Talk:North Korea/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Dictatorship?

Please add.

Im not sure if in modern terms we still talk about "dictatorships", over the past years it has becomed an insultive term to describe a goverment that oposed another country. One thing to be noted is that perhaps this is the first hereditary communist goverment in history.

Totally agree with you; North Korea is only a communist single-party state, and not a dictatorship. Wikipedia itself states that a dictator is "an absolutist or autocratic ruler that governs outside the constitutionally normal rule of law through a continuous state of exception", and as far as I know Kim Jong-Il is neither offending North Korea's socialist constitution nor laws with his government. And nevertheless: is North Korea on a state of exception? obviously not. --Nkcs 02:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are completely different complaints, whether or not "we still talk about dictatorships" (this is absurd, I don't know anyone who doesn't know what that word means or who refuses to use it), and whether or not North Korea is a dictatorship. If it's not technically considered one, it's only because the great leader hands down what the law will be, and the legislature rubber stamps it. "Hereditary communist goverment?" --70.142.40.34 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

North Korea's government is based on a personality-cult surrounding Kim Jong-Il (and his father before him), who is portrayed in godlike terms to the people which certainly allows it to classify as a dictatorship, to say the least. --The Way 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a dictatorship by definition in contemporary meaning.. basically it means they aren't accountable to anyone.. and if you're insulted by the term that's because you run one and have been found wanting - welcome to wikipedia Mr Jong-Il

North Korea IS a dictatorship whether you like it or not. If any country in the entire world is a dictatorship, North Korea is. Why? Because Kim Jong Il is answerable to no one, and his word is all that is needed to make or break any given individual. Just because you happen to like a country doesn't mean it's not a dictatorship.

You're making an utterly unsupported claim, just because the DPRK's enemies refer to it as a dictatorship does not mean it is one in any more meaningful way than other states. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and to call something a 'dictatorship' is to attack it from a specific political angle, against the government of the DPRK. Kim Jong Il is not "answerable to no one", he is just one of several of the top leaders, his actual legal authority is less than that of most western leaders as he has no ability to preside over the Supreme People's Assembly, the DPRK's top elected legislative body, and he has no ability to conduct foriegn affairs on behalf of the DPRK, that is the responsibility of the Assembly President Kim Yong Nam (no relation). The American point of view has always been to personify governments as if they're run by a single person when, like all large institutions, they are in fact run by many many people who have multiple power bases and internal politics every bit as complicated as in the West, to assume this is not the case is pure american-centric bais. NoJoyInMudville 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Rueben you need to stop adding in "it is a communist dictatorship", when that is clearly an unsourced, unsited, debateable claim, the fact that it is multi-party however is not debateable, these are the actual facts. A "it is in fact a Communist dictatorship" is not neutral point of view, you can say that it is "accused of being a communist dictatorship by the west, by certain south korean wikipedia editors" or whatever, but not that "it is a communist dictatorship"NoJoyInMudville 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The DPRK clearly is a ditactorship in the strongest, neutral sense of the word. You say that KJI's legal power is restricted etc. This does not mean he is not a dictator. There is a difference between de jure and de facto dictatorship, and the DPRK is very obviously the latter, regardless of the legal structure. This doesn't mean that there aren't internal politics in a dictatorship, different groups and factions vie for influence and power. The OED defines a dictator as "A ruler or governor whose word is law; an absolute ruler of a state.", KJI fits that discription to a t, even looking at the dprk website the cult of personality around him is evident. Authority in the DPRK stems not from the people, but from KJI. The situation in the DPRK today is the same as in Albania and Romania under commmunism- Ceauşescu and Hoxa wrapped their tyrannies in a thin veneer of 'legitimacy'.

Its amazing anyone can stand up and defend a state as morally repugant as the DPRK and be able to look at themselves in the mirror. The DPRK is a communist dictatorship: http://www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=1703 (censored tinyurl link) (censored tinyurl link) Cxk271 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Removed tinyurl links so that the page is editable again... --Reuben 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be citied in the Government section?

Any suggestions as to what statements in particular need to be sourced in the Government section? Might make tracking down citations easier... crazyeddie 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Military section definitally needs to be sourced better - CIA factbook maybe? crazyeddie 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV -> Cleanup?

