Talk:Workers' Party of Korea/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name

What is the source for this translation Workers Party of Korea instead of Korean Workers' Party. I used the standard Political Parties of the World by Alan Day. Gangulf 20:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The WPK uses the name WPK in its international relations. A quick google search will show that the name KWP is used by Western sources whereas WPK is the name used by all DPRK websites. --Soman 21:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, the earlier debates on the party can still be found on Talk:Korean Workers' Party. --Soman 22:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at lease use then Workers' Party of Korea ? Gangulf 22:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This really ought to have an apostrophe. A Google search indicates that some use it and some don't, but this is surely just bad grammar on the part of those who don't, rather than a valid alternative. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. For some reason I can't move the page but I'll apostrophise as much as I can.Dafyddyoung 17:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think "朝鮮勞動黨" is transliterated into hangul as "조선노동당" not "조선로동당, no? --Ce garcon 12:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

로동당 is right in North Korea. Caffelice 07:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also sometimes called the Korean Labour Party, as rodong means labour.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This freed the North Korean Communists from any control by a Communist Party whose headquarters was in US controlled territory, it also reflected the hardening of the Cold War by marking the intention of the Soviets to create a separate state in North Korea rather than work with the Americans to create a joint administration throughout the peninsula.

Is this true/NPOV? Is it undisputed that the Soviets wanted a seperate state and the Americans wanted a joint administration? This is not a retorical question, but an honest one... Gerrit ^MUTE 11:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles for separate parties

This article encompasses not just the history of the WPK proper, but also that of its forerunner. Separate articles should be created for the separate parties mentioned, like Korean Socialist Party, Communist Party of Korea, Communist Party of Korea (1921), Communist Party of North Korea, New People's Party, Workers Party of North Korea and Workers Party of South Korea. --Soman 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to start those articles. -- Visviva 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now articles have been created for Communist Party of Korea, Workers Party of North Korea and Workers Party of South Korea, and material has been shifted from this article to those articles. Still some work needs to be done on the early 1910-1920 socialist/communist groups, creating articles for them. --Soman 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rossiya:

Состав руководства ЦК ТПК по состоянию на середину 2006 [5]

Член Президиума Политбюро

1. Ким Чен Ир — Генеральный секретарь ТПК Члены Политбюро

2. Ким Ен Дю — почетный зам. Председателя Президиума ВНС КНДР 3. Пак Сен Чёр — почетный зам. Председателя Президиума ВНС КНДР 4. Хан Сен Рён — секретарь ЦК ТПК, председатель Бюджетной комиссии ВНС КНДР 5. Ким Ён Нам — Председатель Президиума ВНС КНДР 6. Ке Ын Тхэ — секретарь ЦК ТПК 7. Тен Бён Хо — секретарь ЦК ТПК Кандидаты в члены Политбюро

8. Цой Тхэ Бок — Председатель ВНС КНДР, секретарь ЦК ТПК 9. Цой Ён Рим — секретарь Президиума ВНС КНДР 10. Хон Сек Хён 11. Ян Хен Себ — зам. Председателя Президиума ВНС КНДР 12. Ким Чер Ман 13. Хон Сен Нам Секретариат ЦК ТПК

1(1). Ким Чен Ир 2(6). Ке Ын Тхэ 3(4). Хан Сен Рён 4(14). Ким Гук Тхэ 5(15). Ким Дюн Рин 6(7). Тен Бён Хо 7(8). Цой Тхэ Бок 8(16). Ким Ги Нам 9(17). Тен Ха Чер —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.67.81 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideology

Although the Worker's Party rule might be be Stalinist, it's ideology never was. It should be either deleted or replaced with Marxism-Leninism, which was the countries official ideology until 1977. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosfeld (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever changed it back to Stalinism, at least leave a comment backing up your case other than “the regime is Stalinist“ or something. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.136.218 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But B.R. Myers in his excellent "The Cleanest Race" (2010) says it's actually a far-right regime (or in a position where the two extremes of the political spectrum meet). According to him Juche is a sham, a vanity project to simulate ideological profoundness that just isn't there. The real ideology of NK apparently is a supremacist, race-based exceptionalist nationalism which has much more in common with WW2 Japanese "military socialism" or European fascism. (I'd say it just sounds like National Bolshevism to me, but that'd be original research.) Now is a single expert's (well-argued and insightful, I must say) opinion relevant for this article? 91.42.227.67 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would urge caution with the Myers book. The publisher, Melville House, specialises heavily in creative writing. Myers is also not an historian or a political scientist. See the sections 'Early Life and Education' and 'Reception and Criticism' at Brian Reynolds Myers. Reidpatterns (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue the same and with Jong-il’s recent death, Myers was at least featured on Al Jazeera[1] where he repeated that statement. In fact, the categorization of nationalist and far-right is the (at least to my knowledge) only one that can be scholarly verified whereas the current far-left/communism categorization seems to stem from mere “common knowledge” that “workers’ parties” are left-winged. As there hasn't been any objections 91.42.227.67’s statements since September, I will now change the article accordingly. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Although they are well argued, I don't feel that the opinions of a few stated in editorials are a good basis for changing the political position. Within Wikipedia, it seems Communist parties are consistently classified as far left. (Such as the Chinese and the now defunct Soviet Communist Parties.)It troubles me to classify the party solely on its supremacist views. Perhaps though we could have a section on the views of these scholars as a compromise? Mpgviolist (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

According to one of those references, the party does now longer even claim to be communist. So how can we categorize them as left on the basis of being communist, when the party itself does not even claim to be communist?

The party has its roots in a communist party and the article states that in the history section but the infobox is not about past ideology or its roots but its current ideology. So unless someone has encyclopedic references that the academic consensus of North Korea experts is that Myers is actually wrong I don't see any encyclopedic base to challenge that view.

See the views of other North Korean studies experts in the section 'Academic Reception' at The Cleanest Race. Reidpatterns (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia writers, it's irrelevant if we are troubled by contents of an article if the references support that content. We can't just claim things for facts just because our gut feeling tells us so. That's against the foundations of Wikipedia. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to classify the Workers' Party of Korea as either left /or/ right-wing. There are sources claiming it to be far-right, and there are undoubtedly sources claiming it to be far-left. North Korean propaganda is always spouting about a "socialist paradise", which by definition is left-wing politics. The uniqueness of the North Korean ideology means that describing it on a Western-style left-right system makes no sense. I've just removed it from the infobox. Maxim_(talk) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

and i assume you have sources for these claims , because no sources no discussion , simple isn't it Arab editor 9212 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The politics of the WPK are analogous to that of North Korea, as it a single party state. It is unwise to describe it as only far-right, or only far-left. Here are some quotes from a news story with opinions from experts in the field:

"There is something of Stalin in North Korea" - Stalin had an indisputably far-left ideology

"The country is a theocracy"

"South Korean specialists don't see North Korea as a real communist country"

Source [2].

