemmt… Neue gesellschaftliche Ideen und Theorien entstehen erst, nachdem die gesellschaftliche Entwicklung neue Aufgaben vor die Gesellschaft gestellt hat… Sie werden zu einer äußerst wirksamen Kraft, die die Lösung dieser neuen Aufgaben ermöglicht…“

Und:

>„…die Menschen, die die Produktionsmittel bedienen und dank ihrer Produktionserfahrung und ihres handwerklichen Geschicks materielle Werte produzieren, bilden zusammen die Produktivkräfte der Gesellschaft… Produktion ist daher zu jeder Zeit und unter allen Bedingungen gesellschaftliche Produktion.“

Plechanow, der, obwohl er später Revisionist wurde und sich in der Praxis vom ursprünglichen Marxismus entfernte, in seinen Theorien der standhafte, antirevisionistische theoretische Vater des unverfälschten russischen Marxismus war, äußerte sich wie folgt:

>„In der zweiten Hälfte der 1870er Jahre schrieb der verstorbene Kablitz einen Artikel mit dem Titel ‚Der Geist und die Sinne als Faktoren des Fortschritts‘, in dem er, unter Bezugnahme auf Spencer, argumentierte, dass die Sinne die Hauptrolle im menschlichen Fortschritt spielten und der Geist nur eine sekundäre, ja sogar eine untergeordnete Rolle. […] Materialisten wurden bereits beschuldigt, Neigungen zum Quietismus zu hegen, noch bevor sie ihre dialektische Natur- und Geschichtsauffassung ausgearbeitet hatten. […] Es besteht kein Zweifel daran, dass die materialistische Auffassung des menschlichen Willens durchaus mit energischster praktischer Tätigkeit vereinbar ist. […] Wenn wir sagen, dass ein Mensch seine Aktivitäten als unvermeidliches Glied in der Kette unvermeidlicher Ereignisse betrachtet, meinen wir unter anderem, dass für diesen Menschen der Mangel an freiem Willen gleichbedeutend mit Unfähigkeit ist.“ der Untätigkeit, und dass sich dieser Mangel an freiem Willen in seinem Denken als Unmöglichkeit widerspiegelt, anders zu handeln, als er es tut. Genau diese psychologische Stimmung kommt in Luthers berühmten Worten zum Ausdruck: „Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders“, und dank derer Menschen die unbezwingbarste Energie aufbringen und die erstaunlichsten Taten vollbringen.“

>"Ein großer Mann ist nicht deshalb groß, weil seine persönlichen Eigenschaften großen historischen Ereignissen individuelle Merkmale verleihen, sondern weil er Eigenschaften besitzt, die ihn am besten befähigen, den großen gesellschaftlichen Bedürfnissen seiner Zeit zu dienen, Bedürfnissen, die aus allgemeinen und besonderen Gründen entstanden sind. [...] Carlyle nennt in seinem Buch über Helden und Heldenverehrung große Männer „Anfänger“. Das ist ein sehr treffender Ausdruck. Ein großer Mann ist gerade deshalb ein Anfänger, weil er weiter sieht als andere und stärker begehrt. Er löst die wissenschaftlichen Probleme seiner Zeit, weist auf die neuen gesellschaftlichen Bedürfnisse hin, die durch die vorangegangene Entwicklung der sozialen Beziehungen entstanden sind, und ergreift die Initiative, diese Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen. Er ist ein Held. Aber nicht in dem Sinne, dass er den natürlichen Lauf der Dinge aufhalten oder verändern kann, sondern in dem Sinne, dass seine Handlungen der bewusste und freie Ausdruck dieses unvermeidlichen und unbewussten Laufs sind. Darin liegt seine ganze Bedeutung; darin liegt seine ganze Macht. Aber diese Bedeutung und diese Macht sind durch die Bedingungen seiner Epoche begrenzt. [...] Die Möglichkeit – die „Unvermeidlichkeit“, wenn Sie so wollen – des Auftretens eines bestimmten Individuums in einer Der jeweilige Zeitraum wird durch allgemeine und besondere Ursachen bestimmt. [...] Kein bedeutender Mensch kann der Gesellschaft Verhältnisse aufzwingen, die nicht mehr dem Zustand dieser Kräfte entsprechen oder ihnen noch nicht entsprechen. [...] So bestimmen die persönlichen Eigenschaften führender Persönlichkeiten die individuellen Merkmale historischer Ereignisse, und das zufällige Element spielt, wie bereits erwähnt, stets eine Rolle im Verlauf dieser Ereignisse, deren Richtung letztlich durch sogenannte allgemeine Ursachen, d. h. durch die Entwicklung der Produktivkräfte und die natürlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Menschen im gesellschaftlichen Produktionsprozess, bestimmt wird. [...]"

[Über Zufälle und Individuen:] >Individuelle Ursachen können keine grundlegenden Veränderungen im Wirken allgemeiner und besonderer Ursachen bewirken, welche zudem Richtung und Grenzen des Einflusses individueller Ursachen bestimmen. Dennoch besteht kein Zweifel daran, dass die Geschichte einen anderen Verlauf genommen hätte, wären die sie beeinflussenden individuellen Ursachen durch andere Ursachen gleicher Art ersetzt worden.

>Dem „geschätzten Soziologen“ kam nie in den Sinn, dass die Perspektive der „Faktoren“ dem dialektischen Materialismus fremd ist und dass nur jemand, der völlig unfähig zu logischem Denken ist, darin eine Rechtfertigung für den sogenannten Quietismus erkennen kann. […] Der historische Materialismus leugnet nicht die Rolle des Individuums, der Persönlichkeit, in der Geschichte, sondern betrachtet diese Rolle in ihrem historischen Kontext.

