Talk:Juche/Archive 1

Component?
If Juche is just a component of kimilsungism, surely kimilsungism should have its own article? Or should the wording of this sentence be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.224.14 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is in 1972 that Juche replaced Marxism-Leninism in North Korea's constitution.
In the paragraph on "Relation to Socialsim and Stalinism," there is an error in a date. The constitution of North Korea was revised in 1972, not in 1977. Thus, it is in 1972 that Juche replaced Marxism-Leninism in North Korea's constitution. It is in 1974 that Kim Jong-il, the current Leader, promulgated the thoughts of his father Kim Il-Sung as Kimilsungism. After this, the reference to Marxism-Leninism became a rare phenomenon in the country. -- Seong-Chang Cheong, 6 June 2006.


 * Juche was originally described as a "creative application of Marxism-Leninism". It is now seen as having developed beyond this.
 * This whole issue is blown out of proportion by commentators. North Korea never had a "Communist Party".  It was always the Korean Workers Party.  But similarly, Vietnam had the People's Revolutionary Party, East Germany had the Socialist Unity Party, etc.  North Korea has distanced itself from Communism as the world movement has fallen apart.  Similarly, China has adopted "socialism with Chinese characteristics", a variation which has market reforms under the aegis of Marxism-Leninism, while renouncing late Maoism.  And Cuba has downplayed Marx and Lenin, while relaunching the cult of Che Guevara and the policy of Third Worldism.
 * In conclusion: so what? Same bottle, different label.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

North Koreans pretend that the ideology of Juche is for all countries.
In the paragraph on "Juche in other countries," it is incorrect to say that North Korea now teaches that Juche is only for Koreans. The ideologists of Pyongyang have pretended until now that their doctrine has a universal meaning, especially helpful to third world countries. They cannot mention that Juche is only for Koreans because of their obligations to present Kim Jong-il in the light of an eminent politician who substantially influences world politics. -- Seong-Chang Cheong, 6 June 2006.

--Charlestustison 06:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Removed:

''The ideology was meant only for the national needs of the Korean nation and was never meant to be exported outside Korea although some people compare North Korea with Communist Romania. While Juche study groups exist in many Western countries, they are not numerous, they are often run by enthusiasts and they exist more for curious and interested people rather than actual study.''

I have read Chuche documents and north Korean statements and it is intended for everyone. It grew out of the unique circumstances in Korea, both historical and geopolitical, but it is not just for Koreans.

-- Juche; The Mao-Tao Connection
 * Yes, the Juche Tower has "foundation stones" donated by Juche study groups from around the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Surprise: Juche has been practiced since the dawn of Man
When "Juche" has it so a country relies on itself, that's on a small scale.

Obviously, all people in the world are human, and obviously yet again, we've been relying on each other for many eras. The human race has in fact been "self-reliant" because after all, there obviously hasn't been any extraterrestrials to rely on.

Thus, when Juche is practiced on a worldwide scale, as it has been since humans existed, it often produces more positive results. Just see for yourself the prosperity of many parts of the rest of the world. --Shultz 02:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Shultz, I'm not sure whether you are actually proposing that the article needs to be changed in some way to reflect the statements you've made here. I'll just point out though that Juche, as it is practised in North Korea, is an ideology which goes far beyond the idea of self-reliance. It carries a whole set of dogmas and practises, only some of which are mentioned in the article so far. So your statements, which seem to treat it merely as a belief in self-reliance seem to be a misapprehension or over-simplification of this. --Alexxx1 09:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Think of this: Where did they get their oil from? How did they do so well up 'til the early '90s? They relied on the Soviet Union, plus the rest of the Communist Bloc. After they fell, we started to hear a lot of bad news about North Korea. They were never self-reliant, even to this day, though they seem to be more so than before, albeit not completely, and at great cost! --Shultz 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree absolutely. We can probably make a distinction between juche as a political ideology, which has been incredibly successful at maintaining the North Korean regime in power, and juche as an economic approach, which has been incredibly unsuccessful at providing economic growth in the DPRK. The article needs to address the second aspect of juchhe a little more I think. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 22:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Juche is self-reliance, not total autarky. The DPRK accepted Soviet aid, and Chinese aid, both military and economic, but tried to wean itself off this dependence. This included using on homegrown electric power from coal-fired power stations and hydro-electric dams rather than petroleum, and using trains, trams, and trolley buses rather than motor vehicles. However, it did not totally eliminate the use of petroleum. It bought crude oil from the USSR and processed it in its own refinery. It had its own petrochemical industry, producing its own chemical fertilisers, synthetic fabrics, etc, as well as petrol. It has recently signed contracts to buy crude oil from Iran and Mongolia, indicating that it intends to restart its refinery. These are trade deals. In the case of Iran, it will exchange copper for the oil. In the case of Mongolia, it will return some refined oil in part payment. It had attempted to have a trade relationship with the USSR, but this obviously ended in 1991. Its current relationship with China is essentially one of trade, not aid, with the DPRK mainly exporting minerals such as coal and receiving petrol and machines. It is also attempting ventures such as tourism (particularly aimed at the Chinese market), mining concessions in Africa, the arms trade, and commercial satellite launches. None of this violates the spirit of Juche. As the original post says, there is nothing particularly new about self-reliance. Kim Il Sung, like Tito and Mao, was merely indicating his unwillingness to run a Soviet satellite. It was only as the world Communist movement fell apart that this idea was trumpeted as a grand theory. As it is, most North Korean rhetoric and theory is standard Stalinism. Juche itself is rather like "Socialism in One Country".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

 * The Juche Idea (pronounced /tʃutʃʰe/ in Korean, approximately "joo-cheh")

The main reason I disagree with transcriptions based on English spelling is because local English dialects pronounce the same thing in different ways. And in here, "joo" is a *very* rough approximation of "tʃu". bogdan 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In this case, however, the pronunciation of "joo-cheh", will not vary much in different dialects because those sounds in particular are not that variable. There are of course some articulatory differences and the resulting pronunciation will be closer in some dialects to the Korean than in others. Also, given partial initial devoicing in English, initial "j" is actually quite close to the Korean. For an English speaker who just wants to know approximately how to pronounce this word, "joo-cheh" is not that far off, and is infinitely more useful than /tʃutʃʰe/. Given that there is the IPA available for those who care about the exact phonetic details, it's not clear that there is any harm in keeping the approximate pronunciation guide. The spelling "juche" fits the model for French, Spanish, and German words, and someone might attempt a French model and say "zhoosh" or a Spanish model and say "hoo-cheh" or a German model and say "yoo-khuh". Certainly people who attempt "joo-cheh" will be a lot closer than someone who knows no IPA and tries to read it as foreign word using the model of these languages, which is something people often do when attempting to pronounce unfamiliar but distinctly "foreign" words. Nohat 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If we should have a laymans pronunciation it could be a lot closer to the actual transcription. I'd propose: "Choo-che" - Joo is read as a voiced affricate by english speakers whereas the IPA transcription given clearly shows the voiceless affricate written "ch" in english.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree 100% with Nohat and Mannus. On a related note, I just now undid a revision that approximated the pronunciation as "chuchkhe."  No joke. I also put in "Approximately joo-cheh" by pronunciation. Vedek Wren (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to point out that Juche rhymes with douche?
Hssssssssssss...HSSSSSSSS.

