this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
162 points (92.6% liked)
Communism
2679 readers
295 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]
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.