Talk:Juche/Archive 2

Juche is a libertarian ideology

This appears to be a wind up. Let's not indulge it any further.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Juche ; Korean pronunciation: [tɕutɕʰe]), Ju means 'self' Che means "body" can be translated as "self-ownership" and can be seen as personal ideology of Kim Il-sung. It postulates that "man is the master of his own destiny", that by becoming individual sovereign a nation can achieve great success and freedoms. Kim Il-sung (1912–1994) developed this ideology under Japanese occupation. It is wrongly viewed as a variant of Marxism–Leninism. In my opinion it seems to be distinctly "Anarcho-capitalism" in character, strongly emphasising the individual and its sovereignty. Juche has its roots in libertarianism. There is no doubt about that. The entire wiki article is misleading and wrong. The reason why Juche is misunderstood comes from two sources mainly: Western State propaganda and North Korean State Propaganda. The current article sources is really a joke. I don't have the time but it shouldn't be very hard to prove that the Juche idea has it sources in libertarianism and Kim IL-sung anti-Japanese anti-state stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2279:B300:B0DB:1C78:F88E:CC39 (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC) There is very little privately owned property in North Korea, and very little free enterprise, so I don't see how Juche can be "anarcho-capitalist" or libertarian. But if you can find a source, you can put it in...--Jack Upland (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Juche is an ideology and therefore doesn't need any connections to the situation in North Korea or into the real world. It is just an idea created by KIM IL SUNG. North Korea doesn't need to follow the Juche idea. North Korean government may declare Juche as its state ideology, but this doesn't make any sense, because Juche is anti-state. North Korean guides explain Juche as self-ownership "to be master of yourself". Video sources of north Korean guides on the Juche idea: "What is Juche? and its radical political implications" There is a book "On the Juche Idea" by Kim Jong-il, which is also in direct contradictions to your point of view. KIM IL SUNG was always wearing the "capitalist uniform": the business suit. I never saw any footage of him wearing the MAO-suit. You need to rewrite your entire article which is clearly based on fake information and propaganda sources. Muting KIM IL SUNG's Juche idea is not nice. Yes, you are right. It is indeed a libertarian idea. KIM JONG-IL describes KIM IL SUNG's struggle against Marxist(left wing) and nationalists(right wing) in his book On the Juche Idea: "... The leader discovered the truth of Juche idea in the course of the struggle AGAINST bigoted NATIONALISTS and bogus MARXIST, flunkeyists and dogmatists, while hewing out a new path for the revolution. Finally, he explained the principles of the Juche idea at the Meeting of Leading Personnel of the Young Communist League and the Anti-Imperialist Youth League held at Kalun in June 1930...". KIM JONG-IL:"...Man acts upon and transforms the world as he desires, drawing on the objective laws....He exists and develops by cognizing and changing the world to make it serve him, whereas all other material lives maintain their existence through their subordination and adaptation to the objective world. Man holds a special position and plays a special role as master of the world because he is a social being with independence, creativity and consciousness. " KIM is setting man against nature(capitalism) rather than the proletariat against the bourgeois class(Marxism). On the Juche Idea is one of Kim Jong-il's major writings on Juche and considered the most authoritative work on it. Those sources can't be ignored. They prove that Juche is a libertarian idea best described as "self-ownership" the base of anarcho-capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimYaJong (talk • contribs) Karl Marx wore a suit. Lenin wore a suit. Were they capitalists? I don't see anything in this screed which supports the idea that Juche is anarcho-capitalist. North Korea has very little private property. Markets play a very small role in the economy. The state is very large, with one of the largest militaries in the world which is supported by compulsory military service. The media, the arts, education, health, and recreation are all controlled by the state. We know that Juche is North Korea's ideology, expounded by Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. Why on earth would they propagate a theory which was so in variance with the DPRK??? As discussed below, On the Juche Idea is replete with references to Marx and Lenin and clearly states that Juche is a development of Marxism-Leninism. The usual translation of Juche is "self-reliance" (and more literally it means "subject"). Is there a source which translates it as "self-ownership"? There is an element of "voluntarism" in Juche, but that is not necessarily in contradiction with Marxism-Leninism because Lenin, Mao, and Marx himself have been accused being voluntarists. See such Marx quotes as "Man makes history" and "Philosophers interpret the world, the point is to change it" etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Nobody claimed that Juche is anarcho-capitalist. Juche is a libertarian idea which is compatible to anarcho-capitalism. Juche would just work fine with anarcho-capitalism. But Juche is not compatible to Marxism-Leninism or a large state. People can't be master of their own destiny as long a state(ruler who uses force to rule) exist. Not saying Juche is anarcho-capitalism but Juche practical implementation requires anarcho-capitalism. To prevent JUCHE from spreading and be used the North Korean State tries to control every aspect of its subjects lifes. It also tries to contain Juche in a "glass box" or even pervert and invert the Juche idea. People are allowed to look into this glass box for propaganda reasons but they are not allowed to take Juche out of the glass box and actually implement this idea into the real world, which would require the elimination of centralized state in favor of self-ownership(JUCHE), private property and free markets(voluntary society). The reason why KIM IL SUNG is muted in many videos, is because he was not allowed to spread his Juche idea. The State didn't allow KIM IL SUNG to talk about Juche. Every State would regard the Juche idea a threat to its existence. The Juche idea is the most oppressed idea in North Korea. Only to foreigners and to the outside world the Juche idea is brought up for propaganda reasons. To claim that the Juche idea is North Korea's state ideology or that Juche is NOT the opposite of Marxism-Leninism is just nonesense. OK, this is a very eccentric interpretation of Juche. It seems to go against what most people have said on the topic, and there don't seem to be any secondary sources to back this up. I don't think you can fault this article for not presenting this point of view. The world just isn't ready for this view of Juche, just as it's not ready for the discovery of that Cuba is Atlantis, Donald Trump is Bigfoot, or Noah's Ark was a UFO.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC) what is wrong with that? Why remove this "libertarian" Juche version? It got sources and everything. Can someone explain it to me? At some point the entire Juche article needs to be changed. Because Juche is indeed a libertarian ideology created by Kim Il-sung. The Juche idea is the belief of self-ownership and in an anarcho-capitalism system, where true individual liberty can be achieved: Juche (/dʒuːˈtʃeɪ/; Korean: 주체, lit. 'subject'; Korean pronunciation: [tɕutɕʰe]; usually left untranslated or translated as "self-reliance") described by the government as Kim Il-sung's original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought. It postulates that "man is the master of his own destiny", that man is to act as master "continuously transforms nature and society, changing as he desires" and that by becoming reliant on oneself and strong the individual can "free himself from the fetters of society and nature". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JucheCapitalist (talk • contribs) What is wrong is that your narrative runs counter to observable reality. The DPRNK exhibits political behavior which is not only not Libertarian in nature, but runs directly counter to Libertarian ideas, let alone AnCap ideas. Comrade GC (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC) the ruling Parties behavior in the DPRK( could be still in harmony with Ancaps ideas if voluntary) shouldn't be our concern, because this article is about the Juche ideology. Juche is also an ideology that debunks Marxism-Leninism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JucheCapitalist (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Kim Il-sung hated Marxism. Juche is the flame that burns all left wing right wing ideas. Juche is specially designed to do this....and those ideas should be included not left out in an article about juche JucheCapitalist (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Argument from assertion, and because you have repeated it endlessly, argumentum ad nauseam applies as well. In reply to your previous response to me, since Juche originally arose from communist ideas and was later adapted to a nationalist and quasi-theocratic direction, one could easily make the case that not only was Juche always an authoritarian idea, but that it was intended to be so from the very beginning. Comrade GC (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Juche studied Marxism, communism truth Results:Marxism makes no sense,is a load of crap, harmful stupidity,not useful to Korea. Kims own words. Juche is in direct opposition to authorian, socialism, national,democratic,communism systems from the beginning. The Juche idea and the NK state are two different things. NK state is a nonJuche entity it cant implement the Juche idea. juche is the tyranny of the individuals=anti-state. JucheCapitalist (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Try again, this time try not to sound like the Timecube rant or the back of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Soap. Please, thank you. Comrade GC (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC) It is kept very simple. You should be able to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.55.236 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC) References

