North Korea:

Total posts: [6,641]
1 ... 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 ... 266
3701 SabresEdge14th Mar 2014 10:25:42 PM from a defense-in-depth
Show an affirming flame
All right. This may be changing gears from most of the topical stories on North Korea, but I thought it'd be an interesting note to make. Heavy dose of political science to follow. Namely: North Korea and fascism. Does the label fit?

TLDR: no, though it can come rather close. Imperial Japan is a better metric.

I've seen multiple comparisons between North Korea and the different fascist movements of the 1930s, and with late Imperial Japan as well where race-based nationalism was involved. One of the issues, though, is that fascism is so poorly defined. It's become a generic term of abuse these days. Definitions are notoriously slippery, but it helps to have some qualitative line in the sand. The widely-agreed textbook cases of fascism are Nazism in Germany and Mussolini's movement in Italy (for cases where they came to power), plus influential movements in interwar Austria (where it came to power before being displaced by the Germans), Hungary, Romania (both cases where they didn't manage to come into power until too late, but pushed the existing authoritarian governments toward their direction), and Spain (where the Falangists were on the winning side but found themselves sidelined by Franco.) In other words, fascism is more than authoritarianism—even racial authoritarianism.

I'm using Michael Mann's case study, Fascists. (Hurrah for class readings!) His definition involved several key factors, all of which Fascist movements fulfilled:
  • Nation-statism. We're familiar with nationalism, of course, but nation-statism takes a little more definition. This means that the will of the nation—which in turn is usually defined in ethnic or racial terms—is manifested in the state. This would put them at odds with a lot of nationalist movements today, which is a key distinguishing mark: one of fascism's key tenets is the seizing of power at the state level. This also played into authoritarian tendencies: the will of the people is expressed in the state, the will of the state is expressed in the leader. Thus the leader embodies the will of the people.
    • Totalitarianism was the usual goal of such movements: since the will of the people was embodied in the state, the state aimed to use its power in all aspects of life. As should be obvious given the sheer inefficiency and factionalism of historical totalitarian states, prevalent from the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany to North Korea, this is more of an ideal than an actual achievement.
  • Transcendence of class. Despite endless barrages decrying fascism as simply a form of capitalism, it's worth noting that fascism had, depending on the movement, fairly broad inter-class support. This was because one of the most attractive tenets of fascism in the interwar years was its claim of transcending class: no matter that you were proletarian or bourgeois, aristocrat or peasant; your racial/national identity was supposed to be above all that, and fascists promised a country where rich and poor would work together for the sake of the nation, regardless of your wealth. This made them especially attractive vis-a-vis the socialist movements. Of course, this worked out less well in practice than in theory, and different fascist movements found themselves taking sides, usually against their socialist rivals, which were seen as the most dangerous opponents due to also being mass movements. (However, one fascist movement, the Romanian Iron Guard, actually had fairly broad working-class support, gained by denouncing "international Jewish capitalists".)
  • National cleansing. Related to the above, fascist movements all blamed society's evils on the presence of some foreign intruder in the body politic. Remove them, went their theory, and society would be perfect. Most fascist movements, which aligned themselves with the existing power structures that managed to strike deals with them, focused on the racial/ethnic component, though class struggle did play into things. This often but not always involved racial nationalism; the original fascists, the Italians, allowed for assimilation into the nation, as their definition was more cultural than racial. Similarly, the most murderous campaigns carried out by Franco's Spain in the name of national cleansing were targeted on working-class militants, not on ethnicities.
  • Paramilitarism. This may be the distinguishing mark of fascist movements: they were extensively paramilitary. By drawing on mass support and then organization and arming their supporters, especially drawing on the millions of young men who were either back from the war, out of work, and recalling the camaraderie of the trenches, and the generation of students after them who grew up on their experiences, fascist movements had armed paramilitary organizations—the SA, the Legions of Archangel Michael, the Falange, and the like. This gave them a key advantage in street battles against the socialists, who were distinctly poorly organized and badly armed, even if at times they could match the fascists in numbers; this also meant that if they tried to challenge the military head-on—as the Romanian fascists did, and the Hungarian fascists didn't for fear of defeat—instead of subverting it from within, they were flattened. Paramilitaries are no match for actual militaries.