While the article definitly needs some cleaning, I don't see any major NPOV concerns at present. Does anybody have any particular NPOV issues they want to point out, or can we replace the NPOV notices with cleanup ones? crazyeddie 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the article seems to be more-or-less alright aside from needing some sources. If there aren't any objections soon, I might just remove the NPOV notices (and see if that causes any objections...). crazyeddie 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. At the very least two aren't needed.--Planetary 05:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and no objections, so I'll go ahead and remove them. crazyeddie 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is still extremely biased towards a western, pro-american point of view NoJoyInMudville 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, before you go and add a NPOV notice, please list specific examples of langauge you find to be POV so we can talk it over. It's a bit tough to correct generalities. crazyeddie 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the anon posting, but if it helps people to see why this article could be considered NPOV, simply compare and contrast the introduction with that of any other country. Listing how Global media define it, and the views of the western world would be akin to describing the United states as corrupt in its opening paragraph and citing Iranian sources as evidence. Its not about whether or not the claims about the DPRK goverment are true or not, its the prominence that anti-DPRK is given. The US, rightfully so, barely has ANY criticism on or linked to its main page (in spite of the fact that unlike North Korea, many of the allegations of US human rights violations have there own pages). This shows a clear disparity in editing.

System of Government

There has been a lot of flux on the System of Government entry on the Infobox. I recommend settling on Communist state. I'm aware that Juche, the official ideology of NK is not Marxism-Leninism. However, it is part of the Marxist tradition, which is commonly called Communism.

I recommend against Socialist state because 1) "the term socialist republic is used by those who wish to emphasize that socialists favour a republican form of government." NK is not a republic, at least not as a republic is commonly understood. 2) "Because there are several different branches of socialism, a country's claim to the label of "socialist state" or "socialist republic" is almost always disputed. Indeed, there are many socialists who strongly oppose certain self-proclaimed socialist republics. Trotskyists, for instance, are particularly known for their opposition to Communist states." So any labeling of NK as a Socialist state is going to cause disupte.

Back to the case for "Communist state": "A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party (or a single list, which includes formally several parties, as was the case in the GDR) which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism." NK appears to be a state that is more-or-less governed by a single political party. I'll grant that it does not declare its allegiance to Marxism-Leninsim as such, but the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Juche seems to be not readily apparent to the average layman. However, I am open to the possiblity of a "Juchist state," but I still prefer "Communist state."

Any other thoughts on the matter? Anybody want to do a strawpoll? crazyeddie 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Communist State" is an oxymoron and makes no sense. If you must, call it Communist, but not a "Communist State". --Ionius Mundus 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If NK were truly Communist in the Marxist sense, it wouldn't be a state. Communist state would seem to refer to a state that has declared its allegiance to a form of Marxism. NK meets that requirement. crazyeddie 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This would be a socialist state, one that believes in Communism, but obviously has not reached it yet. Besides, DPRK eliminated all mentions of allegiance to Marxism-Leninism in the 90s. They officially use Juche. "Communist State" will never make any sense, and either way, DPRK has never called itself a "Communist State". --Ionius Mundus 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "Socialist state" has been pre-empted by non-Marxist socialists. I agree that "Juchist state" might be more accurate than "Communist state," but I hate to try to explain the difference in an Infobox. Maybe something like "Communist state (see Juche)"? At any rate, it seems to me that Juche is clearly descended from Marxism-Leninism, so while not a perfect fit, Communist state as described in its own article is a close a fit as we're going to come to (without coming up with a neologism). crazyeddie 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, juggling different talkpages here... "Just as long as it is not "Communist State" I will probably be okay with it. - IM" The problem is that you're not the only one we have to please. We also have to please me and every other weirdo who passes through :-) (Yeah, we're both weirdos too, we hang out here, right?) crazyeddie 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Juchist State works well, but Communists almost never recognize "Communist State" as making any sense. Why not just Communist? --Ionius Mundus 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe "Juchist state"? As for the other, like I said, if NK were truly Communist, it wouldn't be a state. I don't really care that much, but I'd like to pre-emptively nitpick every other nit-pick Nazi for the sake of a quiet Wiki. :-) crazyeddie 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, it seems to me that People's Republic would probably be the best choice. Those words are included in the country's offical name (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), and the article links to both socialist state and communist state.

