Nothing much has changed. They all play the game. KJI is just waiting to eat up SK. And, under Kim’s command, these men will kill SKs without thinking twice about it.

When they kick out International food relief workers and let people starve, what has really changed? It is still KJI country.

There is a risk to the outside world in trying to bring down the internal downfall of North Korea. The alternative is the status quo that leaves the chance (I think much more slim than people seem to think) of them selling a nuke or nuke grade material to someone who will use it, and the continued suffering of the North Korean people indefinately.

I also just can’t come to grips with the idea the Stalinist, or whatever terminology used, worse days are gone. Does loss of control count in that sense? Does the fact the people are increasingly more disillusioned than they were under Kim Il Sung warrant much optimism?

Not too long ago, there was a lot of optimism placed on the idea of Kim Jong Il and a group of younger technocrats were going to lead to a refashioning of the society. Now it is hope in a grass roots peaceful revolution or evolution. I haven’t seen enough to put my money on either.

I don’t like the chances fundamental change will come without a rougher collapse than what happened in the Soviet Union in large part because it seems to me the Pyongyang regime has long been much more successful in making a dictatorial state and controlling the people in large part due to its geography and size.

I still have a hard time reconciling the two sets of ideas exhibited in the article that started the thread and the one from Dec.

It was that way when reading the definition of Stalinism in the latest piece.

Of the signs of Stalinism –
“a system of mass terror”
“an extreme mobilizational model of economic growth, tied to goals of achieving military power and the political consequences thereof”
“a heterogenous value system that favored economic status and power stratification, fostered extraordinary cultural uniformity, and was tied to extreme nationalism”
“a system of personal dictatorship”

I am not a North Korea expert or read extensively the latest material on the topic, but it would suprise me if these things are no longer a characteristic of the society. With the note on the economy, since the North’s industry has deteriorated so much, it might be hard to judge, but I would think continuing the military first policy steadfastly would fall in there.

And then there was the first quote –
“??s the Gulag emptied in the late 1950s, the USSR remained a society which treated its citizens badly by Western standards, but ceased to be a society which imprisoned and killed its citizens on a uniquely massive scale.”

The gulags in the North haven’t emptied, and I’m not sure about killing the citizens in mass either considering the move to kick out NGOs. I would think we’d have to see if famine conditions return and how the regime handles it this time compared to the 1990s. (And in the CNN aired special, the people who made it said the refugees were saying starvation conditions similar to the start of the famine in the 1990s were returning).

I would guess the starvation of the 1990s and the loss of prestige that went with the death of the father Kim have altered the society much, but especially if a person had little to no knowledge of North Korea, I would think reading the article they would get the idea North Korea is a misunderstood place that isn’t so bad after all.

And one thing I was curious about — “The centrally planned economy has ceased to exist, government control over the population has been undermined to such an extent that even cross-border movements are now unmonitored.”

I haven’t heard anything like that. The only thing I can think of related to the border I’ve heard in the last few months was about the possibility of NK guards raiding a place in China and more recently the possibility of attacks on NK guard stations on the border.

I would have thought if the border with China were unmonitored, there would have been a flood of refugees drastically above what was seen in the 1990s and it would be talked about a great deal….

The short answer: long term and (hopefully) short term trends. Long term trend is the gradual erosion of the regime, but over the last year or so, since 2005 summer, they try to tighten things up. It remains to be seen if they are going to be successful or not. I hope not.

In regard to the remark “If North Korea has progressed beyond being a Stalinist state, what definition of Stalinism are we using?”. This is the question. The word “Stalinism” has been (ab)used so much that it has become nearly meaningless. But, I believe, not because it does not reflect some social phenomenon, but simply because it is used extensively and emotionally. In the article I discussed the issue breifly.

By the way, for those who read Russian: you are welcome to read a long trend in a Russian forum on contemporary Asia where they discuss whether I am a [US] State Department paid hand and how much I get from the CIA for my writings. Not a joke, you are welcome to have a look

http://polusharie.com/index.php/topic,8293.0.html

Anyway, in the unsuccessful search for that article, I ran across one I had read but did not remember — which I wish I would have, because it makes the snide comment I made here make me look like even more of a gigantic ass —- but re-reading it, it leaves me more perplexed than before…

Aid Strengthens Kims Regime
http://www.cacda.org.cn/englis.....asp?ID=125

“The recent news out of North Korea leaves no room for doubt. After a decade of grudgingly allowing small-scale free markets, Kim Jong Ils regime is seeking to reimpose total control.”

Definately not something Kim Jong Il would have wanted to pay for….

…..but how does that article mesh with this one???