So können wir mit Fug und Recht feststellen, dass der Mensch, mit den richtigen Eigenschaften zur richtigen Zeit, ausgestattet mit wesentlichen sozial-materiellen Qualitäten, die konkrete, entscheidende „Färbung“ und Beschleunigung/Verlangsamung innerhalb der objektiven Grenzen bewirkt, die durch Produktivkräfte und Klassenverhältnisse gesetzt sind.

Man kann doch wohl erwarten, dass diejenigen, die Juche, kritische Vorwürfe machen, sich auch mit der Juche-Idee befasst haben und dementsprechend Zusammenhänge kennen, oder? Aber na gut, hier ein paar Zitate von Präsident Kim Il-sung und General Kim Jong-il:

Von Kim Jong Il, Über die Juche-Idee (Abhandlung an das Nationale Seminar zur Juche-Idee, 31. März 1982):

„Die Juche-Idee ist die kostbare Frucht der tiefgreifenden und umfassenden ideologischen und theoretischen Arbeit des Führers … Mit der Schaffung der großen Juche-Idee eröffnete der Führer der Arbeiterklasse und den Massen des Volkes einen neuen Weg zum Sieg in der Revolution und leitete eine historische Wende in der Verwirklichung des revolutionären Ziels des Volkes ein. Die Juche-Idee ist eine unveränderliche Leitidee der koreanischen Revolution und ein großes revolutionäres Banner unserer Zeit …

1. DER URSPRUNG DER JUCHE-IDEA

Eine fortschrittliche Idee spielt eine wichtige Rolle im soziohistorischen Fortschritt. Wenn die Massen von einer fortschrittlichen Idee geleitet werden, können sie Geschichte maßgeblich gestalten … Nur die revolutionären Ideen der Arbeiterklasse können die Erfordernisse der Zeit und die Bestrebungen der Massen angemessen widerspiegeln und der soziohistorischen Entwicklung einen starken Impuls geben … Die Juche-Idee entstand auf der Grundlage dieser praktischen Notwendigkeit.“ der koreanischen Revolution. Die Revolution ist ein Kampf, um dem Unabhängigkeitswunsch der Massen durch die Mobilisierung ihrer Kräfte nachzukommen. Es ist ein Kampf der Massen um ihre Befreiung… Die Pflicht der Revolutionäre ist es, sich unter die Massen, die Herren der Revolution, zu begeben, sie zu bilden, zu organisieren und zum Kampf zu inspirieren. Auch die revolutionären Kräfte sollten aus den Reihen der Massen ausgebildet werden, und alle Probleme, die im revolutionären Kampf auftreten, sollten ebenfalls durch deren Weisheit und Stärke gelöst werden… Die Revolution in jedem Land sollte von seinem eigenen Volk, den Herren, verantwortungsvoll, unabhängig und kreativ, den jeweiligen Gegebenheiten entsprechend, durchgeführt werden. Unabhängigkeit und Kreativität sind die grundlegenden Voraussetzungen einer revolutionären Bewegung, der kommunistischen Bewegung.

2. DAS PHILOSOPHISCHE PRINZIP DER JUCHE-IDEE

Der Führer machte deutlich, dass der Mensch ein soziales Wesen mit Unabhängigkeit, Kreativität und Bewusstsein ist. Der Mensch ist ein kreatives Wesen, das heißt ein schöpferisches soziales Wesen. Kreativität ist eine Eigenschaft des sozialen Menschen, der die Welt verändert und sein Schicksal zielgerichtet und bewusst gestaltet. Kraft seiner Kreativität verändert der Mensch Natur und Gesellschaft zu seinem Nutzen und Vorteil, indem er Altes verändert und Neues schafft.

Wenn wir die Revolution und den Aufbau gemäß der Juche-Idee durchführen wollen, müssen wir die kreative Methode sowohl bei der Ausarbeitung der Politik, Strategie und Taktik der Revolution als auch bei deren Umsetzung anwenden. Die kreative Methode anzuwenden, um alle Probleme, die in der Revolution und im Aufbau auftreten, den tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten entsprechend zu lösen, indem man auf die Kreativität des Volkes setzt – dies ist das Prinzip, an das man sich in der revolutionären Bewegung stets strikt halten sollte.

3. Die soziohistorischen Prinzipien der Juche-Idee

1. Die Volksmassen sind Gegenstand der Sozialgeschichte

Die Juche-Idee verdeutlichte erstmals, dass die Volksmassen Gegenstand der Geschichte sind. Sie sind Gegenstand der Sozialgeschichte und die treibende Kraft des sozialen Fortschritts. Geschichte entwickelt sich durch den Kampf der Volksmassen um Unabhängigkeit.

3. Die soziohistorische Bewegung ist eine schöpferische Bewegung der Volksmassen

Die revolutionäre Bewegung ist eine schöpferische Bewegung der Massen. Nur wenn sie an diesem Standpunkt festhalten, können die Massen ihre schöpferische Kraft voll entfalten und den Realitäten angemessene Wege und Mittel finden, um so die Revolution und den Aufbau mit Energie voranzutreiben.

4. Das Unabhängigkeitsbewusstsein des Volkes spielt die entscheidende Rolle im revolutionären Kampf

Das unabhängige ideologische Bewusstsein der Volksmassen spielt die entscheidende Rolle in der revolutionären Bewegung. Dem ideologischen Bewusstsein Vorrang vor allen anderen Aufgaben einzuräumen, ist Voraussetzung für die Revolution, die sich auf das Bewusstsein und die Begeisterung der Massen stützt.