My point here is that there are many, many differing opinions from experts in the field. It doesn't make sense to call the WPK as merely far-right or far-left party. It certainly doesn't make sense to insist on calling it a far-right party based on only one scholar's opinion. Maxim_(talk) 19:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

i dont really think that a personal opinion is a reliable source , where are the notable sources like political scientists and well known opinions ?! Arab editor 9212 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Two professors (of politics and foreign affairs/public policy) are not reliable in your opinion? Maxim_(talk) 20:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

well i still smell something fishy about this whole thing , lets just wait until another well established user gives a third opinion Arab editor 9212 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maxim; the only reason that some wanted to change it to far-right was a personal opinion (that of BR Myers). In the end, it is most challenging to prove a certain political position, and given the amout of editors who have changed it back to far left, (by the way, I don't see why that counts as 'vandalism', from wikipedia's own definition, "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page".) it seems that far right is having trouble garnering much support. As I suggested earlier, since there are so many opinions on the topic, perhaps it would be good to have a section in the article on the issue.Mpgviolist (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

91.42.227.67 argued for far-right in September. Nobody challenged that comment in three months and now after just 3 days the amount of editors doing something should count for anything….
http://www.rickross.com/reference/nkorea/nkorea12.html is a pre-2009 source. As explained in one reference and the paragraph I added, the official policy changed in 2009 with the omission of communism from the constitution and public statements by officials that communism is “not viable”. Myers’ is a post-2009 analysis. 2009 seems to have been a turning point in official DPRK politics. One can't disprove a post-2009 analysis with a 2003 analysis. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern. This endorsement of socialism is from what is essentially the DPRK's official website, and is more recent. http://www.korea-dpr.com/ocn/?p=785 It states the following: "The realities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea demonstrating its dignified appearance as an invincible bulwark which opposes imperialism and staunchly defends the cause of socialism instill great confidence and courage in the minds of the peoples throughout the world. True to the Songun politics administered by leader Kim Jong Il, the Korean people are resolutely frustrating the anti-socialist offensive of imperialism by directing great efforts to the buildup of self-defensive forces and, at the same time, pushing forward their drive to build a great, prosperous and powerful socialist country." Though socialism and Stalinism are different, they would both be hard to classify as "far right". That being said, I still think it would good to put both views in the article, although I'm a bit too lazy to write that section :). This website seems most helpful in giving information on the ideological matters, not limited to the left v. right debate.Mpgviolist (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, I probably should add that the above link is from September of this year; also published in that month ( http://www.korea-dpr.com/ocn/?m=201109 )is an article on the victory of socialism. Mpgviolist (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

While I have no idea who's behind some random Wordpress blog on a .com domain (whois hints to someone in Spain, North Korea’s TLD is .kp), the official constitution definitely weighs more – even if that website is a legit one by some NK bureaucrat who happens to speak English. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The one I provided was from the Korean Friendship Association, which is North Korea's outlet into the US, where they don't have an embassy. Here is the official constitution which you speak of from the government portal out of Pyongyang: http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/great/constitution.php?2. Note "socialist state" and "revolutionary state" in articles one and two. You will also find the following self-description on the "Political System of the State" page (http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/great/state_pol.php) "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is an independent socialist State representing the interests of all the Korean people.... The DPRK is underpinned by the politico-ideological unity of all the people based on the worker-peasant alliance led by the working class". It also mentions the WPK as the "leadership" for achieving the revolutionary cause of DPRK. Cheers. Mpgviolist (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Korean Friendship Association is a Spanish dude, according to Wikipedia, and he's not part of the North Korean government.

And why are you quoting from the constitution? Myers argues that NK is nationalist and socialist and on the far right of the political spectrum. So far ho one of you have given ANY post-2009 academic reference to counter that argument. So unless academia does not challenge Myers’ argument, it's the academic consensus – after all, he’s not some random guy, nobody knows of. He’s recognized as world-class expert on NK politics.

I am afraid the above is an overstatement. Historians Charles K. Armstrong (Columbia University) and Suzy Kim (Rutgers University) have said Myers' claims are old and in error. See the section 'Academic Reception' at The Cleanest Race. Reidpatterns (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You guys desperately try to make an argument because your gut feeling for some reason forbids to categorize the ideology as far-right. Even Maxim’s reference does not state that NK does not fit in a political left-right spectrum. He just thinks that's what the pre-2009 reference says but such self-made conclusions are not accepted for us editors to put in articles.

I re-add the categorization as far-right because that's what seems to be the academic consensus. Provide post-2009 academic analysis that counters Myers’ argument, then we’ll can add a paragraph or something that the view is under debate. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided the DPRK's constitution as you recognized its weight as a source as well. The constitution is the best expression of ideology as it is expressed by DPRK and WPK itself. IF you perused it, you would note how closely the state and its goals, as expressed in the constitution, line up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics. The constitution ideologically argues only for the victory of socialism and egalitarianism through the support of the workers. With these views, Encyclopedia Britannica notes (post 2009) that the WPK does not differ significantly with other communist parties.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party/36674/The-single-party-in-the-developing-countries. Cheers. Mpgviolist (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have created the section with these references and others. I feel that it is comprehensive yet concise; however, please feel free to add to it.Mpgviolist (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you quote the constitution, then compare that to an article and then reach the conclusion that WPK is left. That's a classic example of synthesis which is not allowed.
As for the Britannica article: That was written by Maurice Duverger who is now 94 years old and who has last written a scientific text in the 1990s. The Britannica article may be published post-2009 but was definitely not written after Duverger’s 92th birthday. ;-) --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the the Constitution; I'll fix that (Not exactly sure why I put it there to begin with...thanks for pointing that out). As for Duverger, it only lists him as the primary contributor (there are additional contributors, one of which is all editors of Britannica, so the article was written by a multitude of people); while I hope you would retire by age 90, we can't assume beyond what is given to us, and that is that the article was published in 2011, with many people contributing different part of it. If the facts were outdated, Britannica, as it is as reliable of a source as you can get, would update it. Mpgviolist (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, would you take a look at my description of Myers's viewpoint? I am hoping I explained his position well.Mpgviolist (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

One last note: as a backup, we could use CIA's factbook (updated four days ago) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html. It list DPRK as communist. Personally, I prefer Britannica, since it explicitly talk about the WPK, but we've already connected the two entities by using BR Myers's sources, which ,like factbook, speak of DPRK, not the WPK. Mpgviolist (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained that Britannica’s article can’t be up-to-date because it is written by Duverger who last wrote scientifically in the 1990s.