Great Leader Theory

I question the relevance of this section to Juche and the accuracy of what is said. Most of the citations are one page in Lee 2004, which does not appear to be primarily about Juche.

This page is supposed to be about Juche, not DPRK ideology is general.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Great Leader" theory is a part of the Juche theory, everything in North Korea is connected to the Juche.. Anyhow, Great Leader is a concept within Juche thought (just as class struggle is a concept within Marxism); "Despite this claim to originality, there is nothing particularly revolutionary or novel in the tenets of the juche philosophy. Kim-Il Sung’s policy stances on subjects such as the class struggle, the idea of the mass line, the role of the single great leader in history and the importance of belief in one’s own capabilities were all drawn primarily from Chinese and Eastern European thought. Kim Il Sung’s genius lay in his ability to fuse these elements together to capitalize on the North Korean drive for independence." Or if thats not clear enough, this; "Juche teaches that the North Korean people need to be organized and guided by the "Great Leader," who was Kim Il-Sung himself.".. Or from the book North Korea Handbook, "The autocratic control of the great leader is explained and supported by the "leader's sole leadership system" theory included in juche" (page 87). I hope this is enough. --TIAYN (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to its accuracy, a link to the article is there, so you can for yourself... It is accurate, but you can double check if you feel like it. --TIAYN (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

But is there a North Korean source that describes Juche thought as being about the Great Leader?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know, but we don't use primary sources on WP, secondly, I don't know Korean and thirdly, as has been noted by scholars, when writing about Juche in English they make it sound democratic (just as when the Chinese write about ideology in English they sound capitalist, but when they do it in Chinese, they sound very communist indeed)... But fourthly, since North Korea is modeled on the communist system existing in Europe, this logical conclusion can be made without controversy; just as everything in those states had to be accepted through Marxist-Leninist lenses (even if it didn't even make sense), everything in North Korea is, and has to be linked with Juche (the only ideology in the country; Songun, however, is considered a further evolution of Juche) to be accepted. And at last, this is breaching WP:SYNTHESIS to the a degree, but read WPK ten principles on the ideological system (the idea of the "Great leader" seems pretty ingrained); --TIAYN (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1. . We must give our all in the struggle to unify the entire society with the revolutionary ideology of the Great Leader Kim Il Sung.
2. . We must honor the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung with all our loyalty.
3. . We must make absolute the authority of the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung.
4. . We must make the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung's revolutionary ideology our faith and make his instructions our creed.
5. . We must adhere strictly to the principle of unconditional obedience in carrying out the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung's instructions.
6. . We must strengthen the entire party's ideology and willpower and revolutionary unity, centering on the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung.
7. . We must learn from the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung and adopt the communist look, revolutionary work methods and people-oriented work style.
8. . We must value the political life we were given by the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, and loyally repay his great political trust and thoughtfulness with heightened political awareness and skill.
9. . We must establish strong organizational regulations so that the entire party, nation and military move as one under the one and only leadership of the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung.
10. .We must pass down the great achievement of the revolution by the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung from generation to generation, inheriting and completing it to the end.

But again, nothing about Juche. And the secondary sources do not seem to cite a primary source to connect the personality cult directly with Juche.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources does connect it to Juche, everything in North Korea is connected to Juche, and thirdly, WP does not use primary sources. I have sources which backs up my claim, find something which backs up you're claim. --TIAYN (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is this is an article about Juche. This is not about Juche.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

According to secondary sources the "Great leader theory" is part of Juche thinking (I've already given you reliable sources for it). --TIAYN (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article being referenced contains significant factual errors and cannot be considered a reliable source. First and foremost, throughout this entire article, there seems to be a lot of conflation between state ideology and theory. This is, alas, a blurry distincion and thus, more or less forgivable. However, I talke serious issue with this reference to the means of production as equivalent to the relations of production appearing in the Great Leader section. The more appropriate term is productive forces and it refers to more than simply the means of production as it includes also labor power. To give you an idea of the relations of production as a concept distinct from the productive forces, think of a strike at a factory. The boss has the workers and the factory, but is losing money since none of the workers are actually working. A third error was the author's statement that "unlike orthodox marxism" human beings not material forces drive history. This statement is wrong in that Marx did not say that material forces drive history but that the drivers of history are the contradictions between the relations of production and the material productive forces. The logic of this statement resolves itself as Marx's famous opener in the Communist Manifesto, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," or to put it another way, the antagonisms between competing class interests (the collective interests of a class of people irrespective of individual interests within the class). And last I checked, we are talking about social classes, i.e. classes of people.

