To add, it isn’t simply due to a different mindset, but due to a different mode of production. Western imperialism and China’s socialist market economy express clear, demonstrable differences when it comes to foreign policy like this.

I think that seems like a good intro to Critique of the Gotha Programme. I would suggest works like Principles of Communism and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific before it, if it isn’t too late to change, as these both help explain what Marx is getting at in Critique of the Gotha Programme and might help the reader make more sense of it. Critique of the Gotha Programme is short, but because of its short length it also relies on the reader being more familiar with Marx’s theories and methods.

That all being said, you should be fine with that intro, based on a short skim!

I also wrote a basic Marxist-Leninist study guide, so feel free to check that for anything of value to you and your group!

As always, it’s a mixture of what came before with what has developed independently.

Regarding question 1, it’s largely cultural. Strong adherance to principles, cohesion, and education are aspects especially heightened in the DPRK.

The fundamental principle of the Juche philosophy is the principle that places man at the centre, so it consists in the viewpoint on the destiny of the man and clarifies the basic method of shaping man’s destiny. Man should shape his destiny independently and creatively. This is the basic method of shaping the tiny of man that is clarified by the fundamental principle of the Juche philosophy.

• Man is the Master of Everything and Decides Everything

Regarding how juche relates to Marxism-Leninism, juche is considered a new and original revolutionary idea that accepts Marxism-Leninism as true, but limited due to not being complete. The DPRK did not abandon Marxism-Leninism, and does not see it as wrong. Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc are still taught, but it is seen that juche goes beyond as what is believed to be a universal advancement.

The Juche idea must not be viewed as a simple inheritance and development of Marxism-Leninism; it must be viewed as a new and original idea. That we should see originality in context with derivations in understanding means that the Juche idea is not an ideology, which contrasts with Marxism-Leninism and that the historical achievements of Marxism-Leninism must be acknowledged. We acknowledge the historical achievements of the dialectical materialism of Marxism, as it smashed the reactionary idealistic and metaphysical outlook on the world, but do not view it as the perfect philosophy of the working class. We appraise the historical achievements of Marxism-Leninism as it proved the inevitability of the fall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism and clarified the and theory on building a classless ideal society free of exploitation and oppression, but we do not see it as a perfect communist revolutionary theory. As a matter of course we have so far not spoken much about the limitations of Marxism-Leninism. But today when its limitations are more and more evident, it is necessary to bring them home to our officials. Only then can they fully understand the originality and superiority of the Juche idea, the revolutionary idea of the leader, and make firmer their conviction of our style socialism based on the Juche idea.

• Kim Jong Il

Overall, juche is an original, new form of socialism that builds upon Marxism-Leninism, accepts it as true, but is more suited to Korea’s conditions as seen by Korean socialists. It is not an abandonment of Marxism. In short, the DPRK is AES, but does not have the exact same ideology as the PRC, just as the PRC’s ideology is not 100% the same as Cubas, etc., and can be considered “Socialism with Korean Characteristics.”

It certainly isn’t just a you thing, so no worried! Many people seem to be lost on what juche actually is and what it means to Korean ideology. I recommend checking out the top level comment, where I explain it a bit more and offer some resources to get a decent overview. Too many people see juche as just “self-reliance,” when it has far more to do with how mankind exists as a social being.

In this instance, the name was used because it’s accurate, it’s what the DPRK describes itself as. The DPRK maintains that Marxism-Leninism is correct, but incomplete, and that the juche idea was necessary for Korea. The essence of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism is the juche idea.

It’s accurate, though. The Korean Association of Social Scientists wrote Fundamentals of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism, the juche idea (주체사상) is the essence of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism. It regards Marxism-Leninism as true, while adding the juche idea, and forms the basis of what we can think of as “Socialism with Korean Characteristics” if that helps explain it better.