Given those definitions, it should be easier to make sense of Mann's admittedly-unwieldy definition, the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism. (Real life is so inconvenient in how it sometimes refuses to be boiled down into a pithy, memorable phrase.) It should be noted that by that definition, Franco's Spain and Imperial Japan were not fascist. Authoritarian, certainly; murderous, definitely. But although the Franco regime was allied with the fascist Falange movement, it was top-down military by nature, as opposed to bottom-up paramilitary, and it was more conservative—i.e., wanting to preserve the existing order—than transcendent—i.e., wanting to form a whole new order. Imperial Japan was transcendent in the way that it wanted to create a new, modernized Japanese state, one where class differences were regarded as unimportant, although one with the trappings of the old regime. However, it too was military instead of paramilitary, being top-down in nature, and it did not rely upon mass movements to seize power. (The actual nature of the Imperial Japanese regime in the 1930s is difficult to describe: "military-industrial anarchy" seems as good a phrase as any other, given the interservice wars of assassination between the different factions in the armed forces. One can argue about how top-down it was given the power of junior officers to provoke entire wars, as they did in 1931 against China, but there is still a massive gap between that and the fascists' mass movements.)

So, to the meat of the issue. How does the North Korean regime stack up?

  • Nation-statism, check. North Korean rhetoric is aggressively nationalistic, subtype racial/ethnic. Plus, the whole "state as the embodiment of the nation, Kim as the embodiment of the state" angle gets a lot of play. B. R. Myers explores this in closer detail.
  • Transcendence, no. In theory, the North Korean regime had its roots in class conflict, instead of wishing to transcend class differences. But, a key variable here is that the fascist movements tended to aim toward, rather than achieve, transcendence; the fascist movements all took sides one way or another instead of standing above the conflict. Most chose to take the side of the big capitalists out of convenience, but, again, there were proletarian-leaning fascist movements too, with an emphasis on class warfare. Besides, class conflict faded as a goal for North Korea; there are fewer and fewer references to the place as a workers' paradise. So, a better answer might be "no, it's not transcendent, but neither were the Iron Guard in practice."
  • Cleansing. Absolutely yes. Since the Korean Peninsula was, unlike Europe, not diverse ethnically, the racial purges associated with European fascism were generally not a factor here. But Kim il-Sung proved just as murderous toward those whom he deemed threatened his power, which meant threatening the state, which meant threatening the Korean nation. Plus there were the purges of the landlords and landlords' families as parasites on the Korean body politic, carried out on Stalinist lines as Kim consolidated his power.
  • Paramilitarism. No, and this is the disqualifier. Fascist movements built up mass support, used them to create paramilitaries, and used the paramilitaries to hearten supporters, intimidate rivals, and win the respect or the fear of bystanders; using the power gained with such methods, they would then attempt to take over the state, normally by the ballot box. However else you might qualify the North Korean regime, it does not and never did involve a mass movement. There's a massive difference between popular support for the regime, which it generally had back in the 1960s, versus grassroots mass movements, which never featured, since Kim and company were installed by the Soviets. Likewise, state-backed paramilitaries are different from mass-movement paramilitaries. One can call upon the resources of the state to back it up; the other cannot.

So, like Imperial Japan, the North Korean regime is not fascist by that definition, mainly due to its lack of a mass popular component. This is key: it may be a murderous, intolerant, authoritarian regime, but it was never a movement, as the fascists were. If one wanted to split hairs, one might be able to draw comparisons between the NK regime and the authoritarian governments that the fascist movements eventually led to, but that's still different from calling the NK regime "fascists". Remember, the fascists were a genuine set of movements, with real ideological goals; it'd be inaccurate to simply dismiss them or to accuse them of using those goals as rhetoric just to get into office. Although it's hard to escape that conclusion for the North Korean regime's "Juche" ideology, the difference is that nobody takes Juche seriously, while fascism was deadly serious and very promising back in its heyday. People did believe in fascism, whereas the ordinary North Korean had no real ideology aside from possibly a vague anticolonialism back when Kim took power.

Hence, North Korea: murderous, yes. Nationalist, yes. Nasty and ugly, yes. But fascist, no.
3702 KnightofLsama15th Mar 2014 12:48:03 AM from The Sea of Chaos
Servant of the Golden Lady of Chaos
[up] Personally I believe that the best description is a military dictatorship in the process of becoming an absolute monarchy.