Look, I am not here to argue that Juche has veered from orthodox Marxism. Orthodox Marxism in fact states clearly that although general laws of history exist, individual nations will have their own characteristic forms of struggle and revolution. So to make an absolute statement like this ignores the fact that you are dealing with ambiguities in Marxist theory or rather, what qualifies as properly Orthodox Marxist. As with any scientific theory, Marxism is elaborated with people obtaining new knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.46.113 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See ko:혁명적 수령관. I am uncertain of the exact translation, however. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Juche is anti-state. its an individual focused idea. For the NKstate to claim to follow Juche = be anti-state and to be an individual is...I dont know...worrisome. lol JucheCapitalist (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Socialism without Socialism?

This article is slanted to the point of view that the DPRK is not socialist, supported by range of selective quotations. Socialist here seems to mean quoting Marxism-Leninism. There is no reference to the collective organisation of the economy.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: First, "Socialism with socialism" is found in the criticism section (and is valid criticism). Secondly, collective economy? The majority of Chinese enterprises are collective (or, better, cooperatives, but no one describes China's economy as collective, or another point, certain fascists regimes had a very similar economy to communist regimes, making them hard to distinguish.... By reading the text, it is clear that according to Kim Jong-il's speeches that he still considers NK socialist,.. However, those who criticize him see instead a socialism not based on any previous known socialism. For instance, while its not mentioned here, the NK socialist regime says it wants to defend North Korean identity my not polluting North Koreans (that is, by having North Koreans having children with foreigners), and they find it OK to take blood tests to see if children are properly clean or not (and to check if they are smart, good...) .. These things for instance sounds very fascists, racists to me (and to the common observer).. But again, NK still considers itself socialist (but its an unique socialism which has nothing to do, theoretically, with either socialism or the communism espoused in the other socialist states - at least, thats the point the other people are trying to make. --TIAYN (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, you can argue all things that look racist, fascist or unsocialist for you, we base on our articles on reliable sources not what Wikipedia editors perceive or on hearsay. The communist bloc has had lots of somewhat heretical regimes, this doesn't mean that they weren't communist. North Korea was always considered by Soviet media a loyal member of the socialist camp and the Workers Party of Korea still participates in the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties which lends credibility to those, who regard it as communist.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: I'm not saying they are not communists as fact, I'm saying there is a general belief that they are not, and its not just some people, its a common view (and so pushing for the view that NK is communist becomes as POV as pushing for that they are not communists). Secondly, this article doesn't say Juche is not communist (or Marxist). And thirdly, the "Socialism without socialism" section is found in the "Criticism" section (which makes it partly justified). --TIAYN (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• In general, I agree with the concern voiced by @Jack Upland:, that the article gives undue weight to the fringe view that North Korea is not communist at all and is likely far-right instead. This is done by cherry-picked sources and selected quotations that support such a view. TIAYK: ″pushing for the view that NK is communist becomes as POV″ - no, representing the view of the large majority is not POV pushing. Apparently the majority of communists believe North Korea is communist, the overwhelming majority of noncommunists similarly believe North Korea is communist. The claim that it is in fact not socialist/communist at all is a minority view and the idea that it's actually 'far-right' seems to be a fringe view in the minority view. It is not generally held, contrary to your claim. I have no access to reliable scholarly English language sources at the moment, so I can't improve the article, however, I'll add some information I found from the corresponding Russian Wiki article to balance the article somewhat.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: Honestly, the majority of noncommunists don't believe the NK to be communists... Every book/article I've read about NK says the North Korea is, well, unique... The view that NK is communist (as the Soviet Union was) is POV, the view that NK is communist at all is POV, the view that the NK is not communist at all is also POV.. This article does not state that NK is not communist at all.. Honestly, with the exception of the criticism section, not one single sentence in this article says NK is not communist... At last, NK is criticized by several communist parties every year because of their deviation from communism, true socialism... You guys are simplifying a great deal! --TIAYN (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Communism a'la Marx has never existed - anywhere. So we need to look at the common definition of the word and use that as our guide when evaluating reliable sources on the subject. Rklawton (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Communism as a stage of development (that is pure communism) has never existed
• Communism as a simplification of Marxism as a ideology has existed in all the socialist states (for example; socialism is inevitable, capitalism is doomed)
• Communism as an interpretation of Marxism as a political philosophy (with no clear truths), existed in the late USSR, and currently in Cuba, China, Laos and Vietnam (for example; to make socialism a feasible alternative to the future, China needs to turn "capitalist globalization" into "socialist globalization", which will lead socialism to become the ideology of the world superstructure, but for this to happen, China (or other) has to defend itself from certain capitalist practices and capitalist powers)
• NK as Marxist is disputable (the works of Marx and Lenin were illegalized in the 1960s, and only leading officials, with the consent of the Great leader, can read these works), and at last, they killed people in the 1960s and 1970s who had positive views of other socialist states.
• Communism as a political system can be said to exist in North Korea, but again its then a uniquely form of NK communist system (no Central Committee session from 1993 to 2010, no members of the Presidium of the Politburo from 1994 (with the exception of Kim Jong-il, being the only member of this body) until 4th WPK Conference, no members of the Politburo for a time being, most leading party offices being left vacant under Kim Jong-il and the establishment of "the family" as a unique institution within the normal communist framework). At last, while in a normal communist state, power is vested inside the party, in NK its vested in the hands of Kim, his family and the National Defense Commission, that is, the military.
• The economy; socialist or fascist (whatever way you look at it).
• Its a dictatorship which reminds us of Stalin; literally, NK is Stalinist.
• Its hereditary, and then goes against the normal communist practice of disdaining hereditary right of succession (which communists consider feudal)