Alternatively, we could use "fuedal monarchy" or "quasi-feudal monarchy," since the Kims seem to be setting themselves up as a hereditarial dynasty, their main powerbase is the generals (warlords or nobles), and the majority of the population are effectively serfs. However, that would probably be seen as being POV. :-) crazyeddie 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely POV. I agree with People's Republic. --Ionius Mundus 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but no less true. :-( Oh well. I'll have to leave a note on several peoples' talk pages and see if they have any objections to People's Republic. crazyeddie 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with calling it a 'People's Republic.' That term is not well defined and what definition there is certainly doesn't apply to North Korea. Personally, I would say that 'Totalitarian/One-Party Rule' or 'Totalitarian/Cult-of-Personality' would be far more accurate. This would not be unprecedented, either, as the former of these government types is given to Turkmenistan which is arguably less totalitarian than North Korea. I won't change the article without more consensus, but I hope others will agree. --The Way 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with calling it 'Totalitarian/One-Party Rule'. The USA is effectively a two-party state. Why not label it as 'Two-Party Rule'? Plus, that's POV. Perhaps we can come up with something better than 'People's Republic', though. I would favor 'Juchist', 'Juchist republic', 'Juchist state', 'socialist', 'socialist republic', or 'socialist state', and I would be okay with 'communist'. --Ionius Mundus 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"People's Republic" may not be well defined, but it is at least well defined enough to give some idea of what the government is like: a political elite is leading the people - for their own good, of course - to a distant Communist utopia. Communist state, as described in its own article, is better defined, and is a pretty close match to NK, but seems to be rather controversial - especially since it is an oxymoron to Marxists, and NK isn't technically Marxist-Leninist, although the distinction seems foggy to non-Communists. "Totalitarian" would be perhaps more accurate, but is certainly less precise - there are plenty of totalitarian states out there, but only a few of them are People's Republics. (But virtually all People's Republics are totalitarian states, IMO.) It might be that the government of Turkmenistan has less support on the Wikipedia than the government of North Korea. I seriously doubt we could get consensus for any variation on "Totalitarian."

On the other hand, I would like to get more of a consensus behind People's Republic than just me and Ionius' handshake on it. One of the things on my to-do list is to conduct the participants in an earlier discussion along these lines and get their feedback. Maybe we should just go ahead and do a formal article RfC? crazyeddie 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer any of the government types mentioned by Ionius to 'People's Republic.' People's Republic itself is pretty misleading, especially to someone not well versed in political science who is just scanning the article for information and doesn't think to click on 'People's Republic' to find out that its really quite an Orwellian term. I prefer Totalitarian, but I do agree that that would be hard to get consensus on. I also wouldn't be opposed to 'cult-of-personality' especially considering the fact that Kim Sung-Il invented the Juche Ideal and Kim Jong-Il is virtually free to define Juche thought as anything he wants it to be. Juche, in political reality, is whatever Kim says it is. The philosophy of Juche isn't really reflected in the political situation in North Korea and I believe the type of government cited in the infobox should reflect reality and not the government's propaganda. I wouldn't be opposed to anything including socialism, communism, totalitarianism, cult-of-personality or authoritarianism. --The Way 06:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most people in the West are well aware of the Orwellian nature of "People's Republic" - or at least associate it with "The Enemy." The fact that people from other cultures aren't is actually a plus, since those are just the people that would raise a fuss about calling NK totalitarian. I object to calling NK communist because if Ionius objects to "communist state" - which is quite well defined to mean "a state in the control of Communists" as opposed to "a state that practices actual communism" - isn't it dishonest to be okay with calling it "communist"- thereby promoting it a few stages in its dialectical development? (Besides, I honestly think it is feudalistic, not a "dictatorship of the proletariat." To the extent that I agree with Marx, which isn't much, I'm offended by NK's presumption.) Calling it socialist would detract from basically descent Social Democrats, and I'd rather not see them tarred with the same brush. Some variation on "Jucheist" would be truthful (especially since just about anybody would have to follow the link to figure out WTF "Juche" is), but unnecessarily clunky, and should be held as a last resort. "People's Republic" isn't perfect, but it's probably the best that we can get consensus for. crazyeddie 06:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think 'socialist' or some deviation from it would be good. Who can deny that they call themselves socialist? Have you heard of the slogan 'Rice is socialism'? --Ionius Mundus 06:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't heard of that slogan. And while they call themselves socialist, are they actually socialist? Doesn't socialism imply that the PTBs are actually working for the common good, not the good of the military and political elites? crazyeddie 06:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Many Americans don't consider the last presidential election to have been democratic, do they? No. Is the USA called a democracy? Yes. --Ionius Mundus 06:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is refered to on its page as a republic. That's no republic. --Ionius Mundus 06:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda is described as a republic on its page. It's a dictatorship. --Ionius Mundus 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the People's Republic of China is refered to as a socialist republic on its page. --Ionius Mundus 06:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, aside from some one-percenters, everybody considers the last election to have been democratic. It's the one before that that had people in a tizzy. And that happened because we are not just a democracy but also a federal republic. (FYI, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but he did win the electoral vote as described in our Constitution. Last I checked, he did win Florida fair and square, it's just that the margin of victory was less than the margin of error. Furthermore, the whole situation was just a glitch, caused by the closeness of the race. NK's lack of regard for its own people is the rule, not the exception.) We are not exactly a democracy, but calling us one is not entirely untrue - just as it's not entirely untrue to call NK a "communist state." And I would much prefer "communist state" to "People's Republic" because "communist state" is much more clearly defined in its article than People's Republic is. The only reason I'm supporting People's Republic is because communist state is a dealbreaker for you.