Aus Kim Il Sungs Rede „Über die Beseitigung von Dogmatismus und Formalismus und die Etablierung der Juche-Ideologie in der ideologischen Arbeit“ (Rede vor Parteipropagandisten und Agitatoren, 28. Dezember 1955):

„Die Hauptmängel der ideologischen Arbeit sind das Versäumnis, alle Angelegenheiten gründlich zu durchdringen, und das Fehlen der Juche-Ideologie. Es mag nicht richtig sein zu sagen, dass die Juche-Ideologie fehlt, aber tatsächlich ist sie noch nicht fest etabliert… Wir sind nicht in die Revolution irgendeines anderen Landes verwickelt, sondern in die koreanische Revolution. Diese koreanische Revolution stellt die Juche-Ideologie in der ideologischen Arbeit unserer Partei dar. Daher muss die gesamte ideologische Arbeit den Interessen der koreanischen Revolution untergeordnet sein… Um in Korea eine Revolution durchzuführen, müssen wir die koreanische Geschichte und Geographie sowie die Gebräuche des koreanischen Volkes kennen. Nur dann ist es möglich, unser Volk auf eine ihm angemessene Weise zu erziehen… Es ist von größter Wichtigkeit, die Geschichte unseres Landes und den Kampf unseres Volkes zu studieren und unter den Werktätigen weithin bekannt zu machen… Nur wenn wir unser Volk erziehen…“ Nur wenn wir uns auf die Geschichte ihres eigenen Kampfes und seine Traditionen besinnen, können wir ihren Nationalstolz stärken und die breiten Massen zum revolutionären Kampf aufrütteln. … Das Fehlen der Juche-Ideologie in der Propaganda hat der Parteiarbeit großen Schaden zugefügt. … Wir sollten uns ernsthaft mit unseren eigenen Angelegenheiten auseinandersetzen und sie gründlich studieren. Andernfalls werden wir nicht in der Lage sein, die neuen Probleme, die uns in der Praxis nacheinander begegnen, kreativ und unseren tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten entsprechend zu lösen.

Aus Kim Jong Ils Rede „Lasst uns unter dem Banner des Marxismus-Leninismus und der Juche-Idee voranschreiten“ (3. Mai 1983):

„Kurz gesagt bedeutet die Juche-Idee, dass die Massen des Volkes die Herren der Revolution und des Aufbaus sind und zugleich deren treibende Kraft darstellen… Die revolutionäre Bewegung ist eine schöpferische Bewegung der Massen und erfordert daher die Aufrechterhaltung einer schöpferischen Haltung… Um diese schöpferische Haltung zu bewahren, sollte man den Grundsatz anwenden, alle Probleme den jeweiligen Gegebenheiten entsprechend mit der schöpferischen Kraft der Massen zu lösen… Das unabhängige ideologische Bewusstsein der Volksmassen spielt eine entscheidende Rolle in der revolutionären Bewegung… Die vom großen Führer, Genosse Kim Il Sung, dargelegte Juche-orientierte Haltung und die Prinzipien stimmen mit den Prinzipien der kommunistischen Bewegung und des Marxismus-Leninismus überein… Nur durch eine korrekte Anwendung des Marxismus-Leninismus aus der Perspektive der Juche können die Kommunisten ihre volle Stärke entfalten und ihren Schatz durch die Schaffung neuer revolutionärer Ideen und Theorien weiter bereichern".

Der große Fokus auf die arbeitenden Volksmassen, auf die die Juche-Idee basiert, wird häufig als antimaterialistisch und antidialektisch dargestellt, obwohl weder Marx noch Engels noch Lenin noch Stalin noch Trotski noch Kim Il-sung noch Kim Jong-il die Autonomie des arbeitenden Volkes in der Revolution und dem Aufbau dieser und dessen Rolle innerhalb der dialektischen materialistischen Weltanschauung negiert haben

Von Kim Jong-il: „Die Juche-Philosophie ist eine originelle revolutionäre Philosophie“ (Diskurs, Kulloja, 26. Juli 1996) Dies geht direkt auf Abweichungen ein, bekräftigt Prämissen des dialektischen/historischen Materialismus und des Humanzentrismus als Fortschritt und widerlegt Behauptungen über eine Abkehr von der Juche-Philosophie:

„Kürzlich wurde die Meinung geäußert, einige unserer Sozialwissenschaftler hätten bei der Erklärung der Juche-Philosophie eine falsche, der Parteilinie widersprechende Ansicht vertreten… Diese Sozialwissenschaftler versuchen immer noch, die Grundprinzipien der Juche-Philosophie aus der Perspektive des allgemeinen Entwicklungsgesetzes der materiellen Welt zu erklären, anstatt sie im Hinblick auf die Klärung des Gesetzes der sozialen Bewegung zu erläutern. Die Befürworter dieser Ansicht sagen, ihr Argument ziele darauf ab zu beweisen, dass die Juche-Philosophie auch eine Weiterentwicklung der marxistisch-materialistischen Dialektik sei. Bei der Erklärung und Verbreitung der Juche-Philosophie müssen wir die Menschen nicht davon überzeugen, dass die Juche-Philosophie eine Weiterentwicklung der marxistisch-materialistischen Dialektik ist. Es stimmt, dass unsere Partei keine…“ Der dogmatische Ansatz der marxistischen materialistischen Dialektik wurde aus der Perspektive der Juche-Philosophie analysiert, und es wurden neue Erklärungen für eine Reihe von Problemen geliefert. Allerdings bildet die Weiterentwicklung von Materialismus und Dialektik nicht den Kern der Juche-Philosophie.