No one can consider CIA – an agency involved in several coup d'états – info to be neutral. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated on December 24th of last year, Duverger is only one of the multiple contributors to that article. If you can find proof that he wrote that particular sentence in the article, then I am fine with discussing alternate sources that are more recent. Otherwise, all we know is that it was published this year by Britannica, a reliable source if there ever was one. Cheers. Mpgviolist (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ideology: Round 2 - Stalinism and Religion

The thing I would like to discuss is that we've had forgot that North Korea is a Stalinist state, and most likely the only current example of Religious Communism to exist.
A lot of people agree that North Korea is a very religious nation. Kim Il Sung's cult of personality had gradually turned into a religion since the 90s. Also, Kim Jong Il's oficial biography includes some elements, borrowed from the New Testament. Things that oficial North Korean media claim about Comrade Kim Jong Il is a major attack on atheism. Currently all references to Communism were removed from the North Korean constitution, but they still exist in oficial party literature. Back in 2009 a switch of the priorities had occured, when most of the high-ranked party members had came to a conclusion that without the reunification of Korea Communism will not be viable. Communism will or may be mentioned once again after the reunification of Korea, if the WPK will attain the dominance over the ex-ROK.
Currently North Korea is the only Stalinist state on Earth, due the fact that China is de-facto a capitalist state, while Vietnam appears to be an example of what China used to be about twenty years ago, when China was still a socialist state. The only difficulty for the article is the fact that it's quite hard to determine the most appliable entry - Stalinism or Neo-Stalinism, especially due the fact that the current North Korea appears to combine classical Stalinism with Kimilsungism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.206.10 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to have scientific references to back up your claim. An encyclopedia can't simply add random rumors. North Korea#Government_and_politics, North Korea#Personality_cult, and Workers' Party of Korea#Political_position already discuss the topics of your claims. The Religious aspect probably has nothing to do with the article about the party anyway…. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a fascinating question, but it needs sources in order to be discussed here.Mpgviolist (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Far right

All evil is right? Leftist who are evil are also right! Yeah, far right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.204.16 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's trying to communicate. 23:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.89.77 (talk)

"Far right" is ridiculous. If North Korea isn't extreme left then what would be? China continually goes on about how how right wing and militarist contemporary Japan is. If North Korea is truly far right that China would be wanting to declare war on it. Or are the Chinese also fascists? Note this Chinese state-controlled website says "In a Chinese context, the "right" supports reform and westernization while the "left" is nationalist and more pro-government." By this spectrum, North Korea is obviously "left," it should be be explained why this continuum should be inverted by just going next door to North Korea. Consider a recent headline "South Korean prosecutors charge leftist lawmaker with plotting pro-North Korea rebellion". Apparently we are supposed to believe that these South Korean leftists are just confused about what they are supporting and instead just go with what a couple of left-leaning western academics say is the situation in North Korea.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thats Wikipedia for you. Left-Good, Right-Evil--English Bobby (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, let’s throw the analysis of politic scientists out of the window because some random Wikipedia users find it “ridiculous”… That’s how a real encyclopedia works! --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, even analysts can write rubbish. That's what WP:FRINGE is about. The theory that the last country with a rigid planned socialist economy, that was recognized as communist by the USSR till its collapse, that is lead by a party still recognized as communist by the world communist parties (International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties), that this country is actually led by the far-right - this is patently fringe.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideology... again

We have a dispute again on the ideology. A user is constantly removing Socialism and Juche from the infobox and replacing them with Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism [3]. I find it absurd, because Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism has very few Google hits, practically all of those North Korean propaganda websites [4]. Juche is much more common (over a million ghits). Also, socialism is the official ideology of the party. Even North Korean constitution defines the country as socialist [5]. One would guess, why is this removed?
The answer is very simple. Wikipedia has lots of pro-communist editors, who are sort of ashamed of the kind of socialism and communism built by the 'beloved' leaders in North Korea. Hence they advance their childish theories at every corner that, you see, North Korea is actually not communist at all, nay, it's bad 'fascist' instead. I simplify these things here but that's the main point unfortunately. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: I'm not a communist.. You would have though since you accuse everybody else of being communist that you knew what socialism in communist terminology mean. When the DPRK say they are a socialist country, they say they are in the transition to socialist mode of production (that is, there society is actually building socialism).. Socialism in communist terminology does not have anything to do with socialism, since what socialism means here is a socialist mode of production (just as the capitalist mode of production).. I just found out, the KWP Charter actually removed Marxist-Leninism at the 4th Conference (I'm not 100/% sure on this, however, but I'm not able to find a Korean-version of the KWP charter).. What I do know is this, until the 4th Conference, the KWP was still officially a Marxist-Leninist party, but at the 4th Conference, in 2012, this may have been removed (for some strange reason, people are vague on this subject). But the point being, if this is true, in 2012, the KWP became officially just a Juche party - Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism is apparently the method of Juche, or easier, Juche in practice (similar to socialism with Chinese characteristics of the Communist Party of China - without the "seeking truth from facts" dictum :p...).. This is not a theory, what is a theory is that you accuse me of being a communist, what is a theory is that you don't even know what socialism means in communist terminology, the socialist mode of production (and that is not an ideology; the capitalist mode of production is not an ideology so why should this be treated differently??. Get you're head out of you're ass, and learn instead of accusing users of being communist sympathizers when they actually know something about the subject! Honestly, you're argumentation is as steadfast as those Stalinists; complete oblivious from facts. --TIAYN (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on "Allegations of fascism"

@Soman: I'm not synthesizing Myers ideas with the facts of the Korean forced marriages and the blahblah.. I've made it clearer that it Jasper Becker.. The section is about the "Allegations of fascism", and not Myers allegation that North Korea is racist. These things should be in the same section, if they should be mentioned at all (and they were mentioned before I edited the article, the Myers paragraph nearly exactly the same as I found it)..