"Democratic Republic of Congo" is also a clear case of Orwellian doublespeak. Rwanda maybe have to be revised - but a republic is not necessarily a democracy, and many historical republics have been dictatorships. I would disagree with calling the PRC a socialist republic, but at least their political elite seem to believe that they are acting in the public interest wether they actually are or not, and their government does seem to be a non-democratic republic. I'm not so sure that the elite of NK even believe they are acting in any interest but their own, and it is highly debatable that they are a republic. I'm willing to support "People's Republic" but certainly not "socialist republic." I would argue against any form of "socialist," but it is concievable that I would be overruled by a consensus. crazyeddie 06:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, North Korea's establishment date is marked as '-Republic' on its page. And yes, I meant the election before that. --Ionius Mundus 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've dropped all support for even calling it Communist, as it is not a stateless society, whether or not its leaders aspire to it for not. And I think that not Communists equate 'Communist' with 'Marxism-Leninist', which North Korea is not. Perhaps 'Juche' would not only be the most descriptive, but also the least controvertial. --Ionius Mundus 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Jucheist is a term that is about as asthetically pleasing as Soviet architecture. I would much prefer "People's Republic." At least it is so transparently dishonest it takes on an odd type of beauty all its own. crazyeddie 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you said, "NK's lack of regard for its own people is the rule, not the exception." Actually, Kim Il Sung cared for the North Korean people. It is just hypocritical Kim Jung Il who cares little for his people. Also, I would be able to settle on 'People's Republic' whether or not I prefer it, but we clearly have some opposition. We'll have to see what more The Way has to say. And instead of saying 'Jucheist', maybe it could just be said as 'Juche'. --Ionius Mundus 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be interesting to note that the US State Department classifies North Korea as being a Highly Centralized Communist State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm) which I find to be rather agreable, arguments about the notion that there can't be a 'communist state' aside.

Take note that governmental classifications rarely, if ever, match up to theoretical frameworks because such frameworks are never really totally practical. The US, France, Great Britain, etc. are not true democracies, but we still classify them as being democratic. I have done quite a bit of reading on North Korea and sources consistently refered to it as being a communist state in both academic and journalistic accounts and I believe that this, especially when coupled with a phrase such as 'highly centralized,' is the most appropriate designation that can be assigned to it for the purposes of this article. When deciding how to classify a government we must recognize that no government will ever perfectly fit within a concept such as 'communism' or 'democracy' and, because of this, we should look to the way these terms are understood in the real world and not in theory because classification must be made practical.

However, if calling it communist is simply out of the question (which means quite a few other country articles must be changed) then what about one of these: Highly Centralized Authoritarian State, Highly Centralized Socialist State, Highly Centralized One-Man Dictatorship or simply Juche (which I'm not completely comfortable with since North Korea doesn't even really practice Juche, though it invented it and claims to follow it)? --The Way 05:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote 'Juche', though Kim Jung Il has betray his father's ideas to quite an extent. Do not forget, Kim Jung Il can officially make modern Juche whatever he wants, whether or not it is true Juche. --Ionius Mundus 05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer something that mentions communism, as the US government (and, I'd assume, a number of other governments) as well as most academic sources I've seen refer to it as such. However I would settle for Juche or Juchist (we can drop the 'e'!) if CrazyEddie agrees. --The Way 05:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with 'Juchist'. --Ionius Mundus 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes "Communist state" (the term used in the west) and "Socialist state" (the term used by all so-called Communist states) have an identical meaning, of course "communist state" is not meant to imply that it is in a state of communism but rather that it is a socialist state run largely by marxists. NoJoyInMudville 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (moved by crazyeddie 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