Die Juche-Philosophie ist eine eigenständige Philosophie, die sich mit eigenen Prinzipien entwickelt und systematisiert hat. Ihr historischer Beitrag zur Entwicklung des philosophischen Denkens liegt nicht in der Weiterentwicklung der marxistischen materialistischen Dialektik, sondern in der Klärung neuer, den Menschen in den Mittelpunkt stellender philosophischer Prinzipien. Die marxistische Philosophie thematisierte das Verhältnis von Materie und Bewusstsein, von Sein und Denken als grundlegende Frage der Philosophie und bewies den Primat des Materiellen, den Primat des Seins. Auf dieser Grundlage verdeutlichte sie, dass die Welt aus Materie besteht und durch deren Bewegung verändert und entwickelt wird. Die Juche-Philosophie thematisierte das Verhältnis von Welt und Mensch sowie die Stellung und Rolle des Menschen in der Welt als grundlegende Frage der Philosophie und klärte die Zusammenhänge. philosophisches Prinzip, dass der Mensch der Herr über alles ist und alles entscheidet…“af5429 Über den Humanzentrismus als Teil des dialektischen Materialismus (ohne ihn aufzugeben):

„Die neue Weltsicht der Juche-Philosophie leugnet nicht die Weltsicht des dialektischen Materialismus. Die Juche-Philosophie betrachtet sie vielmehr als ihre Prämisse. Die Juche-Weltsicht, dass die Welt vom Menschen beherrscht und transformiert wird, ist ohne das materialistisch-dialektische Verständnis des Wesens der objektiven materiellen Welt und des allgemeinen Gesetzes ihrer Bewegung undenkbar. Aus der idealistischen Auffassung, die Welt sei etwas Geheimnisvolles, kann man nicht schließen, dass der Mensch die Welt beherrscht, und aus der metaphysischen Auffassung, die Welt sei unveränderlich, kann man nicht ableiten, dass der Mensch die Welt transformieren kann. Die Juche-Weltsicht, dass die Welt vom Menschen beherrscht und transformiert wird, kann nur dann begründet werden, wenn das materialistisch-dialektische Verständnis der Welt anerkannt wird, dass die Welt aus Materie besteht und sich unaufhörlich verändert und entwickelt. Trotz einiger Einschränkungen und Trotz der Unvollkommenheiten der marxistischen materialistischen Dialektik sind ihre Grundprinzipien wissenschaftlich und gültig. Deshalb sagen wir, dass die Juche-Philosophie die materialistische Dialektik als ihre Prämisse betrachtet.

Dass die Weltanschauung der materialistischen Dialektik die Prämisse der Juche-Philosophie ist, bedeutet nicht, dass die Juche-Philosophie die materialistische Dialektik lediglich geerbt und weiterentwickelt hat. Nur auf der Grundlage der wesentlichen Eigenschaften des Menschen als soziales Wesen mit Unabhängigkeit, Kreativität und Bewusstsein, wie sie von der Juche-Philosophie wissenschaftlich dargelegt werden, konnte das Grundprinzip, dass der Mensch der Herr der Welt ist und die entscheidende Rolle bei deren Umgestaltung spielt, verdeutlicht werden. Zum historischen Materialismus und zur Negation der mechanischen Verlassenheit:

Indem die Juche-Philosophie die Juche-Sichtweise der Sozialgeschichte, die Juche-Geschichtsauffassung, auf der Grundlage des menschenzentrierten philosophischen Prinzips etablierte, hat sie die Beschränkungen der vorhergehenden sozialgeschichtlichen Sichtweise überwunden. Die marxistische Philosophie etablierte die sozialgeschichtliche Sichtweise der dialektischen Der Materialismus, genauer gesagt der historische Materialismus, wendet das allgemeine Entwicklungsgesetz der materiellen Welt auf die Sozialgeschichte an. Selbstverständlich leugnen wir nicht den historischen Wert des historischen Materialismus. Er leistete einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Überwindung der reaktionären und unwissenschaftlichen soziohistorischen Sichtweise, die auf Idealismus und Metaphysik basierte. Da der Mensch in der objektiven materiellen Welt lebt und die Gesellschaft untrennbar mit der Natur verbunden ist, wirkt das allgemeine Entwicklungsgesetz der materiellen Welt auf soziale Phänomene ein. Übersieht man jedoch, dass die soziale Bewegung ihren eigenen Gesetzmäßigkeiten folgt, und wendet man das allgemeine Entwicklungsgesetz der materiellen Welt mechanisch auf soziale Phänomene an, so entsteht zwangsläufig ein einseitiges Verständnis der Sozialgeschichte.

„Die soziale Bewegung verändert und entwickelt sich nach ihren eigenen Gesetzmäßigkeiten. Sie ist die Bewegung des Menschen, der die Welt beherrscht und transformiert … Die größte Einschränkung der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung besteht darin, dass sie das spezifische Gesetz der sozialen Bewegung nicht korrekt darlegen konnte …“

Von Kim Jong-il: „Zur Juche-Philosophie“ (Sammlung, einschließlich „Zu einigen Fragen zum Verständnis der Juche-Philosophie“, 1974, und verwandter Werke)

„Die Juche-Philosophie ist eine neue Philosophie, die vom großen Führer, Genosse Kim Il Sung, begründet wurde. Sie ist eine ausgearbeitete und systematisierte Philosophie, die den Menschen in den Mittelpunkt stellt… Die Juche-Philosophie erhebt die Stellung und Rolle des Menschen in der Welt zur grundlegenden Frage der Philosophie und verdeutlicht den philosophischen Grundsatz, dass der Mensch der Herr über alles ist und über alles entscheidet.“