@Lokalkosmopolit: I know you have something on you're mind, so let it out. --TIAYN (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I must add, I don't see the controversy, there are similar sections in most articles; such as that on fascism and the Communist Party of China mentions that many believe the party is not communist, why can't this be included here? And at last, the last sentence of the sentence read; "According to Jasper Becker, these remarks came during the nadir in relations between North Korea and the Eastern Bloc, but the remarks do point out the racist nature of Kim Il-sung's policies".. I'm waiting for responses. --TIAYN (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt there may be people who argue People's Republic of China is or was also 'fascist'. The far-left/PC nonsense knows no boundaries and can only be seen as a kind of mental disorder, it simply cannot be explained otherwise. But the word 'fascism' does not even occur withing the article on the Chinese Communist Party, and that's with a reason: it's simply a fringe view worth no mention.
Why I added the 'undue tag' was that you're again writing a long story based on two or three authors who support the view that North Korea is 'fascist'. Now, this is a fringe view, a minority within a minority so to say. Most communist always believed WPK was communist, not fascist. Most noncommunists similarly believe WPK is communist, not fascist.
This is also corroborated with the fact that officially North Korea was considered as a loyal member of the Soviet socialist bloc. It was never officially criticized in the Soviet press, unlike for example Yugoslavia or PRC (and Khmer Rouge since around 1978). Some Soviet diplomats may have been concerned about one or two issues, but it is a fact that the official Soviet line was not that NK was 'fascist', but rather that it was a socialist country building communism, just like the USSR. The article as you've written it, does not represent those views (i.e. majority POV). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: 1st, this belief that calling North Korea fascist/racist is a fringe theory is wrong. Seminars have been held on these specific issues
2nd, Myers main point is that they are racist.
3rd, nobody argues that North Korea was established as a socialist state, but people argue that it was developed into something else
4th, Soviet-DPRK relations were bad for the most part. For instance, the USSR opposed Kim Jong-il succession, viewing it as unsocialist, and always had an awkward relation with the DPRK. But yeah, they considered the country socialist, despite its many ideological errors (similar to the ones they criticized the Chinese and Vietnamese for, but believing that NK had gone much farther)
5th, the majority of communists don't objectively believe DPRK to be communists, and some do just because DPRK is one of the last remaining. For instance, the CPC looks down on DPRK in everyway (the only conceivable reason they still call the DPRK socialist, according to their own standard, is because its one of five left).. But at last, prove to me that the majority of communist parties believe the DPRK to be communists. The article here mentions that 30 out of 79 parties supported WPK resolutions (thats not a majority, its actually a minority)..
6th, the general reason why so many have given up calling DPRK socialist is because of dynastic succession, songbun and songun
7th, the general break with Marxism (but you seem to believe that you can be communist without being Marxist; if you don't, then you are in a world of hurt...)
8th, the majority of noncommunist believe the DPRK to be communist? Honestly, people view the country firstly as a shithole, and then crazy, communist barely comes up (at least in where I come from, Norway...).. But again, source? From what I read in the newspapers; its around 30%, 30% and the other 40% just labeling the country crazy
9th, those scholars who define the DPRK as communist do so because of institutional similarities, not because of ideological similarities - DPRK, academics argue, is socialist because it has a socialist system (that is, a one-party vanguard party)
10th, I've never heard anyone call the CPC fascist (and I read extremely lot about the CPC), capitalist yes, fascist no (I've never read that).. I've heard oligarchy, meritocracy, but never fascist... Bad example
11th, as mentioned before, the Soviets did criticize the DPRK in public (but not at the same level) during the 1960s, but as the relations improved (they were not good by any stretch of the imagination) criticism stopped. But you're right, things the CPSU didn't like, it rarely mentioned. For instance, Kim Jong-il was never mentioned by name in any Soviet publication because the CPSU opposed it on ideological grounds.
12th, again, I don't care (and specialists don't care) what the Soviet thought. Organizations can evolve (and ideologically change), remember the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party? It turned into the non-ideological, extremely capitalist Cambodian People's Party. You're point that since the USSR considered it socialist then it is socialist is, well, outdated. Its a reason why non of the remaining socialist states have a good relation with the North Korea - they organize symbolic visits, symbolic trade deals, but never anything major.. The exception of this is China, but China self-censors nearly 99% of its work on the DPRK because of its highly negative stance on the DPRK (and the people can't know that one of the last remaining socialist states is feudalist...)
At last, I don't care what you think; that North Korea is fascist/racist is not a fringe theory; "North Korea" "racism" gets over 3million hits, in contrast "North Korea" "communism" gets only 2 million hits. This doesn't mean that North Korea is any less communist, it just proves a point; its not a fringe theory. A fringe theory can't be fringe theory when leading scholars on the field agree, a fringe theory is when minor scholars (or just political writers) write something which is in complete contrast to popular knowledge (and does not get support from the scholar community)... The view that NK is racist/fascist has gained wide acceptance within the North Korea specialist community, hence, its not a fringe theory.
- I have more points :)... Sorry for bad grammar, I'm not able to focus when I write on talk pages :p --TIAYN (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought we already had Google hits counting, no? You only get 22,000 Google hits, most of those with little substance, when you google 'North Korea ″not communist″'. Also the fact that you constantly use 2 or 3 books to advance your view in a wide variety of articles underscores how fringe the view is. As for ″the majority of communists don't objectively believe DPRK to be communists″ then I can't understand why all these communist parties signed the Pyongyang Declaration in 1992 and why WPK is still a member of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. If communists consider it as racist and&or fascist, then the question is why don't they expel such an evil fascist party from their midst?
″8th, the majority of noncommunist believe the DPRK to be communist? Honestly, people view the country firstly as a shithole, and then crazy, communist barely comes up (at least in where I come from, Norway...).. ″ - just Google 'North Korea Communist'. You get no less than 17 million hits. How is this a small number? Now, Norway may be a special case because it has strong soc dem/PC traditions (almost as badly as Sweden I'd guess) and one of those traditions is that communism is ultimately a good thing and therefore it's better not to 'smear' such a good thing by connecting it with a real hell on the earth that North Korea is and that unfortunately no amount of communist whitewashing is able to deny (any more). It's like the Soviet position vis-a-vis Khmer Rouge: their victory in 1975 was hailed as a victory of patriots and good communists, in 1978/1979 they suddenly became 'reactionary', a word usually reserved for right-wing enemies. It's a typical communist/Marxist sophistry to call all communist regimes that have totally discredited themselves as 'fascist'. I'm not arguing that North Korea is orthodox Marxist-Leninist, however, I'd say the majority view is that it's a communist regime. Also, by the classical Marxist-Leninist logic it is the most socialist country on earth that there still exists, because the 'base' (economy, i.e. North Korea's planned economy) is more important than the 'superstructure' (ideology). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