@Rklawton: There are many points here, for and against the NK being communist or not - the point being, this article should not say NK is communist, and it should not say NK is not communist. Its a controversial subject, and to say that there is one clear truth is biased. --TIAYN (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

TIAYN: all your talk here is OR why North Korea supposedly is not true communist et cetera. To claim ″ Honestly, the majority of noncommunists don't believe the NK to be communists″ is complete nonsense. If you google 'Noth Korea'+Communism you get millions of hits. If you google North Korea +'not communist' you get around 20 000 hits and I don't even know how many of those really argue that NK is not communist. If you google 'remaining communist countries', you invariably get NK listed as one of those. You're pushing a fringe viewpoint that is completely opposite to the generally held belief and supported by a couple of authors only, which is the reason current article is only based on 2-3 authors.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

For instance, Myers in his book the Cleanest Race doesn't say that North Korea is "not communist" (in that wording).. So, bad example. Honestly, this is not cherry-picking. Myers is a respected scholar, Charles K. Armstrong is a respected scholar, Andrey Lankov is a respected scholar (I can continue).. You clearly don't know anything about the academic debate on NK -- I don't care if the NK is communist or not, but what is clear is that NK is communist is not a normal opinion.. You are pressing you're view on to this encyclopedia.

@Lokalkosmopolit: But to the quotes, "Kim Il-sung on Juche" is not a concept", and adding quotes without explaining their content doesn't make any sense.. Secondly, the quotes used in the article are used by third-party sources... If you don't believe third party sources are reliable, then we have a problem. .... I don't know what I can do with you; the only thing you've been doing is pushing you're own POV.. .For instance, in the Communist Party of China (which I've mostly written), both views are explained; that some people don't view the CPC as communist, those who continue to view the CPC as communist and the ideological development of the CPC. The same is here, but why is it a problem here? Because you want to force you're view upon this WP... And again, this article has not stated that NK is not communist. If the article had said "NK is not communist", I would have understood the problem, but it doesn't say that. It only describes Juche. Whats the problem? You want to force you're views on WP; thats not what wp is about, you're acting like the WP-version of Kim Jong-un (making made up stories to defend your position;). At last, I don't have any problems with you using those quotes, just add them in context. Whats the point with quotes if you don't explain them? At last, having quotes which use the words socialist don't help you at all; everyone agrees that the NK views themselves as socialist, buts the point is that the majority of scholars agree that the word socialist does not have the same connotation as it does in other places... Please stop POV pushing, and edit warring. Remember, the edit-war rule can block you for revert two times - it doesn't work as an excuse to edit war until 3rd. ... Lets discuss and tell me exactly what the problem with this article is, and point to specific sentences which explicitly say that NK is not communist. --TIAYN (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You've now resorted to blanking [1] quotes that don't fit your agenda. How is Kim Il Sung's explanation of the Juche Idea less relevant than some GDR diplomat complaining that NK is not orthodox enough? Well, the explanation is simple: the quotes I added reveal that Kim Il Sung used typical communist rhetoric, despite all the 'original' ideas he may have had in addition. That's why it has to be removed... I will open a thread at fringe theories noticeboard. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: The difference is that the quote is explained with "a report from the East German Embassy in Pyongyang criticizing the lack of ideological correctness in North Korea".. The quote does not say, however, that the DPRK is not communist (so whats the problem again)... I've never argued against that the DPRK is using communist rethoric (or has any other scholar). So whats the point? The Chinese still use communist rhetoric, it doesn't stop people accusing the CPC of abandoning communism/Marxism. Again, you're POV pushing, I've never denied that the DPRK does not use socialist rhetoric. The difference lays with the meaning; for instance, the Nazies used socialist rhetoric, but people don't call themselves socialist, but fascists, and they don't call them left-wing, but far-right... This is a bad example. Again, let's discuss. --TIAYN (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's now me who's 'POV pushing'? LOL. I simply added two quotes by Kim Il Sung from the book on Juche Idea as a specimen of combining Communist rhetoric with his own 'enrichment'. The article already has numerous long quotes. How are quotes I've chosen suddenly 'POV'?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: They are not, but you started you're participation in this discussion by saying that every scholar who opposes the view that the NK is communist as a non important minority - POV pushing. The quotes themselves are not POV-pushing, but you seemed to use them to prove that the NK is still communist. I don't care if the NK is communist or, well, anything. At last, the "Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism" explains the NK views on this; while it doesn't use the word enrichment, its makes clear that Kimilsungism is the North Korean version of Maoism, its a development of Marxism-Leninism. Again, this is mentioned. But as said, I will readd the quotes in context. Maybe a "Selected works" section on the main books? --TIAYN (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To go back to the original point, the "Socialism without Socialism" section is a synthesis of cherry-picked citations designed to put the case that the DPRK isn't socialist. If the GDR quote doesn't say that the DPRK isn't Communist, why include it under this heading? The quotation of Cumings is also selective. It is true that he described the DPRK as corporatist, but in the same passage he described it as "socialist" and based on "Soviet models" (Korea's Place in the Sun, pp 396-397) and talked about "Korean communism" (p 398).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No they're not; when did Armong, Myers and Cumings become a "synthesis of cherry-pucked citations" - these people are leading scholars on DPRK.. The other sources aren't cherry-picked either.. You seem to like to "force" you're interpretation of this article - which I don't get. --TIAYN (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the citation of Cumings is not an accurate representation of what he says.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Then find a better quote. --TIAYN (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We recently had a discussion on the Fringe Theory page about this, and I am wondering if there is any resolution to the criticisms made. I also note that someone has recently tried to edit out the implication that racism is right-wing. I think there is a broad range of disquiet that much of this page reflects the POV of Myers and people who agree with him: that the DPRK is not the surviving Communist regime it appears to be, but rather a racist, nationalist, fascist state inspired by Imperial Japan.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: He reverted because he felt the sentence said all racism was explicitly tied with right-wing politics, this having more to do with the left-to-right axis have been created (that is left is state, government utopia and social openness, while right is private, market freedom, extreme individualism and conservative on social issues)... The noticeboard discussion ended with nothing more than what was said; no actions were taken. Again, I don't see how this article says that North Korea was communist, Myers views are just contained in the criticism section, not in the concept section or so on. The article does say that Juche does not have strong ties with Marxism, and breaks with basic premises of Marxism (for instance, the materialist conception of history, that people are tied to their relations of productions)... If I am to generalize; Marxism and Communism are not identical, so to treat them as such would be wrong... The North Korean view is that Marxism cannot be applied to North Korea, for instance; "We Cannot Apply Marxism to our country, and Marxism cannot give comprehensive scientific answers to the rapidly changed situation" (Changing Worlds: Vietnam's Transition from Cold War to Globalization, p. 91) With the exception of the Criticism section, It seems (to me at least, that the article doesn't conclude if the NK is communist or not communist at all).. It just leaves the question open, without stating anything at all, if it does something at all, it hints that NK is unique...