65.97.14.187 00:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because it doesn't. Nohat 00:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My Korean teacher pronounces juche as JOO-CHAY. --Uncle Ed 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Association with "Communist Vandal"
I recently removed the following sentence from the Pee disambiguation page: "This is evidence that the word 'Juche' means 'lousy taste'." Is this consistent enough with the Communist Vandal to file a complaint? --ISNorden 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uninformed Changes
There are uninformed changes to this entry. The opening previously said: "The core of Juche is that the masters of the North Korean revolution are the Workers' Party of Korea and the Korean people, who must remake themselves, under its leadership." This definition is derived from Baik Bong's Kim Il Sung 3 vols (Miraisha, 1969-1970). That work is an official biography. But now the opening has been replaced with a slogan from the KCNA headlines: "The core of Juche is that 'man is the master of his own destiny.'"

Further changes include saying that Juche is known "outside North Korea" as Kimilsungism. Before it said Juche is "also" known as Kimilsungism. Kim Jong Il coined the term "Kimilsungism" in his 1976 speech "On Correctly Understanding the Originality of Kimilsungism." The following sentence in "Relation to Socialism, Stalinism and Maoism" has been removed: "North Korea indeed upholds Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country". Stalin founded this theory in 1924 and Kim Il Sung defended the content of it in his 1955 Juche speech.

That speech was made during the initial period of Soviet de-Stalinization. But North Korea, after the devastation of the Korean War, could not afford to lose the Soviet Union as an economic benefactor. So, the open adulation of Stalin, common in the 1940s and 1950s, ended. North Korea held onto Stalin's economic program, however. This is why it refused to join COMECON. Kim Jong Il defended the theory of "socialism in one country" in his 1997 speech "On Preserving the Juche Character and National Character of the Revolution and Construction".

Other paragraphs of this same section have been changed. -- Samuel Kozulin, 1 September 2006

Re: Uninformed Changes
I have updated this entry. -- Samuel Kozulin, 10 September 2006

..........

I note that I have added Joseph Stalin to the list of Marx, Engels and Lenin as people who Korea recognizes as good Socialists in the Pre-Juche era. I do this based on the book "Respecting the forerunners of the revolution is a noble moral obligation of revolutionaries" by Kim Jong Il in 1996, where he mentions Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin as all having distinguished service for the revolution and an entire paragraph is devoted to their accomplishments.

..........

Please sign and date your note. Reference to Stalin has been removed from the last paragraph of the section "Relation to Socialism, Stalinism and Maoism." North Korean appreciation of him is dealt with in the second paragraph. The last paragraph concerns the three early classical Marxists. Stalin is not a "classical" Marxist. From 1924 to 1953, he either endorsed or introduced the following neologisms and policies: Marxism-Leninism, monolithic party, people's democracy, socialism in one country, socialist realism, theory of encirclement and so forth. -- Samuel kozulin 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

On Weasel Words
A Wikipedia user removed the term "so-called" from the sentence, "In 1972, Juche replaced so-called Marxism-Leninism [. . .]," because "so-called" is claimed to be a weasel word. Neither the said Wikipedia entry nor the Manual of Style list "so-called" as a weasel word. Here "so-called" places emphasis on the relative character of the term and policies of Marxism-Leninism. This phrase was popularized by Stalin after V. I. Lenin died in 1924. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism was designed so as to put national interests first, that is to say, Soviet national interests, according to Stalin's theory of socialism in one country.

After World War II, those countries that appropriated Marxism-Leninism in their own national interests were Yugoslavia and China. Albania, North Korea, and Romania fell into that category after Stalin died in 1953 and after Soviet de-Stalinization began in 1956. The façade of consensus around so-called Marxism-Leninism exploded in the 1950s and '60s. See for example Mao Zedong's 1964 essay titled “On Khrushchov’s Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World”. Also see the Wikipedia entry on Marxism-Leninism. Would the Wikipedian who made the aforesaid omission please comment? -- Samuel kozulin 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Juche Calendar
The following passage from the section titled “Juche Calendar” has been removed: “though North Korea is unique in basing the calendar on the birth of an individual rather than a political event.” No, that is incorrect. The personalized Gregorian calendar, which is already referred to in the same section, is based on the birth of Jesus Christ.

The distinction “birth of an individual” versus “political event” is also incorrect. North Korean historiography interprets the birth of Kim Il Sung as a major political event. That sounds teleological, even religious, but that is how it is. Juche chronology does not separate the individual from the political. Such a division is conceptually false here.

To comment further on another point in the entry, the Juche calendar does not have a “Year 0” and is also like the Gregorian calendar this respect. Designation of a 0 year is a more Eastern phenomenon, however. Democratic Kampuchea (now Cambodia) under the leadership of Pol Pot did declare a “Year 0,” but that dating system was not birth-based.

Some brief additions and sources regarding North Korea, Democratic Kampuchea, and the Juche ideological doctrine will be made to this entry shortly. –- Samuel kozulin 14:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

..........

Brief updates made concerning North Korea and Kampuchea in the section titled "Juche in Other Countries" and in the bibliography. -- Samuel kozulin 10:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Juche Calendar is really an affectation. It is used in parallel with the Gregorian Calendar, i.e. "Juche 102 (2013)".  The concept of a Year Zero is not "Eastern"; it's just illogical.  The first year, in this case 1912, is simply called Year 1.  Incidentally, it is English-speakers (and possibly Westerners) who think of it the other way round when it comes to birthdays.  The first birthday for the Chinese (and I suspect the Koreans) is the day of birth, hence the next year, the child is two years old, having entered they're second year.  By an English-speaker's reckoning, Kim Il Sung would only be 101 this year...  If you used this method for reckoning dates, you would indeed need a Year Zero, but I don't think anyone has seriously done this because it's plain stupid in any culture.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PS Many countries have used regnal years (i.e., it's used frequently in the Bible), and Britain has historically used the reigning monarchs for cataloguing its laws.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions in definition
I'd like to see some more criticism of the concept. Juche mandates absolute loyalty from citizens to government, which is standard in Communist countries. But it also claims to respect the "independence" of the people in thought and politics. Isn't this a contradiction? How can people be simultaneously loyal and independent?
 * Is this my own idea (original research), or have published authors commented on this?