And as I asked before, does anyone know how to say "L'État, c'est moi!" is Korean?
Welcome to the Sea of Chaos
3703 Quag1516th Mar 2014 08:20:39 AM from Portugal , Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Portugal according to Hetalia
Those who are free from common prejudices acquire others.- Napoleon Bonaparte

Tropers Riffing Movies
3704 Canid11716th Mar 2014 01:03:37 PM , Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
Did they almost shoot down another airline on accident?
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins
3705 LeGarcon16th Mar 2014 04:33:55 PM from Skadovsk , Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
No but there's another third of their rocket arsenal gone.

Oh really when?
3706 BestOf16th Mar 2014 04:35:12 PM from Finland , Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
3707 TuefelHundenIV16th Mar 2014 04:37:18 PM from Wandering , Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Watchman of the Apocalypse
I think that was sarcasm.
"Who watches the watchmen?"
3708 BestOf16th Mar 2014 04:38:28 PM from Finland , Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
That's what I thought, too, but I want to be sure. Maybe there really is a source that says they only had 30 working missiles or something - it could be based on an actual figure.

If it was not based on an actual figure it was a good jab at North Korea's delusions of grandeur, anyway.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
3709 Quag1525th Mar 2014 09:58:18 PM from Portugal , Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Portugal according to Hetalia
North Korea: China is a ‘Turncoat and our Enemy’.

The report is questionable (and the newspaper Chosun Ilbo even more so), but if this was true, what would be the short-term consequences?
Those who are free from common prejudices acquire others.- Napoleon Bonaparte

Tropers Riffing Movies
3710 LeGarcon25th Mar 2014 09:59:05 PM from Skadovsk , Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Wonderful job there Best Korea, declare the country that's giving you all your food an enemy.

Oh really when?
3711 RadicalTaoist25th Mar 2014 10:26:55 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Chosun Ilbo, a conservative South Korean newspaper, reports that a sign in North Korea’s Kang Kon Military Academy states that China is a “turncoat and our enemy.” The newspaper bases the reports on “sources” without any further identification information. It quotes another source as saying: “”The position of the North Korean regime is to use China, but not trust it.”
Oh like China didn't know this was always their real stance. Beijing isn't stupid, they know what's up.
The fact that the newspaper has not provided any further identification information about its sources have led some to criticize Chosun Ilbo and doubt the accuracy of the report. However, calling China a “turncoat and our enemy” would hardly be unprecedented for North Korea. Indeed, the phrase is a quote from Kim Il-Sung, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) eternal president, who uttered it shortly after China established diplomatic relations with South Korea in 1992. After that, banners bearing the phrase were hung on the walls of the Kang Kon Military Academy for three years until 1995. The same banners were temporarily re-hung on the walls of the Kang Kon Military Academy after North Korea’s second nuclear test in 2009.
This is old hat it would seem.
3712 KnightofLsama25th Mar 2014 11:08:23 PM from The Sea of Chaos
Servant of the Golden Lady of Chaos
but if this was true, what would be the short-term consequences?

Probably very little. Its would just be another little pebble washed away from the Great Wall of Chinese Support for North Korea. The real question is what happens when either
  • China finally decides they are sick of North Korea's shit and pull the plug completely or
  • North Korea pushes past the line of no return and everyone dropes on them like a ton of bricks
Welcome to the Sea of Chaos
3713 RadicalTaoist26th Mar 2014 12:01:26 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
China doesn't trust NK not to start lobbing missiles towards Beijing once the aid dries up. I suspect any sudden end to NK aid will be accompanied by a few brigades crossing the Yalu and a combined land and sea assault by everything the Chinese can muster up without drawing attention. Annexing NK completely is safer for the Chinese than trusting a Kim regime with nothing to lose. If Beijing's really worried we might even see a pre-emptive tactical strike with cruise missiles; a worst case scenario would see DPRK military targets feeling the bite of The Dragon's Teeth. Diplomatically, the West won't receive more warning than a polite "Excuse us for a moment, please" from China before they drag the DPRK into a closet and kick the crap out of them.

edited 26th Mar '14 12:01:50 AM by RadicalTaoist

3714 Greenmantle26th Mar 2014 12:18:27 AM from Greater Wessex, Britannia , Relationship Status: Hiding

Diplomatically, the West won't receive more warning than a polite "Excuse us for a moment, please" from China before they drag the DPRK into a closet and kick the crap out of them.