„Die materialistische Dialektik hat bereits festgestellt, dass die Welt aus Materie besteht, nicht aus Bewusstsein oder Ideen, und dass sie sich nach ihren eigenen Gesetzen bewegt, verändert und entwickelt… Die Juche-Philosophie beantwortete eine neue Frage: Wer ist der Herr der Welt und was ist die treibende Kraft für ihre Transformation? Sie verdeutlichte eine neue Vorstellung von der Welt, dass Natur und Gesellschaft vom Menschen beherrscht und transformiert werden…“ Weiter zum Thema Humanzentrismus innerhalb Materialismus: „Die marxistischen Klassiker begründeten die materialistische dialektische Sichtweise der Menschenfrage … Obwohl sie diese Sichtweise etablierten, lieferten sie keine vollständige Erklärung für die wesentlichen Merkmale des Menschen als Beherrscher und Gestalter von Natur und Gesellschaft. Die Juche-Philosophie machte erstmals deutlich, dass Unabhängigkeit, Kreativität und Bewusstsein die wesentlichen Merkmale des Menschen als soziales Wesen sind.“

Also, was sagen Kim Il-sung und Kim Jong-il wirklich? Sie sagen, dass der dialektische und der historische Materialismus das Fundament der Juche-Idee sind. Allerdings beantworten der klassische marxistische Materialismus und die Juche-Idee zwei verschiedene Fragen.

So I am Juche-oriented anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist and I mean this most genuinely: i don't know if an anarchist answered most of my questions

We talked with an anarchist about money under anarchistan

I said: "But what will make them different from the capitalistic type of money? Will the money be hoardable? If so, can the hoarded money be used to accumulate even more money? If not, what exactly would anarchists do to prevent such things from emerging through money? What exactly is the character of the money?"

The anarchist responded, saying: "The *mutual* character of the currency is the first obvious difference — and it is a very significant one. Currencies designed and issued by those who will use them, at their own cost, are almost certainly going to be better adapted to specific local conditions.

I'm inclined to think that "capitalistic money" isn't a particularly useful notion, since most of what maintains capitalism is property rights, exchange norms, conceptions of "profit," widespread acceptance of the fiction of the productivity of capital, etc. Existing currency is generally *governmental*, bolstered and protected by legal tender designations, subject to little or no competition and shaped by the logic of the political state. Anarchy obviously does not provide a framework for the legal tender designation or the protections it provides, so currencies may be subject to competition and will have no sanction beyond the willingness of people to make use of them. But what is arguably most important is that anarchistic property conventions are unlikely to involve "occupancy and use" as a minimal condition of resource-control and the fiction of the productivity of capital is unlikely to survive the transition from capitalism.

The exact character of the currency — or currencies — will be determined by local needs, desires and conditions. We can look at some of the old proposals or speculate about new ones, in order to work through some possibilities, but capitalism's mechanism of systemic exploitation is largely dependent on elements other than the existence of currency."

Am I just stupid and blind, or did the anarchist literally avoid answering the majority of the questions I stated?

1. CIA-Dokument: „Korea-USA-Beziehungen, 1945–1953“ (Freigegeben 2012)

> „Die Vereinigten Staaten haben seit dem Waffenstillstand von 1953 die Hauptverantwortung für die Sicherheit und die politische Entwicklung der Republik Korea übernommen. Die amerikanische Militärpräsenz, die derzeit über 28.000 Mann umfasst, ist auf 31 Stützpunkten auf der koreanischen Halbinsel stationiert, wobei sich das Hauptkommando in Camp Humphreys und auf der Osan Air Base befindet. Die Vereinigten Staaten tragen 97 % zum Verteidigungshaushalt der Republik und behalten die entscheidende Kontrolle über den koreanischen Luftraum, die Seefahrt und die Nuklearpolitik.“

—S. 12, Absatz 4.

>„Wirtschaftshilfe war ein Eckpfeiler der bilateralen Beziehungen; seit 1953 haben die Vereinigten Staaten mehr als 13 Milliarden US-Dollar an Zuschüssen, Darlehen und technischer Hilfe geleistet, was etwa 30 % der gesamten Auslandshilfe Südkoreas in den ersten beiden Jahrzehnten der Republik ausmachte.“

—S. 19, Punkt 2.

>„Der Beistandspakt (1953) etabliert eine Oberbefehlsstruktur über alle Streitkräfte, wodurch die Vereinigten Staaten das Recht behalten, einseitig in koreanische Angelegenheiten der inneren Sicherheit einzugreifen, wobei die koreanischen Streitkräfte formell der operativen Kontrolle des US-Korea-Kommandos (USFK) unterstellt sind.“

—S. 7, Absatz §3.

2. National Security Archive: „Electronic Briefing Book 84: Die Vereinigten Staaten und Korea, 1945–1970“

Quelle: National Security Archive (George Washington University), 2010.

>„In den 1960er Jahren steuerten die Vereinigten Staaten 80 % der Infrastrukturprojekte Südkoreas, darunter den Bau von Autobahnen und Häfen sowie die Entwicklung von Schwerindustriekomplexen wie dem Stahlwerk Pohang. Das koreanische Ministerium für Wirtschaftsplanung konsultierte regelmäßig die Empfehlungen des US-koreanischen Wirtschaftsbeirats, bevor es wichtige finanzpolitische Maßnahmen verabschiedete.“

—EB-84, Seite 23.

>„Das koreanisch-amerikanische Sonderabkommen zur Sicherheit (1979) kodifizierte das Präventivrecht der Vereinigten Staaten zur Stationierung von atomwaffenfähigen Streitkräften auf der koreanischen Halbinsel – eine Bedingung, die Seouls unabhängige strategische Entscheidungen faktisch einschränkt.“

—EB-84, Seite 45.