 * According to KJI's commentary, the people must be loyal to the revolutionary leader and independent of other countries. Gazpacho

Likewise, if government policy "reflects the will and aspirations of the masses" how can it also force them to engage in "revolution"? What if the masses don't want to support the Communist revolution imposed on them by the dictatorial government? What if they want instead freedom of speech and (as above) freedom of thought; freedom of religion; and economic freedom (like the right to own their own farm and grow their own food)?
 * Again, is this my own idea (original research), or have published authors commented on this?

I need some help with this. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? Nobody said that Juche policy was based on honesty. Nobody except our friend Bjornar, that is. Gazpacho 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It means maintaining the revolution by the people against reactionaries, restorationists, capitalists, imperialists, foreign interventionists, and those who would seek to engage in retrogression and degeneration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.64.42 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nation and Individual in Juche
These arguments would be appropriate under the “Criticism” section. But you will have to find some substantiation in the available literature (Eberstadt, McCormack, Oh and Hassig, Scalapino and Lee, etc.). Some of these books should be in your community or university library. However, to address some of the points you raise in brief, the concept of independence (chajusong) in the Juche ideology is understood in national and nationalistic terms, not individual or individualistic terms. Reference in North Korean sources to people/masses should be read as nation/state.

The Juche doctrinal system operates within a politically organicist conceptual framework. The people/nation is seen as a blood-based, kinship community, whose needs as a whole are greater than the needs of the part. Kim Jong-il confirms and advances this view in the 1997 speech mentioned earlier. Since North Korea is a Stalinist state originally based on the pre-1956 Soviet model, these organicist conceptions are also bound up with Stalin’s nationalist economic program of “socialism in one country” and the characteristic totalitarian interpretation of the socialist principle of collectivism.

Discussion on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and economic freedom in North Korea should consider this political background. Do note as well that since the centralized Stalinist economy in the country collapsed in the 1990s, there has been a major rise of small businesses in the past fifteen years. The North Korean state has also been implementing capitalist reforms in the country since 1998. The July 2002 price and wage reforms have already received a lot of attention. North Korea, in other words, is a society in transition to another kind of political and economic system.

Some Chinese and Russian scholars (at the moment two Russian experts who come to mind are Leonid Petrov and Alexander Voronstov) have said that North Korea is moving in the direction of an authoritarian capitalism comparable to the Park Chung-hee military dictatorship in South Korea in the 1960s and 1970s. Now that the North Korean Songun (army-first) policy rejects the role of the “working class” as an independent force -- the power base of the North Korean leadership has always been the army -- Kim Jong-il makes favorable remarks about Park Chung-hee. -- Samuel kozulin 10:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryugyong Hotel Project
Reference to the Ryugyong Hotel Project as the "best exemplified" expression of the Juche ideology has been removed from the opening of the Juche entry. First off, this is a conjectural statement. Secondly, whether by accident or design, it sounds sarcastic since the hotel is a failed project that is unfinished and cannot be finished.

Mention of the hotel itself should go under the section titled "Practical Application" of Juche ideology. There are four implied thematic subsections in that part of the entry: (1) policy, (2) history, (3) economics, (4) religion. A fifth subsection can focus on architectural projects and list the Arch of Triumph, Juche Tower, Ryugyong Hotel, etc.

Alternatively, there can be a section titled "Juche in the Arts" or something like that, which brings some focus to architecture, cinema, literature, opera, painting, posters, and sculpture produced under the North Korean state ideology. Ever since the revised constitution of 1972, mention has been made to a state-sanctioned "Juche art" in North Korea. -- Samuel kozulin 10:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's particularly relevant. If the hotel is finished, which seems to be likely and soon, will this reference vanish?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Kim Il Sung's thought and Sun Myung Moon's thought
I just noticed something I overlooked before. The Korean word 주체 (subject) is also used in the Divine Principle and Unification Thought of the Rev. Moon's Unification Church. I wonder if Kim's focus on the subject's dominance can be contrasted with Moon's harmony of subject and object. --Uncle Ed 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

..........

See response below. -- Samuel kozulin 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Juche
Such a contrast could be made. But the word "Juche" has existed in Korean long before 1955. The word is of Chinese origin, forms of it appear in pre-modern Confucian texts, and it can mean agent, autonomy, core, divine principle, identity, main body, main constituent, main part, nucleus, self-reliance, son of heaven, subject, theme, topic, etc.


 * Chinese: 主體 or 主体 (zhǔ tǐ)
 * Japanese: 主體 or 主体 (shutai)
 * Korean: 主體 or 주체 (chuch’e)

Japanese nationalists in the 1920s used this word, as well as Korean nationalists (e.g., Sin Ch'aeho and Paek Nam'un) in the colonial period. Chinese and Japanese Marxists and pseudo-Marxists also used the characters 主體 to mean "subject" as in Karl Marx's sense of the politically conscious international working class who stands as the subject of history.

When Kim Il-sung used "Juche" in the 1955 speech, it appeared in the context of defining the programmatic subject or topic of North Korean Stalinist politics and ideology, namely, the "Korean revolution" versus Soviet de-Stalinization. North Korean dictionaries in the 1950s also defined Juche as a straightforward translation of the Soviet word sub’ekt.

Use of the phrase 주체사상 (Juche Sasang) "Juche Idea" or "self-reliance ideology" did not appear in North Korea until 1962, when it was being systemized by WPK ideologists. But even South Koreans were using "Juche." After Park Chung-hee seized power in 1961, he used the slogan in line with his authoritarian-capitalist military policies.

Some South Korean phrases that use "Juche" are 주체의식 (chuch’e ŭishik): sense of independence and sovereignty; 국민 주체의식 (kungmin chuch’e ŭishik): sense of national identity; and 국민 주체성 (kungmin chuch’e sŏng): national identity. The first two mean something like "identity consciousness" and "national identity consciousness."

The word "Juche" has also been adapted in contemporary South Korean martial arts terminology and is the name of an ITF Taekwondo poomse (martial arts form or pattern) developed by South Korean army General Choi Hong Hi. A brief definition of this particular Taekwondo form can be found under the Wikipedia entry titled Hyung.