1st, @Lokalkosmopolit: First, you don't know what social democracy is, social democracy is capitalism (just with a welfare state and strong presence in the economy).. Norway is to the left of Sweden, but has one of the most competitive markets in the world, according to the IMF... So you're comments here on social democracy is, well, deadly wrong. But I do understand you're position better than ever before, you simple don't know what socialism is (or Marxism for that matter), since you're an American - the only country modern country I can think of which never has had a social democratic, or leftist president...
2nd, fascism is a slur word, havn't you followed Ukraine? Hillary Clinton called Putin a fascist, he's an asshole, he's a right-winger, but he's not a fascist. That the Soviets used it in the same way isn't really that surprising.
3rd, you are not a member of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, you get invited (either by the host, or pressure on the host to invite) to meetings. Hence, some meetings the WPK have not been invited, as in 2012 for example... The Pyongyang Declaration was in 1992, at that time most communist parties even supported China (which most of them don't seem to do today). Many things have changed their perception, famine, Songun, nuclear threats, the cult of personality becoming more widespread and at last, a third dynastic succession.
4th, in North Korean discourse the superstructure is more important than ideology; its a reason why they introduced the Monolithic Ideology System, because they believed party cadres educated in Juche would lead to the establishment of a good economy... If they'd followed proper Marxist orthodoxy, as promulgated by Marx, Engels and even Lenin to a certain extant, they'd say that NK had to develop capitalist, and out of capitalism develop socialism (which is the official policy of China)... But to the point, wrong - in NK ideology is deemed more important than the superstructure, and the WPK no longer believes in historical materialism,the belief that economic development is the key to human development, having replaced it with the view that human beings are the masters of everything and that everything will go great if people are educated by the Great Leader, and follow every wish of the Great Leader.
5th, I'm guessing from you're comments that you're an American, rightist Democrat or a Republican, who doesn't have a clue of what socialism is (or social democracy for that; I mean seriously likening it communism? The Socialist International condemned Soviet communism in its first post-WWII congress in 1945(or 46, don't remember). Modern social democracy developed as a distinct form of socialism because of socialist opposition to the Russian communist experience, viewing it oppressive (the most popular form of communism at the time was council communism, a more-or-less anarchic version of communism - the movement lost out with the establishment of the USSR).
6th, I haven't even used half of my sources yet, more is to come, so don't you worry, it will be as well-referenced as the Communist Party of China article. --TIAYN (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

How come I know nothing of socialism?! I come from a socialist country and know more about it than you ever did. It's like you're teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. Of course unlike you I'm not studying Marxist-Leninist theory (read: garbage) in detail, but you don't have to be an astrologist either to debunk astrology. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: I live in Norway, but have family members who have lived in the communist hellhole that was East Germany... Anyhow, I don't really care if the WPK is socialist or communist, the section is named "Allegation", allegation does mean its true.. It would have been different if I wrote, a section entitled "WPK's fascist policies". --TIAYN (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)--TIAYN (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm really enraged.

It appears that a bunch of hypocrites had taken power over the English Wikipedia. Obviously they are some pro-Washington dickheads, who want to tarnish the image of DPRK not only in the eyes of everyday citizens, but also in the eyes of left-leaning public.
But the section about allegation of fascism got me really mad. Where, where the everliving fuck were your fucking eyes, in the discussion of that genocidal maniac Pol Pot, who was OBVIOUSLY a fascist and was suppressing ethnic minorities? Moreover, you were supporting that twat after he was overthrown and a genuine socialist state was established in Kampuchea! Of course, he was a perfect gift for American propaganda! He was the perfect tool to denigrate the Communist ideals in the eyes of the narrow-minded public!
What the hell do we have here? The days when it was easy to pull out some gibberish about starving and impoverished North Korea are over — too much people were there already to witness the gradually improving North Korean economy and to compare the things they saw to the Western propaganda. Of course the rats of Western propaganda were shocked by this development. But soon they found a new way to tarnish North Korea! They had hired a whore named Brian Myers and ordered her to write a preposterous libel about North Korea being a racist society. Of course it's easy to make a mountain out of a molehill — with the talent of Western propaganda whores a lousy corrupt official turns into a revolutionary leader, an end in an ancient calendar turns into the end of the world, and of course devoted patriotism, with leftist nationalist influence turns into racism and fascism. But at first, look at yourselves. But wait — no! USA is of course not a fascist, and not even a nationalist state! It didn't bombed Libya, turning a once prosperous state into a hellhole, it didn't turned the lives of millions Arabs into a living nightmare, it didn't destroyed over a million citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan — no! It was all in the name of democracy! What can I say about democracy? Nothing more, than it's just a silly fairytale for naïve grown-ups. As I see, from your point of view an empire, that craves world domination and imposes its will to the other nominally free states is democratic, while a state, that never invaded anyone in its history and tries to protect itself from the hegemony of the United States is fascist! This is not even hypocrisy, this is pederasty!
What do we have about North Korea? It obviously has a leftist economy. You may say any gibberish you like, but you have to face the facts — most of the industrial enterprises and all of the collective farms are owned by the state, education healthcare and housing are provided by the state and there's no unemployment in North Korea. So even if all that bullshit Myers wrote in his worthless libel would have been true, it would make the political position of the WPK syncretic. Not far right, but syncretic, similar to Otto Strasser's version of National Socialism or to Limonov's national bolshevism. But ethnic minorities aren't being oppressed in North Korea, and the state propaganda never promotes the supremacy of Koreans/Asians or the racial hygiene. The fact that someone is a professor does not make him a reliable source. For example, if some professor would claim that Barack Obama is a mutated eggplant from outer space, would you write about it in Wikipedia? Oh, yes, of course you won't, because Obama is the beacon of your shitty democracy, that is an euphemism for the word capitalism. What's the conclusion and what edits should be made?
In the ideology section both Socialism and Juche should be mentioned. Contrary to pointless statements of TIAYN North Korea is not in a transition to socialism – it had already achieved socialism, and is currently developing it further. I was even surprised to see a relatively smart person rejecting this fact.
About being or not being a Communist party. Both yes and no. They didn't rejected communism – they had switched priorities. Now reunification of Korea comes first, and then the road to Communist society will be clearly visible. An isolated Communist society in North Korea (without monetary system) will be too fragile, especially when the star spangled Fourth Reich is around with its puppet regime in Seoul. The WPK is in fact a lot more communist than the Party of communists of Moldova, which hides its truly capitalist nature under a leftist façade, and the PRPL, which became openly revisionist and supports market economy now. Moreover, the word Communism is nowhere to be mentioned in the constitution of Laos, or even Vietnam. Even in the constitution of the PRC it's mentioned only once.
Political position. The political position of the WPK is definitely far left. While some aspects of nationalism do have place in the political life of North Korea, they exist in the leftist nationalist forms. There was also Hoxhaist Albania, a lot more isolationist and more nationalist regime, that is still considered to be leftist. There was the Socialist Republic of Romania, a both nationalist and Communist state. And they are viewed as leftist – because they essentially were leftist.
I hope that at least some of the moderators have at least a little bit of still small voice and won't delete this section. This hypocrisy had gone too far. Someone have the freedom of speech and even the freedom to insult an entire nation, while others don't have even the right to have their own opinion.
Sincerely, the four tildes of truth 12:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that in your debate with TIAYN you are both sort of correct. It's like the case with Stalin and Trotsky in 1930s. In their debate both were correct: Stalin was right when he was asserting that he was building socialism in Russia. Trotsky was right when he argued Stalin had made Russia a living hell. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