3. US-Außenministerium: „Außenbeziehungen der Vereinigten Staaten, Band XII, Korea (1950–1952)“

Quelle: Historisches Büro, FRUS (freigegeben 1999).

>„Das UN-Kommando unter US-amerikanischem Kommando übt weiterhin die volle operative Kontrolle über die Streitkräfte der Republik Korea aus. Die Vereinigten Stabschefs behalten die endgültige Entscheidungsgewalt über den Einsatz koreanischer Truppen im Ausland.“

—FRUS 12, 1951, Abschnitt II-B.

>„Wirtschaftlich gesehen haben die Vereinigten Staaten den Großteil des Wiederaufbaus Südkoreas direkt über das Koreanische Rehabilitationsprogramm finanziert. Dies entspricht etwa 85 % aller Kapitalinvestitionen von 1953 bis 1960.“

—FRUS12, 1952, Anhang A.

4. Congressional Record: Aussage von General Earle Wheeler (Vorsitzender der Vereinigten Stabschefs), 1976

Quelle: Congressional Record, Band 122, Teil 2, 15. Mai 1976, S. 3523.

>„Die Vereinigten Staaten unterhalten ein ständiges, vorgeschobenes Kommando in der Republik Korea, das die Stationierung der koreanischen Streitkräfte direkt regelt und die Nutzung des koreanischen Luftraums und der Seegebiete für gemeinsame Operationen kontrolliert. Diese Regelung ist einvernehmlich, legt aber faktisch die strategische Entscheidungsgewalt in die Hände Washingtons.“

—CR1976, S. 3523, Abs. 3.

5. „Koreanische Halbinsel: Strategischer Rahmen US-ROK“ (2002)

Quelle: CIA 2002-KOR-STRAT-FR.

„Die Vereinigten Staaten und die Republik Korea haben eine asymmetrische ‚strategische Partnerschaft‘ institutionalisiert; die Vereinigten Staaten stellen die gesamte strategische nukleare Abschreckung bereit und behalten sich gleichzeitig das Recht vor, die Präsenz ihrer Streitkräfte auf der koreanischen Halbinsel einseitig anzupassen.“

—S. 8, Zeile 12.

„Alle wichtigen Rüstungsbeschaffungsverträge der Republik werden mit dem US-Verteidigungsministerium ausgehandelt und von diesem genehmigt. Dadurch wird sichergestellt, dass die koreanischen Militärkapazitäten interoperabel bleiben und letztlich von US-amerikanischer Logistik und Technologie abhängig sind.“

—S. 14, Punkt 5.

1. CIA Document: “Korea‑U.S. Relations, 1945‑1953” (Declassified 2012)

>“The United States has assumed the principal responsibility for the security and political development of the Republic of Korea since the cease‑fire of 1953. The American military presence, now numbering over 28,000 personnel, is stationed at 31 bases across the Peninsula, with the principal command located at Camp Humphreys and Osan Air Base. The United States provides 97 % of the Republic’s defense budget and retains decisive control over Korean air‑space, maritime, and nuclear policy.”

— p. 12, paragraph 4.

>“Economic aid has been a cornerstone of the bilateral relationship; since 1953 the United States has delivered more than $13 billion in grants, loans, and technical assistance, accounting for ≈ 30 % of South Korea’s total foreign aid during the first two decades of the Republic.”

— p. 19, bullet 2.

>“The Mutual Defense Treaty (1953) establishes a command‑over‑all‑forces structure whereby the United States retains the right to unilaterally intervene in Korean internal security matters, with Korean forces formally placed under the operational control of the United States‑Korea Command (USFK).”

— p. 7, clause § 3.

2. National Security Archive: “Electronic Briefing Book 84: The United States and Korea, 1945‑1970”

Source: National Security Archive (George Washington University) 2010.

>“During the 1960s the United States directed 80 % of South Korea’s infrastructure development projects, including the construction of highways, ports, and the development of heavy‑industry complexes such as the Pohang Steelworks. The Korean Ministry of Economic Planning routinely consulted US‑Korea Economic Advisory Council recommendations before approving major fiscal policies.”

— EB‑84, page 23.

>“The Korean‑American Special Security Agreement (1979) codified the United States’ pre‑emptive right to station nuclear‑capable forces on the Peninsula, a condition that effectively limits Seoul’s independent strategic choices.”

— EB‑84, page 45.

3. US State Department: “Foreign Relations of the United States, Volume XII, Korea (1950‑1952)”

Source: Office of the Historian, FRUS (declassified 1999).

>“The United Nations Command, under United States command, continues to exercise full operational control over the Republic of Korea’s armed forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff retain final authority over the deployment of any Korean troops abroad.”

— FRUS 12, 1951, Section II‑B.

>“In economic terms, the United States has directly financed the majority of South Korea’s reconstruction through the Korean Rehabilitation Program, accounting for approximately 85 % of all capital investment from 1953‑1960.”

— FRUS 12, 1952, Annex A.

4. Congressional Record: Testimony of Gen. Earle Wheeler (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), 1976

Source: Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 2, 15 May 1976, p. 3523.

>“The United States maintains a permanent forward‑deployed command in the Republic of Korea that directly governs the disposition of Korean forces and controls the use of Korean airspace and maritime zones for combined operations. This arrangement is mutually agreed but effectively places strategic decision‑making authority in the hands of Washington.”

— CR 1976, p. 3523, para. 3.