In contrasting Rev. Sun Myung Moon's "Juche," you might want to bring up Kim's Presbyterian Christian background and his Sunday school teaching in the 1920s. The element of faith in Juche may have some additional roots in Kim's religious upbringing. But also mention Moon's anti-communism and his business transactions with North Korea in the early 1990s. -- Samuel kozulin 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

..........


 * Good gosh, how did you become so knowledegable about all this? --Uncle Ed 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

..........

North Korean Studies is just a specialized discipline. Related information can be found in scholarly publications (books and journals) and North Korean primary sources, which are usually confined to a small readership. -- Samuel kozulin 13:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the etymology section of the article needs improvement and clarification. I'm not a language expert, but I don't have much confidence in what is there at present.
 * As far as I can see, Juche means "master body" or something like that.
 * The use of the Chinese character "che" in other contexts seems irrelevant.
 * "Juche" seems a fair translation for "subject" (as opposed to object), but the article fails to explain why Kim Il Sung and his followers seized on that.
 * I fail to see how "subject" is a particularly Marxist term. The Wikipedia article hardly mentions Marx.  It seems similar to the concept of a "class-for-itself", but I'm not aware of Marx or Marxists making great use of the term "subject".  Nor does it seem to be an overriding concept in Marxism.  Does anyone have a reference for this?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

North Korea and COMECON
In "Relation to Socialism, Stalinism, and Maoism," a Wikipedia user changed the sentence "The regime, however, refused to reform its orthodox Stalinist economy and join COMECON" to "The regime, however, refused to change the 'one country' nature of its economy and join the Communinst economic union COMECON." This eliminates brief, but important, technical and historical information and is misleading.

First of all, the standard full version of COMECON in English is "Council for Mutual Economic Assistance." Secondly, after COMECON was established in 1949, the Stalinist Soviet Union was still pursuing the utopian perspective of "socialism in one country," now with COMECON member states under its economic control. These virtual Soviet colonies were needed in face of the war-torn Soviet economy and other changes in the world-political situation after WWII.

North Korea received observer status in COMECON in 1957. But as some of the most pertinacious students of pre-COMECON and pre-1956 (orthodox) Stalinism, the North Koreans knew that integration in COMECON would lead to economic and political dependence on the Soviet Union. For them, this also did not square with Stalin's original formulation of "socialism in one country," a self-reliant national state based on the home market as an independent economic unit.

Soviet "de-Stalinization" (bureaucratic self-reform) and Khrushchev's policy of "peaceful coexistence" were also factors in North Korea retaining its economic policy on orthodox Stalinist lines. In 1963, the North Koreans even suggested that the COMECON setup and division of labor was a form of "economic enslavement" that would throw their national economy off balance, as certain production sectors would be developed at the expense of others to benefit the foreign economy of the Soviet Union.

North Korea was also an ex-colonial country that experienced "economic enslavement" when the Japanese Empire colonized the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945 and exploited its natural resources and human labor. This also factored into the North Korean rejection of Soviet plans for its economic integration into COMECON and to the indirectly stated denunciation of this trading system as comparable to colonial "relations between countries in the capitalist world."

The above passage that was altered has been reverted to the original with a few additions: "The regime, however, refused to follow the example of Soviet political reform or to abandon its pre-1956 orthodox Stalinist economic program by joining the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON)." Would the Wikipedia user who made the original change please comment to assist with further clarification? -- Samuel kozulin 07:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the link to Brian Reynolds Myers?
It seems very tangentially related -- will we link to all other professors who've written about North Korea?-- Sliderule, 15 October 2006

..........

Please sign and date your note. A look at the history reveals that Wikipedia user Billypilgrim45 added that link on 22 July 2006. A Wikipedia "deletionist" named Impaciente removed a number of paragraphs in the Brian Reynolds Myers entry on 9 October, including one which referred to Myers' documented work and polemics in North Korean Studies. I will try to correct this problem later. While Brian Myers is not the most prominent name in Korean Studies, some of his contributions have been acknowledged by Andrei Lankov (Crisis in North Korea) and Balazs Szalontai (Kim Il Sung in the Khruschev Era), for example. Myers published an essay on the 1955 "Juche Speech" in the January 2006 issue of Acta Koreana journal. Perhaps that is why his name was linked. That paper attempts to make the argument that the speech is not nationalist. The nationalism of Juche has been the consensus in North Korean Studies for the past forty years. North Korean sources even say that Juche is programatically nationalist. What do you suggest about the link? -- Samuel kozulin 09:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Maoism
I have been on academic research leave over the past few months and unable to contribute to the Wikipedia Juche entry. Other users have made several edits, omissions, and revisions to the article and more can surely be expected in the future. Meanwhile, I would like to comment on some changes in the section formerly named “Relation to Socialism, Stalinism and Maoism.” Wikipedians are encouraged to make reasonable alterations and corrections, but some technical and specific information was removed.

Oct 2006 Edit

''The goal of revolution and construction under Juche is the establishment of socialism and communism within the national borders of North Korea; however, North Korean ideologists have argued that other countries should learn from Juche and adapt its principles to their national conditions. The North Korean government admits that Juche addresses questions previously considered in classical Marxism, but distances itself from and even repudiates aspects of this political philosophy. The official position is that Juche is a completely new ideology created by Kim Il-sung, who does not depend on the Marxist classics.''

[ . . .]

''While advocating that Juche is tailored to the national peculiarities of North Korea, as opposed to conforming to the premises of classical Marxist international socialism (e.g., the workers of the world have no nation), the North Korean government does make some reference to the pre-Stalin internationalists Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and Vladimir Lenin as creditable leaders of the socialist movement in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries before the advent of Juche. But the writings of classical Marxism are generally forbidden for lay readers in North Korea.''

Feb 2007 Edit

''Although Juche has replaced Marxism as the government ideology of North Korea, some Marxist terms are still in use. For example, North Korean leaders sometimes still describe their vision for the country's development by using words such as "socialism" and "communism". The North Korean government admits that Juche addresses questions previously considered in classical Marxism, but distances itself from and even repudiates aspects of this political philosophy. The official position is that Juche is a completely new ideology created by Kim Il-sung, who does not depend on the Marxist classics. North Korean ideologists have argued that other countries should learn from Juche and adapt its principles to their national conditions.''

[. . .]

