Talk:On the Juche Idea

Correction of a blunder
I have deleted the sentence about the alleged idealism of the Juche philosophy and its likewise supposed contrast to Marxism. This statement is contradicted even in the work On the Juche Idea itself. You cannot describe a philosophical book by quoting mere scholars' opinions and putting them above the very content of that book. 87.0.205.155 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Davide Rasetto, deputy director of the Juche Idea Study Center in Milan, Italy.
 * Using scholars' opinions is exactly how analysis of works is supposed to be done on Wikipedia, because interpretation of primary sources is original research, which is not allowed here. Encyclopedias summarize previously published analysis, and do not engage in analysis themselves. Here is the full passage from Charles K. Armstrong – probably the most noted scholar on Juche – that is being referenced: "Philosophically, Kim Jong Il's new interpretation of Juche [in On the Juche Idea] was an idealist (as opposed to materialist) inversion of Marxism: ideas, not material conditions, drive history. Ironically perhaps, Kim traces this back to Marx himself, stating 'the history of the communist movement spanning a hundred and scores of years is a history of working-class leaders creating revolutionary ideas, a history in which these ideas have been applied to transform the world.' Every age and place had its own 'guiding idea of revolution,' and Kim Il Sung had created Juche as the perfect guide for Korea." It's an unambiguously reliable source that makes the scholarly interpretation of Juche that it is idealist, it's does not contradict any other major scholarly opinion, and it directly addresses how Juche is presented in On the Juche Idea specifically. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia does not allow correct reference to primary sources and provides only second-hand information, readers will learn not about what is objectively written in the book On the Juche Idea, but about what some scholars subjectively thinks of it. That's a rather pseudoscientific approach, but I know that Wikipedia has its own original logic.

Charles K. Armstrong's interpretation retains a clear non sequitur: the conclusion (that Juche is idealist) does not follow from its premise (Kim Jong Il's quotation about the role of ideas). And it's contradicted by On the Juche Idea's chief explainer and annotator, Ko Pong: "Some scholars insist that the theory of ideology [a major element of Juche philosophy] is idealism; that 'the idea decides everything' means that the idea decides the existence of the world and its movement and development. I cannot but laugh at their ignorance. They do not have the ability to understand that it is ideological consciousness which decides man’s activity and that the theory of ideology clarifies the relation between ideological consciousness and man’s activity rather than the relation between consciousness and the world." And by an almost infinite amount of academic expositions by Kim Song Gwon and other scholars. Putting Armstrong's disputable opinion above all official and authoritative sources is reasonable only in order to distort the real content of On the Juche Idea and provide biased information which would be discarded as unreliable by any Juche scholar. As I said before, Wikipedia is free to operate according to its own rules, but I strongly advise readers to study the works of Juche theorists and objectively verify their content. 79.24.204.233 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with this point. What On the Juche Idea says is quite clear:
 * 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]
 * The emergence of the Marxist materialistic dialectical world outlook was a reflection of the contemporary requirements... The most important question in this was to vanquish the idealism and metaphysics which had sanctified the domination of reactionary capital and preached its eternity, and to elaborate a scientific world outlook of the working class. [p 71]
 * The idea that man is the master of everything and decides everything, in other words, the idea that man is the master of the world and his own destiny and is the transformer of the world and the shaper of his destiny, is fundamentally opposed to idealism and metaphysics. [pp 72-73]
 * WP:OR states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Hence, I think it would be permissible to say that the text describes Juche as opposed to idealism. In any case, Ko Pong or another North Korean scholar is not a primary source, and it should be OK to use. Armstrong is reacting to the emphasis placed on the "ideological factor" (as shown in the first quote I gave), but, while this is notable, I don't see how this can really be construed as a contradiction with Marxism-Leninism. Marx, Lenin, Mao etc, have been accused of "voluntarism", "idealism" etc....--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)