5. “Korean Peninsula: US‑ROK Strategic Framework” (2002)

Source: CIA 2002‑KOR‑STRAT‑FR.

>“The United States and the Republic of Korea have institutionalized a ‘strategic partnership’ that is asymmetrical; the United States provides all strategic nuclear deterrence while retaining the right to unilaterally adjust the posture of its forces on the peninsula.”

— p. 8, line 12.

>“All major defense procurement contracts for the Republic are negotiated with, and approved by, the United States Department of Defense, ensuring that Korean military capabilities remain interoperable and, ultimately, dependent on US logistics and technology.”

— p. 14, bullet 5.

Modern Revisionist Theories That Distort the Essence of Socialist Ownership

Kim U’ng-ch’o’n / Kyo’ngje Yo’ngu, 2018, Volume 2

> Great Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il instructed as follows

> “Socialist ownership, which consists of state and all-people ownership and cooperative ownership, is the socioeconomic basis enabling the popular masses to occupy the position of masters of the state and society and to fulfill their role as the masters.” (Selected Works of Kim Jong Il, Enlarged Edition, Volume 17, p. 323.)

> Highly displaying the superiority of the socialist economic system and solidifying and developing socialist ownership, a gain from the revolution, in a struggle to safeguard socialism have arisen as important issues.

> The fact that production means fall under socialist ownership means the means and objects of labor, which make up the material conditions of production, are not privately owned but commonly owned by all the people, thereby resulting in all members of society occupying an equal position in the possession of production means.

> The masses of working people from the first have been the creators of production means and all material wealth. As such, they should as a matter of course be the possessors of the means of production. In the course of history’s development, however, production means have come to be privately owned, and class divisions have occurred in societies. After that, a reverse social phenomenon has occurred where the masses of working people, the creators of material wealth, were separated from the means of production, while a small number of the exploiting classes monopolistically possessed the material conditions of production. Deprived of the means of production due to the domination of private ownership, the masses of working people have become shackled by the means of production and become objects of exploitation and oppression.

> Only by becoming the masters of production means through socialist ownership do the masses of working people at last occupy the position of direct performers of economic development, as the principal subjects of history.

> In the past, the essence of socialist ownership was interpreted arbitrarily in various countries where socialism was being built. This [the arbitrary interpretation] was even reflected in party economic policies in some countries, **causing enormous harm to the revolution and the construction**.

> Representative of this was the theory about a “social ownership system” advocated by revisionists in some Eastern European countries in the early 1950s. They said the basic trait of a “social ownership system”, a form of a common ownership system where the means of production and the product are owned by all those who directly take part in labor, is that workers are personally united with the means of production and the means of production are directly and independently managed by a united group of workers. Their viewpoint on “social ownership system” is, in essence, a Right opportunist theory that negates the socialist characteristics of state ownership under the signboard of a “socialist self-governing system” and breaks it up into individual enterprise units’ ownership.

> Counterposing the interests of plants and enterprises to those of the state and society is the same as counterposing an individual’s interests to those of a social group. As such, it fundamentally contradicts the principle of socialist collectivism.

> In socialism, the state is the supreme representative of the interests of the masses of working people. As such, the popular masses’ position as the masters of production means can be guaranteed only through the thorough domination of state ownership.

> If the unit of ownership were viewed as groups in individual plants and enterprises instead of the state; if each plant and enterprise were to independently draw up a plan and carry out production activities, and if profits therefrom also were to be divided up among plants and enterprises, departmentalism and anarchy of production would prevail and undermine the unified development of the entire society. Furthermore, the popular masses’ very position as common masters of all the production means in the country will crumble, and ownership will become an empty shell.

> The opportunists’ view toward destroying state ownership while artificially counterposing all the people’s ownership to state ownership was further changed for the worse afterwards, through the “radical economic reform” theory in the former Soviet Union and various socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the “early socialism stages theory” in some countries.

> Modern revisionists and modern social democrats have babbled that state ownership turns the entire socialist economy into an “economy without an owner” due to its own characteristics of inevitably generating overconcentration of the management function, the separation of the management function from the producer masses, and departmentalism. Saying so, they presented the nonsensical theory that all-people ownership can be realized through the functions of organizations like an “all-people association,” not through the state’s economic functions.

> They also artificially divided socialism and democracy and, saying the superiority of socialism should appear in the “realization of democracy on a higher level,” claimed the “commanding-bureaucratic” functions of state ownership should be limited to the maximum even in completing the socialist ownership balance, and various types of economic models embodying the “democratic” essence of socialist possession should be developed. These viewpoints are all but deceptive sophisms of the bourgeois restorationism thought aimed at weakening the superiority of state ownership, which occupies a leading position in the socialist ownership system, under the signboard of the “democratization of the possession system” and, by degenerating socialist state ownership, demolishing the entire socialist ownership system.

Source: u/Zelenkat and Alaricus on Substack

Up until 2018, China supported sanctions against the DPRK alongside Russia (even though it possessed veto power, which it exercised, for instance, regarding decisions on Syria and Myanmar). This applies to Resolutions 1718, 1874, 2094, 2270, 2321, 2371, 2375, and 2397.

​For China, the DPRK served as an instrument to maintain the status quo on the Korean Peninsula, a market for goods, and a buffer zone against American troops. Through sanctions, China restricted the DPRK's trade opportunities, leaving it with no other choice but to depend on trade with China. Naturally, it is not in China's interest for the DPRK to be destroyed, as that would threaten its own borders; therefore, China only supported sanctions to an extent that would not lead to the complete strangulation of the country.