''While advocating that Juche is tailored to the national peculiarities of North Korea, as opposed to conforming to the premises of classical Marxist international socialism (e.g., that the workers of the world should unite), the North Korean government does make some reference to the internationalists Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin as creditable leaders of the socialist movement in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries before the advent of Juche. But the writings of classical Marxism are generally forbidden for lay readers in North Korea.''

First of all and fundamentally, Marxism was never the “government ideology” of North Korea. The North Korean constitution explicitly used the phrase “Marxism-Leninism” until 1998. Before all references to Marxism-Leninism were omitted, Juche was spelled out as a “creative” application of M-L in the 1972 constitution. As for the deleted opening sentence from the past edit, the first half is actually a summary of the programmatic outlook in Kim Il-sung’s “On the Questions of the Period of Transition from Capitalism to Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (1967) and Kim Jong-il’s “On Preserving the Juche Character and National Character of the Revolution and Construction” (1997). This is nothing less than the national Stalinist policy of socialism in one country.

About the following paragraph, it is absolutely necessary that the nineteenth-century “classical Marxist premise (e.g., the workers of the world have no nation)” be retained and not simply replaced with “the workers of the world should unite.” (Since these complement each other, they should be listed together.) That premise is stated in Marx and Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party, and it is also taken up in Lenin’s The State and Revolution. But as some of the most committed students of Stalin and his nationalist theory of socialism in one country, the North Korean leaders totally reject the proposition that the working class has no nation. Juche maintains that the Korean nation-state will remain forever and that Koreans will always live in Korea and speak Korean. Kim Jong-il even says in the 1997 work that Koreans are a blood-based national community.

Regarding the phrase “pre-Stalin internationalists” in the past edit and the inclusion of Marx, Engels, and Lenin in that category, this is fine just the way it is. Stalin, whether he is seen as a betrayer, innovator, or mass murderer, introduced a so obviously nationalist component to classical Marxism with his 1924 doctrine of socialism in one country that he cannot be included in the list of the classical internationalists. There are also the neologisms and policies that came with his theory: Marxism-Leninism, monolithic party, people's democracy, socialist patriotism, socialist realism, theory of encirclement, etc. One excellent study about the nationalist orientation of Stalinism is David Brandenberger’s National Bolshevism (Harvard University Press, 2002).

Because of certain ambiguities in the abovementioned edits, I have included some additional information and also cited the Kims’ works for necessary substantiation. Seeing that the matter regarding Stalin may be contentious for some editors and users and considering that another Wikipedean made an earlier case for his inclusion in the last paragraph (see previous discussion titled “Re: Uninformed Changes”), I have made the appropriate changes in content to accommodate the name. -- Samuel kozulin 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work on all this. -- Vision Thing -- 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Juche in Other Countries
On December 2, 2006, anonymous Wikipedia user 24.17.110.207 deleted the following passage from the section titled "Juche in Other Countries". ''Another possible application of Juche outside North Korea is in the case of the Pol Pot regime in Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia). North Korea and Kampuchea were close allies and Kim Il-sung had promised in 1975 to send aid experts and technicians to help with agricultural and hydroelectric projects in the country. Pol Pot may have based his policy of ethnic and ideological purity in Kampuchea on the Juche doctrine. North Korea has no national minority policy. This stands in contrast to the existence of minority policies in the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, and China.'' In the page history, the anonymous user claims "no source." Actually, the sources consulted have been in the "References" section all along. The books are Ben Kiernan's The Pol Pot Regime (Yale, 2002) and Philip Short's Pol Pot (Henry Holt, 2004). The passage has been reinserted. -- Samuel kozulin 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * there's a small party in Germany that embraces Juche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.235.96 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Baik Bong on Juche and WPK
As of February 11, 2007, the fourth sentence in the introduction of the Juche entry read: “The official biography Kim Il Sung by Baik Bong had previously described this as saying that the masters of the North Korean revolution are the Korean people, who must remake themselves under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea” (edit made 29 Dec 2006). Before, the passage said: “The official biography Kim Il Sung by Baik Bong had previously described this as saying that the masters of the North Korean revolution are the Workers' Party of Korea and the Korean people, who must remake themselves, under its leadership” (edit made 10 Sep 2006).

The former change is misleading and deserves comment. The Baik Bong work makes several statements in contradiction to it. But the recent-past edit only accepts what Baik says in volume one of the biography: “The masters of the Korean revolution are the Korean people themselves and [. . .] only the Korean people can accomplish the revolution” (p. 132). A close reading of that volume, however, informs the reader that the WPK is the real authority in matters of “revolution” and “construction” in North Korea, however one interprets these heavily politicized phrases. This is what Baik eventually goes on to say in the subsequent volumes of the official Kim Il Sung biography:


 * “The destiny of the entire Korean people and the ultimate victory of the Korea revolution depend entirely on the leadership of the Party” (vol. 2, p. 157).


 * “The Juche idea [. . .] teaches that the masters of revolution of each country are its communists and its people, and that accordingly, only when the communists take a firm stand as masters of the revolution and construction of their country, with full faith in the people [. . .] can they carry the revolutionary cause to victory” (vol. 3, p. 437).

Emphasis has been added. But what is clear in these passages is that “the people” play second fiddle in the propositions of the Juche ideology. Fundamentally, the WPK elite come first in matters of government and state. They are the real masters of the universe in North Korea. We should note that Baik Bong is writing in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1990s, the military has come to supersede the authority of the WPK in the Pyongyang regime. I reverted the fourth sentence in the introduction to the original with minor modifications. -- Samuel kozulin 13:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

..........

Wikipedia user El C briefly reverted edit to the Dec 2006 version. This was corrected in accordance with the above. -- Samuel kozulin 14:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was by accident. El_C 14:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hereditary Monarchy
Monarchism only gets a brief mention but surely the inherited leadership is something highly unusual amongst so called Communist societies. --MacRusgail 04:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

..........

North Korea is not a monarchy nor is it a constitutional monarchy. The regime, however, is not a genuine republic either. North Korea is an absolutist Stalinist state whose political heritage goes back to the Soviet 1930s and 1940s.

Presidential status was assigned to Kim Il-sung with the revised 1972 Constitution, and the regime effectively became a sort of presidential dictatorship. But since the mid-1990s, North Korea has been an outright military dictatorship.

While the cult of personality, ultra-nationalism, and totalitarian Juche state doctrine are resonant with political religion, divine right is not used to legitimate the dictatorship of the late Kim Il-sung or Kim Jong-il.

Hereditary succession is one of the ways the North Korean state bureaucracy sought to secure continuity of power and avoid the sort of political changes that occurred in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao died.