1st, Socialism, in Marxism, is not ideology, its a mode of production - communism, Juche, Marxism-Leninism is an ideology.... Secondly, socialism (here on Wikipedia), links to the ideology and not to he mode of production, making the redirect incorrect.
2nd, the DPRK have never mentioned communism in its constitution, i think in the 1970s constitution Marxism-Leninism is mentioned (If I remember correctly)
3rd, the WPK charter has removed references to communism it is believed, but its impossible to know because we only have access to the Charter of the WPK which was amended at the 3rd Conference, and not the 4th Conference.
4th, reunification of Korea has been first priority since its founding.
5th, "The WPK is in fact a lot more communist than the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova, which hides its truly capitalist nature under a leftist facade" - I don't know that much about PCRM, but sure - from what I read, their policy pronouncement talks about the transition from capitalism to socialism, believing that state socialism has failed. At last, a Marxist party can still be capitalist and Marxist - Marx was not against capitalism per se, he was against the part of capitalism which he believed would lead to the system's collapse. However, he made it plainly clear that communists could not force a new mode of production when the economic foundations were not ready. Moldova's policies could fit right in there, nothing different from the CPC (with the exception that they support liberal democracy)
6th, the Constitution of the DPRK is not mentioned once in the article, I don't get you're point. The article says that the WPK's party program removed the sentence "building a communist society", replacing it with content on songun. What the state constitution says is unimportant, its a party-state, what the party says (or the NDC) is whats important.
7th, I think the difference is that Albania was not ruled by dynasty, or that Hoxha appointed leading members of his own family in the leading position of the party-state or that Hoxha began a dynasty..
8th, no one says you can't be nationalist (or, more correctly, patriotist -the word they used).. The point this article is making is that the meaning of nationalism was changed in North Korea, and is now not even considered bourgeoise .. Nationalism was still a bourgeoise concept in Albania and Romania, but not patriotism (or, as they called it, socialist patriotism)
9th, "I hope that at least some of the moderators have at least a little bit of still small voice and won't delete this section. This hypocrisy had gone too far. Someone have the freedom of speech and even the freedom to insult an entire nation, while others don't have even the right to have their own opinion".... What? Its just an opinion mentioned, the rest of the article just describe North Korea's view on nationalism, the Nationalism section (with the exception of the sub-section) doesn't say that WPK is not communist, Juche.... Don't get the point. At last, the section is called "Allegations of fascism", allegations doesn't mean true, its an allegation...
10th, Honestly, that the state owns the means of production doesn't make it socialist per se, fascists has similar economic policies, most notably Italy and Japan (not Nazi Germany though)...
11th, National Bolshevism and Strasser's National Socialism are commonly viewed as far-right....
12th, "What do we have about North Korea? It obviously has a leftist economy. You may say any gibberish you like, but you have to face the facts — most of the industrial enterprises and all of the collective farms are owned by the state, education healthcare and housing are provided by the state and there's no unemployment in North Korea.", again, this article hasn't stated that the WPK is not communist. Its taken the neutral position and called what the NK is; a Juche state. And if you believe that NK is socialist, well then, Juche then has to be socialist doesn't it? So don't get the point.....
13th, I'm going to say this again, the section is titled "Allegations of fascism", does anyone know what allegations means? --TIAYN (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard thread opened

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Workers.27_Party_of_Korea --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Day found

Official North Korean sources claim that the meeting was held on October 10, 1945. October 10 is regarded as the 'Party Foundation Day' in North Korea, on which Kim Il-sung formed the first genuine Marxist–Leninist party in the country. Marxistfounder (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, this should be explained in the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Xenophobia

The allegations of xenophobia seem to be based on limited sources. The material from Jasper Becker comes from one paragraph of his book. The rest is from Brian Reynolds Myers. This is really a fringe viewpoint which gains exposure because people want to believe it.

If North Korea was so xenophobia, why would it have been involved in the Communist movement, the Non-Aligned Movement, why would it have been involved with the Black Panthers [6] or the anti-apartheid struggle [7] ?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this section is not good for the very simple reason that with the exception of the opening sentence, it talks about North Korean political life in general without reference to the topic of this article, WPK.

For the latter question, Myers offers an explanation: no one likes xenophobic countries, so xenophobic countries should play at being something else. The world communist movement offered immense advantages (especially to a country neighboring the two main players) inlieu of a global xenophobic club. According to Myers, the situation is systemic and is thus fixed: everyone from the North Koreans to their supporters all the way to their enemies and impartial observers gain advantages by portraying North Korea as communist; it serves no one's interest to change the perception. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a paranoid theory. No, the section is not about the WPK. Becker actually says "Pyongyang" forced the divorces, not the WPK. The incident with the Cuban diplomat was a mob attack (in 1965), not something perpetrated by the WPK. This article doesn't actually give much information about the WPK's ideology apart from talking about nationalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Finnusertop: Honestly people? Everything in North Korea is either Kim or the party, and its impossible to differentiate the two. The Kim family are the party, the military is the party, the Pyonggang leadership are party people. You two havn't thought that one through... --TIAYN (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

According to this, the mob that attacked the diplomat was brutally suppressed, so the attack can't be described as regime policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Left/Right?

Rather than continue an edit war about the party's "political position" in the infobox, and restart an argument that dates back years, maybe we should leave it out. It is not included for every political party, for example: Communist Party of China, Communist Party of Vietnam etc. We do have a section on "ideology" which covers this.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Leave the fields blank in the infobox. Reliable sources are not in agreement over the ideology or political position of the party, and our Ideology section reflects that. That discussion does not lend it to a "at-a-glance" summary in the infobox. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and KAMiKAZOW: I think we have consensus for the "political position" parameter, but what about the "ideology" parameter? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It currently says "Juche, Songun, Stalinist". Juche and Songun are official ideologies, so there can't be much argument about them. Does anyone disagree with Stalinist?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland, KAMiKAZOW, and Finnusertop: Obviously it should just say Juche... Songbun policy has, according to some analysts, been droped by Kim Jong-un... Secondly, a political position is something you have in democratic countries and which are relative to other parties. Hence, a right-wing party (the Republicans) in the United States is considered extreme in the political context of Norway... When there is only one party, there is only one position. In effect this would entail that WPK is a centrist party, but of course that's nonsense... Political positions, as in the labels left, right, centre, don't exist or can't be used to described a party in a one-party state. --TIAYN (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Songun would be probably alright, but in order to warrant that it really has to be discussed in the Ideology section (right now it isn't). Juche is fine (though that too is disputed by you-know-who). Stalinism is not a good term. It's generally derogatory and it has little descriptive value. Let's keep Juche, and Songun on the condition that material discussing it appears in the relevant section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit war continues... I was interested to see that some editor had described the party as "Far Left (Fiscal)". What is that??? North Korea has abolished taxes and has low debt, which should delight "fiscal conservatives". Looks like some people can't see out of the bubble of American politics!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Political position" currently reads: "Political, economic: Far-left. Social: Far-right". Is there a source that says that? And is there a clear divide between the political and economic and the social? I don't think there is. What is described at Far-right politics or Social conservatism has little to do with the WPK. This is not helpful to readers at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To make my point clearer, let's compare positions that would be generally considered far-right socially with the positions of the WPK:

Nationalism: yes, but also internationalism.
Xenophobia: debatable, see above.
National unity: not really, promotes class struggle.
Opposition to immigration: not applicable.
Militarism: yes, but in an environment of conflict.
Opposition to socialism, collectivism: no. See, for example, the provision of healthcare and education.
Support for traditional culture: yes and no. See Culture of North Korea.
Support for traditional religion: no.
Support for the traditional status of women: not really, see Women in North Korea, note in particular female conscription.
Support for the traditional family: not exactly, given universal child care.[8]
Opposition to abortion: legal until 2015, reportedly.[9]
Opposition to recreational drugs: debatable, see Cannabis in North Korea.
Opposition to homosexuality: no laws against homosexuality, see LGBT rights in North Korea.
Opposition to environmentalism: no. See Environment of North Korea#Environmental Programs.

