this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
162 points (92.6% liked)
Communism
2679 readers
372 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@Cowbee [he/they]
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what special economic zones are in the DPRK. They are not as they are in the PRC, where they are capitalist safehavens. In the DPRK, these are zones for international trade. All industry is still publicly owned.
This just isn't true, though. The public sector in China is the same as the public sector in most mixed economies: Transportation, parts of agriculture, some electrical and telecomms, etc. It is no different. In fact, China has a larger private sector compared to its public sector than some of these western countries. China's healthcare system is more privatized than most of these western countries. Your analogy with the rubber vs the ball just doesn't apply here; China's primary industries are all privately owned except for certain areas in agriculture. I do very much pay attention to this, because I am waiting with bated breath for it to change.
The DPRK does have limited private property in its Special Economic Zones. See A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom. Foreign investment and ownership happens there too, such as from the Emperor Group owning a casino and whatnot, a group based in Hong Kong.
Good news, public ownership does control the large firms and key industries in China:
Your point that some western counteies have higher ratios is exactly why we need to identify the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, and not compare simple ratio. Otherwise, western economies would have far more similar results than the dramatically different results they do. The private sector in China is relegated to small and medium secondary firms, and is about half sole-proprietorships and cooperatives. On wikipedia, there is a very good point:
In other words, although the number of people employed is smaller than the private sector, and the GDP is lower, state owned enterprises still dominate the economy because they are the largest and most important. This is only looking at SOEs, too, not the rest of the public sector.
That's why I suggest that you listen more to our comrades from China, rather than assume that every socialist model has to look exactly like the USSR. China's conditions are different, and their socialist system is working well and continuing to develop to higher stages of socialist development.
@Cowbee [he/they]
I've read the book. Yes, it's foreign-owned operating on DPRK soil. There is no private industry native to the DPRK as there is in China.
If China's mineral industry is publicly owned, that's news to me. My understanding that its mineral industry (most of what you've listed) is all private, including its overseas endeavours. I'll have to look more into this, thank you.
Regarding foreign ownership of industry in the DPRK, why would this not be counted? Dialectics teaches us that we can't just slice out parts which are in reality connected. As for mineral industries, again, wikipedia has this to say:
No problem on sharing this, I spend a good deal of time trying to understand China's model of socialism.
@Cowbee [he/they] It's not counted because it's not any more a part of the DPRK's economy than is any other foreign trade. The government allows foreign-owned businesses to operate on DPRK soil for the trade benefits inherent in that, but it is still foreign trade, as opposed to economic activity of the country itself.
Is it not? Foreign trade is also connected to the DPRK's economy. It isn't a hard line, but blurry. Not either-or, but both-and. Dialectics helps us see the interconnection, the link between the general and the particular.
@Cowbee [he/they] Well, if we take that to its natural conclusion, then no country can possibly be socialist because the global economy with which all countries trade and interact is broadly capitalist. Same reason that Korean teams working in Siberian lumberyards doesn't make Russia more socialist, the DPRK trading with capitalist countries doesn't make it more capitalist. Yes, there are connections, but as the world exists, with hard borders and economic measurements and ownership in terms of nationhood in most cases, the line is quite clear.
That's an example of the wrong lesson. I agree that we need to be careful with the general and the particular, but we cannot cleanly sever them. Again, it isn't either-or, but both-and, and we identify the nature of something by identifying its principal aspect. The DPRK is socialist because public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. The USSR was socialist even when it was under the NEP, and even when it had black markets. Cuba is socialist despite having private property, same with China and Vietnam.