While I can see you're problem with the Criticism section, similar sections are found in the Communism, Socialism, Fascism (that article even have two sections entitled "Unprincipled opportunism" and "Ideological dishonesty") articles, I don't see any other problems.. Again, I'm at loss for words. --TIAYN (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

On the Fringe Theory page, you said you would look into the Cumings misrepresentation issue. You haven't done that, and therefore I'm deleting that reference.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding "on the other hand" to the sentences about Cumings doesn't deal with the point. It's really contradictory. The citations of Cumings' opinions are tailored to imply that Cumings is in agreement with the POV of this section.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Then rewrite the sentence, from what I've read of Cumings, he seems to be in agree with Armstrong; they took what they wanted, and created something new when they disagreed.. Whats so darn controversial about that? --TIAYN (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be rewritten: it should be removed. As discussed, this is trying to create a consensus where no consensus exists.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I'm not trying to make a consensus, I don't understand what you're saying. Cumings literally says the same thing as Armstrong, so why do you have this extreme wish to remove Cumings and not Armstrong? I don't get, and you're statement that it doesn't fit in doesn't make sense, since then the Armstrong quote wouldn't fit in either. I simply don't get you're point Upland. --TIAYN (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times. The citation of Cumings is not accurate. Nor, I believe, are other citations in this section. There's no point in discussing it further.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I don't care what you believe, that's what the sources say, you can't chose to interpret sources to force you're own view. Fine, you believe that NK is communist, good for you, but claiming that others who don't share you're opinion is not "accurate" is wrong. Read the source yourself, you can probably get the book in the library. But thats what the source say; gee many guys believe NK is communist, like Andrei Lankov. You're argument is illogical; you claim the section to be unreliable, but you havn't given proof of it all.. You haven't given me one sentence from the original source where you can prove that i'm forcing my interpretation . Claim what you want, but WP is based on sources and not you're interpretation of things. --TIAYN (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not an accurate representation of the original source which is Cumings' Korea's Place in the Sun. This has been discussed twice, and I have provided detailed quotations.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I read?

So, as I was perusing the article, I noticed in a quote by Jong-Il, "Marxism-Leninism presented a serious of opinions " ... et cetera (emphasis added). As I have not read and do not have access to Shin 2006, I was hoping someone else could enlighten me as to whether this was an editor-made typo, a [sic] typo, or if I just cannot figure out how this is correctly read (which has certainly happened to me before). Thanks! Greengreengreenred 02:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a typo, I fixed it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Greengreengreenred 04:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is Samuel Kozulin?

I've been reading the "Talk" archives, and this article contributor Samuel Kozulin in 2006 and 2007 was SUPER knowledgable about North Korea (history, politics, ideology, language, etc.). He was obviously an academic expert, and he was frequently making extensive corrections, edits, updates to the Juche article, and he was regularly discussing in the "Talk" section. Suddenly, he stopped writing, and pretty much everything he worked on in the Juche article has now disappeared or been mutated into mush by other users. Samuel Kozulin, come back please! 123clock (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

123clock, in reviewing his edits it appears that Samuel kozulin did not cite sources when making additions to articles. It's no surprise his contributions have been removed over time as they were not supported by WP:RS. Google scholar gets zero hits for "Samuel kozulin" and "kozulin, Samuel". Google Books gets a couple of hits but they do not seem related to the person that was contributing on WP. General Google searches for "Samuel kozulin" or "kozulin, Samuel" along with words such as "Juche", "Korea", "history", etc. only find his contributions to Wikipedia. Samuel kozulin is not listed as an author for any books on Amazon, Abebooks, and worldcat. It appears we can only hope that he chooses to return on his own. --Marc Kupper|talk

I think Samuel Kozulin is rather like Keyser Soze.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Juche in Practice

One example of Juche in practice is KIM IL SUNG. He used Juche to CREATE HIMSELF. The Juche tower is build from 365x70 stones, which each stone representing 1 day in the life of KIM IL-SUNG. Juche is very powerful. Juche can not be used by the STATE or any group. It is a man-centered ideology. Just to make this clear. The state can't be self-reliant or anything of that matter. The state is not a HUMAN with a brain that needs to CONSUME food in order to survive. This logical mistake is MADE Through out THE ENTIRE ARTICLE and needs to be CORRECTED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JucheCapitalist (talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have created the section "Juche in practice" because I think the ideology of Juche (self-reliance) should be examined in terms of how it is put in practice.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Everyone agrees with that, but a not everything in North Korea is implemented/policy because of Juche and b you are failing to link the subject with the ideology. For instance, this "The Korean People's Army is one of the largest on earth. North Korea has not relied on alliances for its defence. It has always undertaken independent military action. It is currently developing its own nuclear ballistic missile" is entirely random. Why, because the section (that is the whole section) fails to explain how North Korea having a large military has anything to do with Juche..--TIAYN (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it is an attempt to be militarily self-reliant.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Then It should be better to discuss the Juche idea of self-reliance, having a sole section devoted to why DPRK think its the best, and how it influence policy. This article fails to explain the DPRK's ideological stance on self-reliance. --TIAYN (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We already have a lot about ideology. This section is about how the ideology is put into practice (if it is). The three subsections are based on Kim Il Sung's description of Juche as described in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You still have to connect the two in the section, as said, not everything in DPRK is policy because of ideology. Therefore you have to prove the connection. I certainly belive there is a linkage, but for readers who don't know a lot or anything about the topic that section can seem a bit random. --TIAYN (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have restored this section. It is a vital and relevant topic, which should be expanded on, not deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It is particularly relevant as people argue that Juche has contributed North Korea's economic problems.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