Clearly this label is misleading and unhelpful.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Xenophobia, sexism and homophobia are NOT determinative of Left-wing or Right-wing politics]].

(Perceived) Homophobic, sexist and xenophobic policies have been employed in both leftist and rightist systems.

I should note that for the homosexuality one, while no anti-LGBT laws have been enacted as of yet in the DPRK, it has at the UN, declared its opposition to worldwide decriminalisation of homosexuality. Furthermore, homosexuality is strongly discouraged in the country, with some propaganda depicting such behaviour as characteristic of 'western moral degeneracy'.

I should add that the country is technically not opposed to immigration. North Korea, near its border with South Korea, has set up towns dubbed 'propaganda villages', with many facilities (schools, hospitals, etc) and other favourable qualities, designed to encourage South Koreans to emigrate to the north.

As for being 'Socially Conservative', it's a mixed bag for the PDRK. The government has shown some socially conservative positions, such as some support for traditional culture, no legislation of same-sex marriage, an obviously nationalistic sentiment, support for the death penalty, etc. On the other hand, many of the WPK's policies would be widely opposed by most socially-conservative-minded people. They are for strict gun control, ban the practice of traditional religion, (as far as I know) provide on-demand (and sometimes forced) termination of pregnancy, etc. JoeyofScotia (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is that "Social: Far-right" is not a useful label (and it is not currently being used). I think your comments illustrate that in many ways. I said immigration was not applicable because there simply aren't large numbers of people wanting to move to North Korea. The DPRK sees itself as the government of all Korea, so accepting South Koreans and Koreans from Japan, which it has done, is not exactly immigration. It has accepted some non-Korean exiles from Asia and Africa, but that's it. The DPRK has nothing in common with the far-right parties in the West which rail against immigration. I would question the "strict gun control" description because of the large numbers of the population in the Korean People's Army and the well-regulated militia. There is universal conscription. The population is not disarmed. Also, religion is not officially banned. Fundamentally, North Korean society is so different from Western societies that terms like "socially conservative" are simply misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Socialism ideology

@Apollo The Logician: if you read through the article (and this talk page), it's evident that it is not "obvious" at all that the party espouses a socialist ideology. Furthermore, your edit has reintroduced uncited material that has been challenged by another user: the WP:BURDEN is on you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article does mention "socialist" or "socialism" 16 times. It only mentions Songun three times. It's hard to argue that WPK doesn't espouse socialism.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Economist calls North Korea socialist http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081514/socialist-economies-how-china-cuba-and-north-korea-work.asp Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So does Kim-Jung Un himself http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11918386/Kim-Jong-un-insists-inherited-rule-best-for-a-socialist-state.html Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Jack Upland, but none of those 16 instances unequivocally say that the party espouses a socialist ideology. I agree that it's hard to argue that the WPK isn't socialist, but that's not what I'm arguing. All I'm saying is that having "socialism" in the infobox is not a fair summary of the article contents.

@Apollo The Logician: both sources say this about the state, not the party. Besides, given that there is actual academic scholarship on the issue, newspapers are not the best of sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The state is run by the party so obviously the party supports socialism. Media is a reliable source per WP:RS. If there are academic papers that state otherwise then please present them. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also here is the party itself claiming it supports socialism. https://books.google.ie/books?id=JIlh9nNeadMC&pg=PA93&dq=workers+party+of+korea+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiogvOI-PnRAhUHIMAKHYQfDXcQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=workers%20party%20of%20korea%20socialism&f=false Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the key point here is that we have had arguments for years, both here and at North Korea about the ideology etc in the infobox. This is totally counterproductive. We should concentrate on adding concrete information to the articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have provided multiple sources that back up my claim, how on earth is it unproductive? Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Look at the discussion page, we have had numerous discussions on this. That is unproductive.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no discussions currently on the talk page. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician and Jack Upland: Also arguements against.... Here (sourced quote from article):

Suh Dae-sook, the author of Kim Il Sung: The North Korean Leader, notes that "What he [Kim Il-sung] has built in the North however, resembles more a political system to accommodate his personal rule than a communist or socialist state in Korea. It is not the political system he built that will survive him; it is his son [Kim Jong-il], whom he has designated heir, who will succeed his reign."[57]

--TIAYN (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Isolationism

Still on the infobox, I don't think "isolationism" is appropriate. Its page (accurately) describes isolationism as "the foreign policy position that a nation's interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance". This is not accurate for North Korea. While North Korea is isolated, it has actively sought connections with other countries. For example, a WPK delegate recently went to Fidel Castro's funeral[10] as part of a long-term relationship.[11] The WPK has cultivated ties with Africa.[12] North Korea promotes Juche as a model for the developing world to follow.[13] It has been a member of the Non-aligned movement since 1975. Official pronouncements do not promote isolationism.[14] Isolationism is not mentioned in this article, and I don't think it should be in the infobox.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

And I don't think isolationism is autarky. North Korea has pursued autarky, as part of the Juche Idea, but this is not isolationism.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

This edit war about ideology and political position in the infobox continues a dispute that has been going on since 2009. Can we come to some consensus? There is no point in continuing this indefinitely, and it is not desirable to give victory to the person who is most obstinate. I would also suggest that editors add the sourced information to the body of the article, rather than engage in suicidal trench warfare about a few words in the infobox.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The only difference is that they want to add everything to the infobox, and I one thing. While it might have changed a lot. Before the recent changes it just said Juche or Juche and Songbun. Reverting to consensus. If people want to change, and explain their edits.. Do it here; Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs) & Ezequiel Matias Acosta (talk · contribs). No one is denying that Juche is anti-imperialistic or socialistic.. The point is that Juche is the catch-all term for their policy. --TIAYN (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with Juche alone. However, I don't agree that it's a catch-all term. In my case, I wanted to add these ideologies, because well, the DPRK describes itself as socialist, and its constitution requires its citizens "to live following the socialist principles". Numerous rallies have been held by the government against evil American imperialists, and also state media often talks about how North Koreans should prepare to defend the Motherland against the USA (The "perceived enemies" of the Party and state). At least socialism and anti-imperialism should stay, along with Songun.