...and I doubt the West (along with South Korea, Russia and Japan) would mind that much — particularly if they were unofficially warned in advance.
Keep Rolling On

3715 KnightofLsama26th Mar 2014 01:16:54 AM from The Sea of Chaos
Servant of the Golden Lady of Chaos
[up][up] Yeah, I doubt that they'd use nukes... too risky and the potential for fallout over South Korea and Japan would be a diplomatic nightmare. I guess more special forces teams sneaking in and making sure that any NK nukes are disabled, or at least secure ahead of a potential (conventional) assault.
Welcome to the Sea of Chaos
3716 RadicalTaoist26th Mar 2014 02:37:47 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
NK is really closed and hard for even China to sneak in to. But I wouldn't be surprised if China had plenty of MOABs or similar non-nuclear weaponry capable of turning a mountain inside out.
3717 NeonMoon26th Mar 2014 07:48:36 AM from Floriduh , Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Bah, this China thing is small potatoes.

Best Korea is too busy tackling the IMPORTANT problems.

edited 26th Mar '14 7:48:53 AM by NeonMoon

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
3718 FFShinra26th Mar 2014 11:30:12 AM from Ivalice, apparently , Relationship Status: Too sexy for my shirt
Beware the Crazy Man.
Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...
3719 SabresEdge26th Mar 2014 11:37:50 AM from a defense-in-depth
Show an affirming flame
I doubt annexation is in the cards if anything goes down between North Korea and China; China's always made a lot of noise about "but TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY", which is why it was uncomfortable about Russian annexing the Crimea. Plus, China doesn't have any kind of historic claim on the Korean Peninsula. Suzerainty and puppet-states, sure.

A bit of history: North Korea hasn't always been friendly to China. In the Cold War, in fact, Kim il-Sung masterfully balanced between the Soviets and the Chinese, playing both sides against each other to get the most he could out of both of them. It made sense not to be completely reliant on one or the other. Now that it's no longer an option, with China and Russia not hating each other with the fervor of the bishop against the heretic, North Korea's been pushed into the position that il-Sung was trying to avoid. It'd make sense that North Korea feels resentful that Beijing holds so much leverage against them. Conversely, China is happy that North Korea is a semi-pliant border state, but also very unhappy that it appears to be batshit insane in its rhetoric and willing to negotiate with Beijing via suicide vest.

If I remember from my Korean War readings, the terrain up north is rugged and generally horrible. China could probably air-assault their way in if they had to, and use paratroopers and airmobile infantry to clear the way for an armored thrust. They probably won't, though, barring some kind of major political destabilization in the area.
3720 BestOf26th Mar 2014 12:38:34 PM from Finland , Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
I wonder what percentage of North Korea's military has been set aside to repel an invasion from the North, rather than the South. I'd imagine it'd be a pretty small number.

But yes, the Northern border is near (and partially on) a mountain range. Two rivers flowing from those mountains are the border between China and North Korea (and one of them also includes the Russia-North Korea border). On either side of each river there are highlands, but not proper mountains (except for the parts that are on the actual mountain range).

Here's a topography map that shows the borders.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
3721 TairaMai26th Mar 2014 04:44:21 PM from El Paso Tx , Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
rollin' on dubs
As I posted before, North Korea ties up the US forces in Asia: aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery all focused on the DMZ.

As things change, China pulls a You Have Failed Me as the North Koreans become a cost liability.

3722 Quag1526th Mar 2014 04:47:53 PM from Portugal , Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Portugal according to Hetalia
Those who are free from common prejudices acquire others.- Napoleon Bonaparte

Tropers Riffing Movies
3723 RadicalTaoist26th Mar 2014 04:54:25 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
@ Best Of: Thanks for the topographical map. Hmm, that wouldn't be an easy nut to crack. I also note that China has no sea access to the North Pacific; that's Russian territory, I take it?
3724 BestOf26th Mar 2014 05:32:08 PM from Finland , Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
To access the North Pacific China has to go around the Korean Peninsula.

The most important Russian port outside Europe is Vladivostok, which is quite close to the border with North Korea. If China wanted a port to the East of North Korea they'd somehow have to acquire Vladivostok, or some of the land between Vladivostok and North Korea (thus doing away with the Russia-North Korea border altogether, as it would become an extension of China's border with North Korea).

It seems that while China has a large number of islands (and claims to have even more than other nations are willing to accept) it doesn't have any islands to the East of the Korean peninsula.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
3725 RadicalTaoist26th Mar 2014 05:45:33 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Most of NK's missile silos will be up there in the mountains, right? Not exactly easy to dig out.

Maybe China could get a bunch of troops over the border under false pretenses, something like a "joint exercise".

Total posts: 6,641
1 ... 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 ... 266