Of course, in so doing, the bureaucracy cultivated exaggerations, legends, and myths about the Kim family. Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il were never bashful about this personality cult and mandated it as a metanarrative.

There is nothing unusual for dictatorial regimes to place power in a ruling family, but that does not mean such regimes are monarchies. Take, for instance, the family dictatorship in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

North Korea is no exception to the rule, despite the fact that it has a number of tempting peculiarities which have allowed some scholars, such as Dae-Sook Suh and Han S. Park, to liken it to a monarchical or a theocratic state.

As for the term “communist societies,” such a society has never existed. North Korea aspires to it within nation-state borders and only claims to have reached the stage of socialism, in the Stalinist interpretation. -- Samuel kozulin 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Relation to Maoism
Wikipedia user Colipon made some changes on March 22, 2007, that should be discussed. The first of these is the change of the section title “Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Maoism” to “Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Chinese Communism.”

The content of this section was meant to deal, where necessary, with how the ideas of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong relate to Juche doctrine. Hence use of the terms Stalinism and Maoism. The new phrase, Chinese Communism, is too vague.

The change seems to have been made to accommodate Colipon’s two recently included paragraphs about Mao’s political rival, Deng Xiaoping, and China-North Korea relations in the post-Mao period. The paragraphs are as follows:

''Deng Xiaoping introduced the so-called socialism with Chinese characteristics in 1978. The ideology allowed for economic openness and the development of a private sector within a ideologically socialist framework, and has been adopted in part by communist states such as Vietnam. North Korea, however, refused to follow the Chinese example with opening up the economy, and has roughly categorized Deng's ideas as modern revisionism, or a betrayal of communism. In 1994, North Korea's government attempted an experiment with a Special Economic Zone on the border with China named Rajin-Sonbong Economic Special Zone, carving out a small area where foreign investment is encouraged and foreign currency can circulate. The location of the SEZ, amongst other factors, has resulted in the SEZ receiving little attention from foreign investors. Kim Jung-Il's recent actions has seen a noticeable retreat from economic openness policies.''

The second paragraph appears under the “Criticism” section:

''In the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, countries that have both moved away from the personality-dominated autocratic institutions of state, Juche is characterized as a ridiculous idea, often the subject of satire. In China, especially, where it is common knowledge that North Korea continues to ignore the contributions of the People's Liberation Army in the Korean War, Juche is seen as a post-Maoist extreme that propels the Korean dictator to a god-like status.''

I do not believe the above stand very well in their present form. In addition, Maoism, or, as it is officially called, Mao Zedong Thought, is still a recognized doctrine in China, and mention of it should be retained in the respective section title.

Juche is indebted to the ideas of Mao Zedong. Kim Il Sung was a member of the CCP in the 1930s; the Chinese Army occupied North Korea from 1950-58; North Korea emulated the Great Leap Forward and the Mass Line (qunzhong luxian); and North Korea leaned towards China during the Sino-Soviet split.

I therefore propose the following emendations:


 * The section title “Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Chinese Communism” should be reverted to the original, “Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Maoism.”


 * The first paragraph above should make specific reference to the relationship between Juche ideology, Maoism, and the tactical orientation of Deng Xiaoping Theory.


 * The second paragraph, even if correct, seems to suffer from a POV problem and can be rephrased. Citations may also be helpful in this particular case.

Would Wikipedia user Colipon care to comment? -- Samuel kozulin 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

..........

First of all, I am impartial on both Maoist and Dengist ideologies, and both played an important positive as well as negative role in the current Chinese system, thus there is no bias implied. It is a mere misunderstanding that I should have interpreted the section of "relations with Marxism, Stalinism etc" as more so an analysis on the origins of the ideology itself rather than a comparison with each of these respective ideologies. Thus I added the Deng reforms edit because I found something was missing, and I thought it was important to portray a significant split in ideology between the Chinese and North Korean regimes, that they are in no way the same type of "communist states". This can only be illustrated through how the two guiding ideologies of the countries differ. If this is inappropriately placed, please replace it where you find it is appropriate. Feel free to rename the section as well.

This is also a suggestion that perhaps the Dengist section is better inserted into the "criticism" section. As for the seemingly POV stance of the satire and criticism, feel free to reword what I have said in a more neutral tone. But I am honest when I say no bias has been implied. Colipon+(T) 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the now-famous Chinese internet movie North Korea's 007 by Hu Ge is a perfect example of the satirical criticism of Juche. There are also a large number of websites, especially blogs, that ridicule Juche on a regular basis. Check out these. http://blog.mediachina.net/blog.php?do_showone/tid_2277.html http://s.sogou.com/followAction.do?spaceID=%CC%F9%CD%BC&topicID=TP$ZGDOVMoMoz1DBAAAA&&folID=FN$wglpZIEm2qaEBAAAA&floor=16#anchor16 Colipon+(T) 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

..........

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion, Colipon. I have reverted the section title to the original, “Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Maoism.” The first paragraph you added has been rewritten as follows:

''Following Mao’s death, the policies of Maoist autarkic peasant-based socialism were phased out. Deng Xiaoping launched the Four Modernizations program in 1978 and opened China to capitalist economic development. Deng Xiaoping Theory was officially instituted in the 1980s. Despite relatively cordial Beijing-Pyongyang relations in this period, the North Korean leaders were reluctant to adopt the Chinese open-door policy and model of economic modernization, because they feared such reforms would compromise the Juche ideology and result in political destabilization and events similar to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (Lee, p. 1998, 199). After the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc between 1989 and 1991, with the consequent loss of economic aid, North Korea began to undertake cautious, experimental, and selective emulation of the Chinese model.''

''The Joint Venture Law of 1984 was, however, among the first Deng-inspired North Korean attempts to attract foreign capital within the programmatic orientation of Juche doctrine. This was followed by emulation of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone. North Korea established its first capitalist SEZ in 1991, the Rajin-Sonbong Economic Special Zone. The 1998 Juche constitution was also written with provisions to defend private property and joint venture enterprises with capitalist countries, making possible the establishment of the Pyongyang-based Research Institute on Capitalism in 2000, and allowing for the price and wage reforms of July 1, 2002. Deng Xiaoping Theory accepts marketization of the Chinese economy as “socialism with Chinese characteristics” or a “socialist market economy,” and the North Korean Juche ideology rationalizes such reforms under the concept of “socialism of our style.”''

The paragraph you added in the “Criticism” section is in need of citations from verifiable published sources (articles or books) to confirm Chinese and Vietnamese criticisms of Juche ideology. Blogs and an internet film by an amateur Chinese film director may not be authoritative or representative enough sources for an encyclopedia article.