With the onset of the trade war between China and the US, the trajectory shifted, but China still remains a proponent of the DPRK's denuclearization. Now, thanks to the strengthening of ties between Russia and the DPRK, China also needs to present itself in a favorable light so as not to end up lagging behind in this race for influence over the DPRK. For the DPRK itself, this alignment is highly beneficial: under the conditions of China's forced monopoly on trade with the country, China could leverage its position to dictate terms and take action whenever displeased, as was seen in the aftermath of Jang Song-thaek's execution.

Well, the DPRK itself responds to the rejection of China's course with its references in speeches.

For example, Kim Jong-un's speech on May 8, 2016:

> "Despite the filthy wind of bourgeois liberty and ‘reform’ and ‘openness’ blowing in our neighborhood, we let the spirit of songun rifles fly and advanced according to the path of socialism that we had chosen"

KCNA statement dated February 23, 2017:

> ..."Neighboring country, which often claims itself to be a "friendly neighbor", is downplaying the significance of the test-fire, branding it as a "nuclear technology just at the beginning" and threatening "the DPRK will suffer the biggest loss."

>In particular, it has unhesitatingly taken inhumane steps such as totally blocking foreign trade related to the improvement of people's living standard under the plea of the UN "resolutions on sanctions" devoid of legal ground.

> It has often stated that the UN "resolutions on sanctions" should not have negative impact on the people's living. Its recent measures are, in effect, tantamount to the enemies' moves to bring down the social system in the DPRK.

> This country, styling itself a big power, is dancing to the tune of the U.S. while defending its mean behavior with such excuses that it was meant not to have a negative impact on the living of the people in the DPRK but to check its nuclear program.

> The righteous voices of the world deride it, commenting that "a big neighboring country is imposing sanctions on the DPRK to curry favor with the U.S." But the hostile forces are shouting "bravo" over this.

There is no such thing as "leftist infighting," and the argument for that is not "If you do infighting, you're not a real leftist," but rather that the struggle between various tendencies within the "left" spectrum is constituted by non-antagonistic contradictions. They are contradictions among the people that are to be resolved, and through the resolution of those non-antagonistic contradictions, movement is made possible. You can't have any progress without the resolution, and thereby, as a presupposition, the existence of non-antagonistic contradictions.

If, however, we struggle against liberals or left- or right-opportunists, we are not struggling against fellow leftists. We are struggling against, as the name implies, opportunists, who for their own benefit intentionally corrupt the revolutionary essence or otherwise deprive communism of its revolutionary essence. That is not leftist infighting. To oppose opportunism is not to oppose other leftist tendencies but rather to oppose liberal and other right-wing tendencies that are cloaking themselves as leftist.

If I conduct discourse with left-wing anarchists, I am not, per se, conducting infighting. It can turn into infighting if that discourse is turned into a set of ad hominems or is based on false premises and prejudices. Discourse per se with anarchists is not necessarily "leftist infighting," but is an expression of contradictions among people. As those are contradictions among people which are non-antagonistic in character, they are to be resolved properly and peacefully. This leads to progress in theory and practise, and as such it cannot be considered to be "infighting." Infighting is much more prevalent among the right wing, actually, for instance among right-wing libertarians and classical liberals. This is an expression of infighting.

This is something the West needs to take into consideration uniquely, as the leftist movement in the West mostly consists of ultra-left deviations such as anarchism, Trotskyism, left communism, and other ultra-left tendencies. We cannot exclude those tendencies within the revolutionary movement because they constitute a majority in the West. If we want a serious revolutionary movement, we cannot just brush those revolutionary or potentially revolutionary tendencies away, but instead we have to resolve the non-antagonistic contradictions among those tendencies.

A Liberal just said that North Korea and other AES dividing people into socio-economic classes is the same as dividing people into feudal castes, only with semantic differences, Westerners will never experience Revolution dawg

The concept of statelessness for the communists does not mean the absence of a state, as in the administrative/logistical apparatus governing political and economic processes. Statelessness in the Marxist conception means that the state, as class monopoly, withers away. The working class seizes the state, smashes it, rebuilds a proletarian state, and kills off all class distinctions, which paves the way for the state withering away. Withering away does not mean disappearing gradually. It means that the class character of the administrative apparatus fades away step-by-step, and all that remains at the end is an apparatus governing the simple processes of economic organisation of society, so it is no longer then an administrator of persons, but an administrator of things. It is nonetheless an administrator, even after the withering away of the state. An administrator still remains, but then the state is no longer an administrator of a class for a class, but an administrator of social, economic, and political processes common to the whole of society.

But the final vision of the anarchists, on the other hand, is not simply that the administrator of persons disappears, but that no administrator of anything at all exists anymore

Are my standards too high? Do I have too high standards for not wanting a country to genocide a whole people?

Also, welchen ideologischen Trend des Kommunismus, des wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus, folgt er genau? Also, ich dachte bisher eigentlich immer, er sei Marxist-Leninist gewesen. Nun nannte er sich zuletzt häufiger mal einen dogmatischen Marxist und hat sich in der Diskussion mit nem 17-Jährigen, der wohl denkt, dass China kommunistisch oder sozialistisch oder was auch immer war, über Marxist-Leninisten generell lustig gemacht. Dass die ja so oder so bekloppt seien.

Nun frage ich mich, was ist der? Ist der ein Trotzkist, ein Linkskommunist? Weil als ich angefangen habe, als ich seine ersten Videos gesehen habe, als ich angefangen habe, den zu schauen, ich war da zwar schon sehr lange ein Marxist-Leninist zu der Zeit, aber als ich angefangen habe, den zu schauen, dachte ich mir, er sei selbst auch Marxist-Leninist gewesen. Lieg ich falsch?