In our country, once a backward, colonial semi-feudal society, we could not literally accept the Marxist theory which had been advanced on the premises of the socio-historical conditions of the developed European capitalist countries, or the Leninist theory presented in the situation of Russia where capitalism was developed to the secondary grade. We had had to find a solution to every problem arising in the revolution by racking our own brains and with our own efforts to suit our country’s socio-historical conditions. Immediately after liberation we started building a new society under the situation in which our country was divided into north and south and we were in direct confrontation with the US imperialists; this situation urgently required us to solve every problem from the standpoint of Juche.

• Kim Jong Il

Juche socialists still accept Marxism-Leninism as true. Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. The additions of the juche idea to Marxism-Leninism is Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism, and thus this is how the DPRK describes their official ideology. For further reading, I recommend Juche Idea: Answers to a Hundred Questions by Pyongyang’s Foreign Languages Publishing House. It’s basically a juche Principles of Communism.

Thanks, I appreciate it! And yea, I know we’ve butted heads before, but I never got the impression that it was in bad faith from either side. There’s a huge difference between comradely disagreement and the sheer vitriol reactionaries have for us. I don’t really like rhetoric, which is why I intentionally try to take arguments, no matter how flawed, at their best interpretation and break them down regardless.

And thanks for the appreciation on my diamat post! I made it sort of to flesh out my own understanding, and to try to help inform others. I see many people getting tripped up on the dialectical part even with good intentions, and made it a point of focused self-study before making it. I’m glad you appreciated it!

Thanks, comrade!

But then I engage and get burned. Ive sdrastically slowed my effort commenting, switching to more quippy and sarcastic comments, and I don’t like how cynical it has made me.

I can relate to this especially. I try to catch myself, edit out quips I may make, and try to reframe myself towards revolutionary optimism. It’s a regular internal battle.

I wonder why you have such deplorable fans? Maybe it’s your history of relentless transphobia that’s attracting transphobes?

What makes you say that? How are communists on the right?

What is she trying to say? Genuinely.

Holy shit they are so mad at basic facts, and none of them have any counter, just vitriol. That’s abaurd, but you’re right, effective agitprop creates enemies (and I’m flattered that you’d mention me alongside that).

Mega mega mega THREAD

Yep, that would make sense!

dbzer0 as an instance and Hexbear seem to have been getting on better over the last year or so, gradually!

Blahaj is pretty anti-communist, it’s usually just transphobia and homophobia that causes reactionaries to group them in with us.

These people don’t see queerness as valid or Chinese people as human.

For clarity, I’m a former anarchist, now Marxist-Leninist (have been ML for years, my anarchist days are a good while ago). That’s going to color my disagreements, and Roderic Day as an ML’s as well.

I disagree that the state exists to “concentrate power,” as in accumulate more and more power. The state instead exists to protect the ruling class of a given society. This coincides with the formation of states historically, as they arose as class society arose. From that point, I also disagree with the notion that serving ones own class interests necessitates corruption. If the proletariat holds power over the state and uses it in its own interests, then this is both logical and a good thing. In China, for example, after the proletariat took power and wielded the state against the landlords and existing capitalists, life expectancy doubled:

This is why class analysis is so important. In socialist states, throughout history, life expectancies, literacy rates, democratization, the rights of women, education and healthcare guarantees, and more have all skyrocketed. The violence that comes from revolution and protecting the revolution isn’t because the proletariat used states to do so, but instead because class struggle does not cease overnight. Corruption exists into socialism, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle, and is instead something a healthy socialist state must keep in check, same as any other societal problem, as the state withers away gradually.

The author isn’t suggesting that people’s way of thought isn’t colored by how they live and exist, but rather that this is essential to understanding this. You can spread ideas, but you cannot “brainwash” people, for good or bad. They have to realize their own class interests to avoid falling into false consciousness, and this can be agitated for by those of us that have already undergone transformations (forever incomplete, and always transforming) in how we think. We have to bring people over.

Cognitive dissonance is common there.