The rest is debatable. Ezequiel Matias Acosta (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Show me the consensus for only Juche otherwise I am reverting.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician: See talk page, see edit history.

@Ezequiel Matias Acosta: Juche is anti-imperialism, because Juche mean autarky and independence from national repression. Socialism in North Korea means Juche. North Korea follows Juche socialism, and "socialism" as you're linking to is an inherently vague and useless term. Socialism in itself doesn't mean anything; its an inherently vague term. Socialism also means the UK Labour Party. How would linking to that term help? As for "Songun", its a policy (and not ideology). Its own WP page even says so. --TIAYN (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: Can you provide me a link? Because I dont see any discussion about only Juche.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: Sorry but I just can't agree with you. That's your concept, but the North Korean government and constitution proclaim that the country is socialist and Juche, not just Juche. It doesn't matter if we think it's a vague term, but if Kim Jong-un and official media continously speak about it then it shouldn't be left out. Even the DPRK website describes the nation as the "Juche-oriented socialist state founded by Comrade Kim il-sung". Anti-imperialism in North Korea was long promoted before Juche even existed. Also, I don't see any consensus on Juche only, so I'll revert your editions if you don't provide me with a link. Ezequiel Matias Acosta (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ezequiel Matias Acosta: Sorry for late response.

"Juche-oriented socialist state" doesn't mean that Juche and socialism are different. It just means that there doesn't exist a concept of the "Juche state". DPRK is according to the WPK a "socialist state based on Juche". You're misintepreting the sentence.

The constitution literally says " Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a socialist fatherland of Juche"... It never says there is a difference between the two. It literally goes the other way, indirectly saying they are interlinked.

How is Juche a vague term?

So? Juche is still anti-imperialistic. And it doesn't matter what they did before, right now (as in the last 40 years), North Korean anti-imperialism is Juche anti-imperialism (no difference between the two).

The consensus for my changes. Before you nobody opposed them. You're changes? Look at the talk page, people are debating them.

--TIAYN (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: OK, but I don't see any consensus on Juche only. There isn't one so far. For now, Juche'll remain as the sole ideology, but I think this discussion shouldn't stop here. "Before you nobody opposed them", so everyone before me agreed with you? How nice! Ezequiel Matias Acosta (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Labour Party?

In the article, the party is called "Workers' Party of Korea". However, the korean name "조선로동당" (Chosŏn Rodongdang) actually means "Party of Labour of Korea" or "Labour Pary of Korea" ("조선"/"Chosŏn" = "Korea"/"Korean"; "로동"/"lodong" = "Work"/ "Labour"; "당"/"dang" = "party"), while "worker" whould mean something like "일벌"/"ilbeol" or "노동자"/ "nodongja". Mistranslation? Should it be changed?--Januarsturm (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It should not be changed as Workers' Party of Korea is the official english name used by the party and has been so for decades! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I have heard it called the Labour Party, but this is uncommon and is not the official translation, though it is more correct.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete the link to the North Korean Website

Delete it because the North Koreans with hack you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.27.62 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete links.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this particular site has any malicious code? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Workers' Party of Korea → Korean Workers' Party – Wikipedia names articles based on the most common English-language name, and since "Korean Workers' Party" is more common in English, using that as article's title would make the most sense. CriticalMaster95 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

How did you ascertain that "Korean Workers' Party" is more common? I see in google results the current Workers' Party of Korea has 77 million results, while the former has 44 million results. Additionally, DPRK uses Workers' Party of Korea in all official communications. Am I missing something here? Shushugah (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Workers' Party of Korea is the common name. Sawol (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Same opinion as Shushugah and Sawol.--Migs005 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. While Korean Workers' Party is not uncommon, Workers' Party of Korea is more common still. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ideologies

Hello. I added some more ideologies (with references) that I think they should be included in the infobox (Anti-imperialism and Anti-revisionism). Also, as the article says, the party renounced to the Communist Marxist–Leninist ideas to Juche, so I thought it was also convenient to be added them as "historical". Here you can check the ideologies list. What do you think?84.78.248.241 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. Just write down Juche and Songun as you do now. I don't think it's necessary to add another ideology to the infobox.--삭은사과 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninism

Earlier I added in a section noting that the Party used to be Marxist-Leninist. It got undone, but I think it should come back since on this page it talks directly about how the party removed Marxist-Leninism from its statement. Thoughts?108.45.91.166 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism is already mentioned in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant under the ideology section, have it say historical: Marxist-Leninism. Sorry for not being clear.108.45.91.166 (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please reply

I think I do not want people to go to the web domain.

I think it’s to dangerous.

I do not want to get hacked or the North Korean military on my door.

Just don’t go to the web domain.

Thank You, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.145.210 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the link to Rodong is dangerous? I've never come across any such claims in expert sources, which often link to it as well, including researchers that specifically focus on North Korea from a web security perspective. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is communism not included in ideology?

It should be included Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Στάλιν και παραλλαγή, as the article discusses, communism as a concept has been gradually removed from party material, and it was pretty much the same with Marxism-Leninism. In order to change the ideology in the infobox, you'll need to provide recent reliable sources (academic, preferably) for the topic. MarioGom (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding citations to the infobox

Add them to the article body, not the infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise, not supplant information in the article. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Communism and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism

Can we please get consensus on the inclusion of communism in the infobox and the change from Juche and Songun to Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism? This back and forth has been going on between at least a dozen editors over the past year. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The party ideology was refined in the 8th Congress held this January (not in 1979-1980). You can find analysis here and here. Among the changes were substituting "people-first" for Songun as the "basic political mode" and reasserting communism as the goal of development. While foreign propaganda would have everyone believe that the DPRK is politically inert and timeless, there have been changes between 2009 (when the Supreme People's Assembly removed communism from the constitution) and now. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the party's own announcement of the rule changes here. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

To my understanding, Kim Jong-un shifted the language of the party's ideology from Juche and Songun to Communism, ~~Marxism–Leninism,~~ and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, with Juche and Songun being components of Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Going through with the following change to the list: from Juche and Songun to Communism and Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, with Juche and Songun as components of Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism. This change reflects the information stated in the article lead and body (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and is also consistent with the sourced content of other Wikipedias, particularly the Korean Wikipedia. This might be considered by some to be a bold change, but it does not contradict any policies; rather, it in fact upholds them. Absence of comments does not equate to a consensus, but I have invited other editors to leave their thoughts and yet only one anonymous one has replied in the past eight months. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)