Since I consider that paragraph to be not entirely insupportable, I have added a “citation needed” note as seen below. Rather than make any POV edits myself, I have listed four questions to guide that process.

''In the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, countries that have both moved away from the personality-dominated autocratic institutions of state, Juche is characterized as a ridiculous idea, often the subject of satire. In China, especially, where it is common knowledge that North Korea continues to ignore the contributions of the People's Liberation Army in the Korean War, Juche is seen as a post-Maoist extreme that propels the Korean dictator to a god-like status. ''

Questions:


 * Who in China and Vietnam have characterized Juche as a “ridiculous idea”?
 * What are some of the satirical works that appear “often” in China and Vietnam?
 * How is the North Korean position on the Korean War “common knowledge” in China?
 * Who in China sees Juche as post-Maoist extremism and political-religious leader worship?

I hope you can share your knowledge of any documented criticisms of Juche ideology. -- Samuel kozulin 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

.........

Thank you as well. This is very constructive. I was wondering that now, since half of the section deals with post-Mao economic models, if that could be separated into another section called "Juche and Socialist Market Economy" or something along those lines.

I think your edits in the section are great, by the way.

Meanwhile, let me attempt to answer your questions through a revision of that paragraph:

''In the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, countries that have both moved away from the personality-dominated autocratic institutions of state, Juche is characterized as a ridiculous idea by on various internet communities, and has become the subject of satire by influential novelty film director Hu Ge. Juche is seen by some as a post-Maoist extreme that propels the Korean dictator to a god-like status, while others see it as a Maoist emulation. Because of the nature of Juche ideology and its incorporation of Korean nationalism, it has been reported that North Korea continues to ignore the contributions of China's People's Liberation Army in the Korean War. ''

The claims (if they may be called as such) are the result of my participation in Chinese internet forums, the majority of which are now banned in a recent media clean-up. (In fact, this month, if you write "Mao Zedong" on the SINA internet forum, it is automatically censored and comes out as "XXX") As a result, if providing a good source is the problem, then I guess it is fine for us to temporarily remove this until the Chinese blogging environment resumes with more freedom.

This also raises another interesting fact. Ridicule of North Korean ideology, which was very common before the Internet clean-up that stretched between 2005 and now, has been one of the Internet Brigade's targets for "sensitive political topics" along with the Cultural Revolution and the 1989 Tiananmen Protests. It is likely that media control authorities see the ridicule and satirical examination of Juche as, in fact, a subtle allusion and even attack on Mao-era China, and therefore an attack on the legitimacy of the Communist Party itself.

That would make interesting material in this article. I should discuss it with you first.

Colipon+(T) 23:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

..........

The revised paragraph is useful and should be included. Other Wikipedians can probably help with bibliographic sources. Perhaps with modifications and substantiation, the following from your above response can also be included in the “Criticism” section:

''Ridicule of North Korean ideology, which was very common before the [Chinese] Internet clean-up that stretched between 2005 and [2007], has been one of the Internet Brigade's targets for "sensitive political topics" along with the Cultural Revolution and the 1989 Tiananmen Protests. It is likely that media control authorities see the ridicule and satirical examination of Juche as, in fact, a subtle allusion and even attack on Mao-era China, and therefore an attack on the legitimacy of the Communist Party itself.''

I have heard anecdotal accounts of lay Chinese criticism of North Korea and Juche, and once spoke with a Renmin University of China graduate who compared the ultra-nationalism and personality cult in the Pyongyang regime to Maoist China in the 1960s and 1970s.

But there are historical, economic, and policy differences. That decade was the post-GLF period of the Cultural Revolution, which was regarded as ultra-leftist and nihilistic in North Korea. The Red Guards had denounced Kim Il-sung as a “revisionist” and “millionaire.”

During the Cultural Revolution, Chinese enterprise was decentralized, but not quite for the same reasons as is occuring in impoverished North Korea today. The education system (elementary to tertiary) in Chinese urban areas was also disrupted. During the North Korean famine of 1995-1999, high death rates in some urban areas did result in the desertion of schools. As far as I know, the public school system was still running.

Regarding the proposed subheading (“Juche and Socialist Market Economy”) under the “Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Maoism” section, this sounds appropriate. I am now considering inclusion of a new article section with the title “Juche and the Arts.” -- Samuel kozulin 07:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kimilsungism?
Is there really a philosophy known as Kimilsungism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RisingSun96815 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

4,000 results on Google for "kimilsungism" versus 2.5 million for "stalinism". I'm going to remove it from the article, since the word only appears in one place. It seems that only a couple researchers have tried to coin this term. It's not helpful to this article. FFLaguna (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

damn spammer lol
lol some damn spammer put a couple of links in the "related" section. I headed over to those sites, and they're full of DPRK propaganda.

"Visit the wall of shame, built by the USA to separate the fatherland of Korea. There is one and only one Korea." LOL OMFG WTF Benlisquare 10:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Since the page is going to be edited, here are the links, see the 'ganda for yourself: The first one claims to be "the official site for the DPRK". lol Benlisquare 10:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) (www.korea-dpr.com)
 * 2) (www.korea-solidaritaetskomitee.de)
 * 3) (www.deutsche-songun-studiengruppe.de)