I hate to say it, but the stuff by this B. R. Myers in the "Criticism" section sounds like pure conspiracy theory (really weird logic and conclusions that sound like they are made up). I made some changes to the section for accuracy/clarity, but left the substance of the weird claims as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123clock (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@123clock: He's a renowned and reliable author, that simple. His view on the DPRK is controversial, thats why its mentioned in the Criticism section instead of being the basis of this article. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Myers is renowned because he tells people what they want to hear: North Koreans are Nazis, etc, etc. The racist accusation is itself rather racist: using language like "A Nation of Racist Dwarfs" and extrapolating from the incident with the Cuban diplomat to smear the nation as a whole. And, again, the relationship of all this to Juche is tenuous.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: And for the reasons you stated above Myers is mentioned in the criticism section, and his work does not reflect the basis of this article.--TIAYN (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Felix Abt

I have removed the following from the Criticism section, relating to Felix Abt's critique of Brian Reynolds Myers:

He does not, however, dispute the basic point that Juche is a Korean version of National Socialism.

Where does this come from? It was merely added to the text that I had originally inserted into the article, as were other additions that were purely misleading. It does not come from Abt's text as cited in the article. Here are some direct quotes from Abt referring to Myers and his book, The Cleanest Race:

His claims were shaky: he argued that the basis of North Korean ideology is race, not the more commonly cited mix of socialism, Juche, and Songun. He even called Juche "window-dressing" for foreigners, a rather absurd claim given the reality that the state carried out huge efforts to teach Juche to its people. [p62]

A few other claims are questionable. Myers claims that the North Korean personality cult is an idea imposed by Japanese colonialists. I think the concept arose out of Stalin's personality cult, or even more from a historical undercurrent stretching back to thousands of years of Chinese overlord emperors. Myers doesn't fully address how three decades of a Japanese administration could upend these more entrenched forces at work. [p 63]

These edits follow a pattern discussed above where the views of everyone from Bruce Cumings to the East German government have been doctored so that they appear to agree with Myers.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: No. Its merely a criticism of Juche as an ideology. This article treats this ideology as a separate ideology, and the Workers' Party of Korea ideology section (which I wrote), clearly statse that Juche developed from Stalinist practices. --TIAYN (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So why should the article lie about it???--Jack Upland (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Lying about what? I'm saying all views should be contained.. The minority view is that Juche is a sham ideology. The exponent of that idea is a notable scholar, hence, his views should be mentioned. I'm not a native English speaker as you may have noticed, so my point in that section isn't to state that everyone agree with Myers, but instead, supported that Juche has evolved from being a communist ideology to a something unique in its own right... The view that North Korea is first of all a nationalist state has been supported by many, Myers is the one who has taken that theory to its logical extreme. If it right or not, I don't care, and WPs job is not to conclude which view is best suited to be mentioned... At last, from what I've read (I've read a couple of books, but not in any sense much on the topic) Juche historiography has three periods (which most scholars agree): the first period (1950s, early 1960s) when it was perceived as a traditional communist ideas, second period (the 1960s-1970s) when the cult of personality began to take on religious undertones, the third period (1980s till 2000s) when an increase in nationalist rhetoric led many to perceive it as a nationalist ideology and the fourth adn final period (Kim Jong-un period), when the ideology is perceived to be about one thing only, the Kim family.. This has been highlighted by the increased rhetoric abotu the greatness of the revolutionary line, of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism... The question if Juche is communist does not interest me, since its clear that its used a number elements of Stalinism to create such as an ideologized society..--TIAYN (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The lie was mentioned in my original post. The edit wasn't made by you, {{replyto|Trust Is All You Need|TIAYN]], and I didn't suggest it was. You seem to think you own the page, but you don't, and not all the comments are directed against you. For what it's worth, however, I didn't realise you weren't a native English speaker. You can take that as a compliment and balance that against any real or perceived criticism, if you want.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: "You seem to think you own the page, but you don't" - don't worry, I don't. But as you may know, the majority of this article (in its current form) was written by me; that doesn't mean that I own it, but rather that I feel that I should defend my edits (or in some cases, correct mistakes)... So I don't feel I own it, rather, I feel that since I've wrote a great part of the article I should at least be active on the discussion page. I suspect thats no different from the articles you've made large changes on. Of course, the strange thing here is that I don't consider my edits very good nor the article as a whole (I just don't want it to get worse, which lets be honest, is a good possibility considering the widespread interpretations of DPRK). My last point, it may seem that I focus on this article too much (if you look at my edit history), but thats because most of the articles I've done mass edits on generally have inactive talk pages. But you're right in one way; my comments here today were a tad defensive.. Thanks, I don't always get a compliment on my English writing! :) --TIAYN (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Juche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151017111605/http://www.academia.edu/4478846/Framing_the_Globalisation_Debate_in_Korean_Higher_Education to http://www.academia.edu/4478846/Framing_the_Globalisation_Debate_in_Korean_Higher_Education

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Political spectrum

Is Juche formally positioned anywhere on the traditional left-right spectrum? If it is, it would helpful to include this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromethiumElemental (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a socialist theory and a development of Marxism-Leninism, so that would place it on the far left. However, there have been many debates about this, for example at the Workers Party of Korea page. I don't think we will get consensus to add this to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

But it is entirely separate from Marxism-Leninism especially after the DPRK had deviated from Marxism-Leninism with the creation of Juche and especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Requiered Citation

You are looking for a source of a quote of Malagasy President Didier Ratsiraka (Juche / History / Development). The source is:

" Juche.The Banner of Independence", Pyongyang: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1977, p.11.

King regards from Germany. --Houty (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Juche years

An editor keeps on reverting the text to say that 1912 was "year zero" and that 2016 is Juche 104, not 105. As you can see from the Rodong Sinmun website, it is clearly 105:[2].

I have removed the formalae because they weren't working. Perhaps someone can fix them.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no. If your opinion would be true, Kim Il-sung's birth would have been 101 years passed since 15 April 2012. --2001:999:11:DCB3:D998:3B39:EC53:28BC (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at the website I linked to?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

1912 was Juche year 0 (ordinal 1st year of Juche) > 15 April 2012 - 15 April 1912 (Kim Il-sung's birth) makes 100 years, not 101 years. --85.76.23.165 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As Jack Upland said, any work that gives its date in Juche years will corroborate that 1912 was "Juche 1". Third party sources give this as well (p.378). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet the edit war continues, here and at North Korean calendar.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

They're doing it at Minguo calendar and Y1C Problem (about the Taiwanese calendar) also. Need to watch all of these pages. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also an IP editor "updating" Otto Warmbier's days in detention at List of foreign nationals detained in North Korea, but I guess this a coincidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We should probably ask to protect the affected pages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Main Article Picture

I think that the main picture for this article should be the actual, full tower itself, and not just the Juche flame. Thoughts, consensus? --FuzzyGopher (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one you can blame for the flame (File:1730 - Nordkorea 2015 - Pjöngjang - Juche Turm (22791978320).jpg). I didn't like the full tower picture because: #1 this article is not about the tower and quickly glancing at the two articles one could confuse them, #2 Juche is symbolized by torches and flames in many forms but the tower symbolizes a variety of other things as well (the number of the actual blocks of the tower symbolize the days of Kim Il-sung's life). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that much, but I think it's a good idea to have an image that distinguishes this article from the one on the Juche Tower.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

On the Juche Idea

In referring to this pamphlet, the article states:

Kim Jong-il states in the work that Juche is not a creative application of Marxism–Leninism, but rather "a new era in the development of human history", while criticizing the "communists and nationalists" of the 1920s for their elitist posture, claiming that they were "divorced from the masses".

I don't know what the secondary source says, but this quotation distorts the primary text. Kim discusses Marx and Engels, before stating that "Lenin developed Marxism and advanced Leninism in accordance with the new historical conditions whereby capitalism had entered the phase of imperialism", and then makes the claim about Juche (p 3). Hence Juche is depicted as a development of Marxism-Leninism. Kim then says:

However, the communists and nationalists who were allegedly engaged in the national-liberation movement in our country in the 1920s gave no thought to the need to go among the masses to educate, organize, and arouse them into waging a revolutionary struggle. But divorced from the masses they were only engrossed in the scramble for hegemony and empty talks. They did not unite the masses but divided them by factional strife. [p 5]

Again, this is not an attack on the Communist movement as a whole. Further, Kim gives this description of Kim Il Sung's development of Juche:

In his early years of revolutionary activities, the leader was well versed in Marxism-Leninism. But he did not confine himself to applying Marxism-Leninism to the Korean revolution but pioneered a new phase of revolutionary theory from a steadfast Juche-based standpoint and resolved the problems arising in the revolutionary practice from a unique angle. [p 7]

Again, this indicates that Juche is a development from Marxism-Leninism, rather than a rejection of it. Kim also emphasises the internationalist character of Juche:

Since the forces of imperialism which oppress independence are allied on an international scale, the struggle to oppose imperialist domination and oppression and defend independence, too, cannot but be an international undertaking. [p 22]

This does not override the principle of self-reliance:

One might receive aid from others in the revolution and construction, but in any case the main thing is one’s own initiative. [p 24, see also pp 42-43.]

This article also suggests several times that Juche rejects the materialist conception of history. However, Kim states:

Attaching decisive importance to the ideological factor is a law of revolutionary movement. Material factors, too, play a great part in the revolutionary movement. But the existence of material conditions does not give rise to the revolution automatically. [p 33]

He adds:

Solving all problems by raising the level of people’s consciousness is the method inherent to the communists. [p 34]--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: The point being, as is made in the text, it was in the beginning marketised (for the lack of a better word) as Marxism–Leninism.. and as a creative application of Marxism–Leninism.. But in later years it's connection to Marxism has been dropped, and Juche has become an independent "ideology". --TIAYN (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Trust Is All You Need: see related discussion from last year, Talk:On the Juche Idea#Correction of a blunder – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I agree. --TIAYN (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As of 1982, the connection to Marxism-Leninism wasn't dropped, as On the Juche Idea shows (Marx is mentioned 15 times). Thanks @Finnusertop: for that link. Quite coincidental. According to Wikipedia guidelines we shouldn't interpret primary sources, but it's OK to quote them to make a straightforward point. Here, since the article says that On the Juche Idea is the authoritative text it doesn't make sense not to quote it, but we can't base a whole article around those quotes, and we can't put forward our own personal interpretations — of course.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: The point being is that it has been amended, changed to suit the states ideological need. I'll find a source, but right now I'm going to bed :) --TIAYN (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

To give another quote: "The revolutionary world outlook of the working class had been established by Marxism for the first time, and it was developed by the Juche idea onto a new, higher plane for its perfection" [p 74, see also p 59].--Jack Upland (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102062517/http://www.cnet-ta.ne.jp/juche/defaulte.htm to http://www.cnet-ta.ne.jp/juche/defaulte.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Third Position

Third Position is a new category added to this article. According to article on Third Position, "Third Position is an ideology that was developed in the late 20th century by political parties including Terza Posizione in Italy and Troisième Voie in France. It emphasizes opposition to both communism and capitalism. Advocates of Third Position politics typically present themselves as "beyond left and right" while syncretizing ideas from each end of the political spectrum, usually reactionary right-wing cultural views and radical left-wing economic views." North Korea does not emphasise its opposition to Communism. The article on "Third Position" does not discuss North Korea or Juche. This seems to be a misleading category here, particularly as there is no explanation in the text. I will remove the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Absent any argument to the contrary, I'm inclined to agree and I have removed it again.