 * Hmm, it looks like the work of the KFA again. The KFA or "Korean Friendship Association" (its more like Kim Friendship Association) accept the word of the North Korean regime as gospel, and deny that human rights abuses occur in the country, despite the massive evidence and reports by refugees. Their forums are full of references to the "Dear Leader", "Imperialists", and the DPRK "Worker's Paradise". A while back there was a thread about people leaving the country and entering China. One member posted a reply that these people were traitors and "deserved to be shot". If you see any of these propaganda links in future, its best to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.241.81 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Juche is not a school of Communism
Juche most certainly is not a school off communism, i proposed it be removed. Juche entirely defies the communist philosophy which advocates the establishment of a society in which practically everyone works together. The juche philosophy advocates that every individual is self reliable which almost entirely defies the philosophy of communism, thus it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmc (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet it was thought up and installed by a far left communist?
 * I doubt Kim knew much about Marxism/Communism other than by experience. He wasn't particularly well educated or well read, and when this whole school of thought came about, he was trying to distance NK from China, so the idea was to show something unique to Korea rather than borrowed from some other culture.  Rklawton (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please consult B.R.Myers' "The Cleanest Race" (2010) [I already posted a minor quibble on the KWP discussion page]- Of course he is only one expert, but to him Juche actually is a sham doctrine, a prestige project to prop up Kim Il-sung ("Rainbow Trout is tasty and nutritious" goes one of his "wisdoms") as an ideologue. The real ideology that is taught to the unfortunate citizens of North Korea is a Japanese-derived (it that sounds paradoxical, do research naeson ilche or naisen ittai 内鮮一體 ) extreme Korean supremacism, according to which Koreans are an innately morally pure "child race" that has to be protected by a heroic father-mother-leader. That sounds more fascist than communist doesn't it? And indeed Myers' says if one would want to apply the standard left-right spectrum, North Korea would rather be on the side of the far right. Of course it's only one expert's opinion, but East Asia scholars I know seem to be quite favourable of this view. Given that he's one of the few people who spent time researching this gruelling topic, maybe some of his approach could be mentioned in the article? Just a suggestion. 91.42.227.67 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * but you (or me) could argue that Juche is a fusion of stalinist communism and fascism178.210.114.106 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just read the book. Its by an actual academic and to me knowledge still represents the newest research conclusion on that topic. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to read the book to know that's garbage. The personality cult around Kim (and his successors) is a carbon copy of what Stalin set up about himself and Lenin. The military parades are a carbon copy of the parades in Red Square. The art is standard Socialist Realism. There is some similarity with Fascism, but it was the Fascists who copied the Communists: Mussolini and Hitler were quite open about that. As for the idea that the country has copied the Japanese imperial system, this only works if you ignore anything that doesn't fit the theory (i.e., almost everything). Sure, the system is sort of hereditary, but this is normal. India is sort of hereditary too. Britain has a fullblown monarchy!!! --Jack Upland (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the name Chuche?
I never heard Juche called Chuche--Gosplan (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be any evidence that the spelling "Chuche" is ever used in English, so I have moved the article back to "Juche". Indeed, both the International Institute of the Juche Idea and the Juche Idea Study Group of England all use the spelling "Juche". Nohat (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the romanization systems used in South and North Korea are different. 주체 is romanized as "Juche" in Revised Romanization of Korean (RRoK), but "Chuch'e" according to the McCune-Reischauer. North Korea doesn't use RRoK; therefore "Chuch'e" is correct way to romanize. --­ (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The spelling "Juche" seems to be the established spelling for English, so we should use that. Nohat (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Juche in Other countries-the case of Indonesia No Juche did not fail in Indonesia,it was the CIA sponspored coup against the progressive Sukarno regime that stopped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.19.181 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The International Institute of the Juche Idea uses (obviously) the spelling "Juche" when writing the word in English, so it's official. Mike1981 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The DPRK uses the Romanisation "Juche" in its publications.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit to constitution

 * North Korea calls time on Communism as ideals are 'hard to fulfil' - 29 September 2009, Dailymail UK

North Korea has officially dropped Communism. In a revamp of its constitution, its traditional ideology has been replaced with the idea of ‘Songun’, the principle of putting the military first. The new constitution has also changed the official form of address for the country’s leader Kim Jong-il. The 67-year-old chairman of the National Defence Commission was known as ‘Dear Leader’ by the country’s media. But now he is referred to as ‘Supreme Leader’. Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

On eliminating dogmatism and formalism
Is the whole text online? I only found what looks like an excerpt. Apokrif (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Weasel-word timeout
The section Criticism has a template about "weasel wording", weasel words that I cannot find. It seems the template dated from December 2008 have timed out, and since this article is not marked as controversial, I'll replace it with a "missing citations". Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

my removal of Juche from the communism sidebar
I am removing "Juche" from the "variants of communism" subsection of the Communism sidebar/template due to the Juche article's own admission that "After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea’s greatest economic benefactor, all reference to Marxism-Leninism was dropped in the revised 1998 constitution. ...Marxist-Leninist phraseology remains in occasional use...establishment of the Songun doctrine in the mid-1990s, however, has formally designated the military, not the proletariat or working class, as the main revolutionary force in North Korea." It is absolutely unreasonable, given the admission here, that Juche should remain in the sidebar as a "variant of communism". Further, it is an insult to nearly all other self-declared communists around the world that are active in political and labor movements — something that cannot be said for any other listed "variant of communism", since every other listed "variant of communism" on the Sidebar's list is considered a valid "variant of communism" by somebody. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dropping the phrase from the Constitution is window-dressing. Do you believe the social system changed as a result?  Hardly. Anyone with any knowledge of Stalin's USSR would see abundant similarities.  And only the really deluded would see Kim Il Sung as worse than Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph is a Mess
The introductory paragraph has become a terrible mess. It offers approximately six translations before a final line that says Juche cannot be completely translated into foreign languages - and then goes on to offer a seventh! 621PWC (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not too bad. It makes sense, the order and phrasing is a tiny bit off. — Half  Price  17:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Section "Criticism: Self-references
The second paragraph of the section "Criticism" cites a copy of this same wikipedia page. I think it was done on purpose and the paragraph should be removed. 132.227.81.30 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag
I have added a POV tag to the Effects on the economy section, because it is only critical of Juche, even it has successfully made the DPRK a powerful nation( --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 1, 2, 3  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC) ), whether in ways the West would consider appropriate or not.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the references gives any evidence that Juche made NK powerful. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the tagger needs to point out some sources or give some example text for what he wants included to keep it there. Shrigley (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble finding an English language source that would make this claim because the only English pro-DPRK websites I know are and, which I don't think can be cited on WP. However, I can make a logical progression that because Juche encourages a heavy focus on military, they have an especially strong military, which is fine as support for the second and third sources, but would be original research for the third because I have not done the calculations and do not know if their high rankings is due to their military expenditures and personnel, which are criteria.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on how you define a 'strong nation' and how DPRK fits the bill. In fact, one of the key indicators of a failed state is disproportionate spending on the military relative to GDP. Maybe you mean 'internationally influential because it is a security threat', but you could say the same about Afghanistan, and nobody would call that nation 'strong'. Also, number of troops alone is not a good indicator of military strength, as Iraq was in the top ranks before the American invasion, but had a consistent track record of losses in its wars. Anyway, you placed the tag on the "effects on the economy" section, and it's true that Songun (not sure its relation to juche) is widely blamed for North Korea's bad economy. Shrigley (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right on account that Songun is much more to blame for the military strength of DPRK.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By your logic, doesn't that make the US a failed state?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I said one of the indicators, not the sole criterion. US has special characteristics, including the fact of being a global hegemon. As a percentage of GDP, the spending is not too high for these duties. And the militarism is not strangling the economy or indicative of an existential threat to the nation. Shrigley (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)