The people who want to add it should explain why they think it is relevant here, providing sources to support this. If there are good reasons to include it then it can be added to the article text as well as as a category. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism chaos

Seloloving, for your information: previously the first paragraph stated:

Throughout the 1990s, the North Korean regime became increasingly nationalistic—at least, in its official pronouncements—leading Kim Chonghun to state that "Socialism of our Style" was really "Socialism without Socialism". Speeches and official announcements made references to socialism, but neither to Marxist–Leninist thought nor to any basic communist concepts. Shin Gi-wook argues that "there is no trace of Marxist–Leninism or the Stalinist notion of nationhood [in North Korea]. Instead, Kim stresses the importance of the Korean people's blood, soul and national traits, echoing earlier Korean nationalists such as Sin Chaeho, Yi Kwangsu and Choe Namson. He no longer has any interest in applying Marxism–Leninism to the North Korean situation; indeed it is no longer useful for the country".

"Kim Chonghun" was later replaced with "Kim Jong-un" (which made no sense). I assume the second "Kim" is "Kim Il-sung", but this isn't clear. Perhaps the whole paragraph should be deleted if it can't be clarified.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Audio file of pronunciation

Wiktionary has an audio file that demonstrates the pronunciation of Juche by an American speaker of English. Should it be added to this article's introductory paragraph? —⁠172.58.231.52 (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Put it in the introductory paragraph, as well as the English IPA. - Kimjongundprk4life

Quotations from Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy

Because of the limitations of Template:sfn, I will instead provide the requested quotations from Shin Gi-wook's Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy here. From pages 89 to 90:

"Whereas in the past Kim Il Sung's ideas were called 'contemporary Marxism-Leninism,' Kim argued that it was now more fitting to label them Kimilsungism because they had evolved into a distinctive philosophy ... Also by naming his father's thought 'Kimilsungism,' the junior Kim elevated it ot the level of a major ideology such as Stalinism and Maoism."

All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Ten Principles" vs. Juche principles

In this change to the lead, CentreLeftRight introduced the claim, without a source, that the government developed Juche into the "ten principles for a monolithic ideology", where the paragraph had already stated a different set of three principles.

There is good reason to doubt that the "ten principles" exist as described by external sources, because materials from the DPRK don't corroborate them. They corroborate that Kim Il-sung made a ten-point speech in December 1967, but those ten points were a practical political program, not the mere recitation of a personality cult. The first point was independence, self-sufficiency and self-defense. It is also well-documented that Kim Jong-il considered loyalty to the leader "the core of the juche outlook" and had this reinforced through every means available. However, if juche was ever reduced to a code of ten personality-cult principles that everyone must memorize, no one seems to have told the DPRK propagandists whose job is to communicate such things. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I simply made the lead reflect the content in the article body (MOS:LEAD), which had such claims about the "Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System" long before I made my first edit to this article. The original wording was unclear because it only stated "a set of principles", and it was not clear from the content in the article body what this was referring to. Your second paragraph is not related to my edit at all; if you have a problem with how the ten principles are covered on Wikipedia and the validity of the sources being cited, you can make a policy-based case here. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong references

The footnotes 42-47 make no sense. They refer to "Lee (2004)" which is a tract about the demilitarized zone (the link in the article seems dead, the paper is available via google here) and has no relation to Juche ideology or the role of the supreme leader. Kipala (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of things about this article seem to be incorrect and biased with improper sources such as that as it has died, as you have claimed at least. Look in my 'Complaints' section where I complain about an editor comparing it to 'National Bolshevism' in the 'see also' part. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Complaints

One user had put in the 'see also' section 'National Bolshevism' as if Juche was in any way comparable to National Bolshevism. National Bolshevism is essentially the "left"-wing version of Fascism which is a right-wing ideology. Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology which has been criticized heavily by Marxists and Marxist-Leninists as it unnecessarily divides members of the working class, I can assure you Juche is not a nationalist ideology, yes there is patriotism, but it is more like the Marxist-Leninist principle of Socialist Patriotism, yes Juche and the DPRK have deviated from Marxism-Leninism and a lot of Marxist-Leninist principles. Also, yes I'm aware there is a problem with me using quotations for emphasis as it is not technically, grammatically correct. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing 'regime' as used within this article is highly biased as it is intended to evoke a negative reaction out of the reader when a term of a more neutral connotation could be instead substituted in its place such as government, leadership, or administration. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Proletarian Banner: I was going to change "regime" in agreement with your comment, but I could not find any instances in the article itself. Perhaps you were referring to a different article related to the DPRK? CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I had changed it myself. Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology which has been criticized heavily by Marxists and Marxist-Leninists as it unnecessarily divides members of the working class, I can assure you Juche is not a nationalist ideology" So by that logic, Left-Wing nationalism, Separatist, National-Communist, alongside various forms of anti-colonial and nationalistic left-wing, socialist, and communist groups apparently don't exist according to you??? Oh and also considering your userpage and user history shows an overtly far-left bias towards socialist politics such as with the USSR, I think it would not be unfair to say that you are emotionally invested in the categorization of an ideology like Juche being compared to the similarly ultra-nationalist national-bolshevism. And considering these are merely your opinions about Juche, the sources of analysts and critics typically say otherwise, with many calling it out as being ultranationalist and highly authoritarian in structure. It also ignores that if you ignore the "nazbol" meme, (that is basically portrays Nazbols as an exaggerated fusion between the political structure of Nazism and Stalinism) national-bolshevism (at least generally speaking) considers itself a far-left ideology that wants to achieve true communism (classless stateless moneyless society), but sees that prioritizing the strength of the nation would be the best way to do it alongside advocating for extreme traditionalism and the preservation of family values. Both National-Bolshevism and Juche are both similar in that way. so your argument that "socialism can't be nationalist, and Nazbol is purely fascist and not socialist" doesn't make sense if you actually see real examples of socialist and communist nations and political movements in the real world alongside both what Juche followers and unironic National-Bolsheviks advocate. --192.130.189.130 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:35, 08 March 2022 (UTC)

Disregarding the parts of your comment that are replies to other users' comments, but "See also" sections are generally not preferred over content in the article body and "many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one" (from MOS:SEEALSO). If National Bolshevism and Juche have things in common, then it should not be difficult for you to find and add reliable sources that explain said commonalities. It is better to add it to the article body somewhere rather than to a "See also" section and leaving it to readers to make the connection, which is bad practice per MOS:SEEALSO. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)