My list of preferences goes 1) Communist state 2) People's Republic 3) Juchist. NoJoyInMudville seems to be in favor of Communist state also, and it appears to be The Way's first choice. If we go by first preferences, it would seem that Ionius is outvoted 3 to 1. Of course, we are dealing with a rather small sample. At the other extreme, I'd be willing to agree with People's Republic or Juchist, but I think we may be heading towards a false consensus - again, a problem of a small sample of people. I think I might see about contacting other contributors who have expressed opinions on this matter and getting them to weigh in. crazyeddie 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Communist State" is a term used in the west with a specific meaning, which is that of a Marxist-Leninist run socialist or mixed-economy state; it is not a term used by these states for themselves but at least it means something recognizable and specific. "Socialist state" is a term used by these states, by mainstream Marxist-Leninists, to describe a state that legally enforces a collectivized system of property with central economic management. Whether or not someone believes that the DPRK is "Communist", which clearly Communists both within and outside of the DPRK do not, and and whether or not someone believes it to be "Socialist", something that Communist supporters of the DPRK would believe, but people using the term "socialist" to mean "social democratic" would not, isn't really relevant, because again, Communist State and Socialist State have specific meanings and the DPRK clearly fits both descriptions. European governments run by non-Marxist Socialist parties are never refered to as "Socialist States" they are always refered to as "Liberal Democracies" or, less formally and sometimes by their detractors, "Welfare States" and the ideology of the european socialists is "social democracy", so there is really no conflict here.

I would support either calling it a socialist state or a communist state, since both are accurate, i would prefer to call it a socialist state because that is how it conceptualizes itself, and all of the other socialist states (Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, Venezeuala) recognize it as such.

But we can't call it a "Juchist State", for one, because "Juchist" is not a real word (google it), and even if it were, since "Juchist state" is not a common term, but rather something invented here, by wikipedia editors, so there is no meaningful way of deciding whether it is or isn't one. Juche is a local Korean ideology it is not a distinct system of government. NoJoyInMudville 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got up off my lazy ass and left some people some messages. Hopefully that'll get some more eyeballs onto this problem. For those just joining us, a summary: Right now, we have about as many candidates for what to call NK's system of government as people joining in the conversation, and each and every single one of those candidates has somebody dead set against it. The candidates that seem viable are 1) "Communist state," which Ionius hates 2) "Socialist state," which I hate 3) "People's Republic," which The Way hates, and 4) "Juchist state," which Mudville hates.

The most popular option seems to be "Communist state," which seems to be my and The Way's first choice and Mudville's second choice. Ionius hates it because it's an oxymoron, since communism is supposed to be a stateless utopia. The rest of us agree that "Communist state" refers to a socialist state that is controlled by some variety of Marxist (hence distinguishing it from "socialist state," which might just mean that it run by non-Marxist democratic socialists - or perhaps that's just my interpretation). This concept of "Communist state" is what is spelled out in the wikipedia article on Communist state.

Does everybody agree with this summary? If so, um, Ionius, would you be willing to bend any? I would like to go by consensus rather than voting if we could... crazyeddie 06:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should look at what the other marxist-leninist run socialist states are called in wikipedia:

The People's Republic of China, Cuba, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, are all have "Socialist Republic" in their government field. The Lao People's Democratic Republic, a Communist run socialist state, however is refered to as a "Communist State", despite having a government/economic structure more or less identicial to that of Vietnam. Moldova, a Communist run former-soviet state in eastern-europe is refered to as simply a "Parliamentary Republic", perhaps because while Communists took back power more recently the constitution was written by liberal capitalists after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, a state that has had unbroken Communist rule since 1924, making it the oldest (and smallest) Communist/Socialist state currently in existance (although only indepedent since 1990), and it is also refered to as a "Parliamentary Republic." The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is refered to as a "Federal Republic".

Given this, it seems that cold-war era communist led with marxist written constitutions are being refered to as "Socialist Republics", whereas post-cold-war communist led states are not (Laos and Transnistria appearing to be anomalous in the naming convention). All of the states being described as "Socialist Republics" have similar electorial systems, they all have multi-teared assemblies/soviets/congresses electing state officials subject to popular recall, as opposed to an indepedent national executive in the case of a Federal Republic or a merged legislature/executive elected by national FPP voting in the case of a Parliamentary Republic.

The term "Communist State" however, seems to be more of a cold-war era description (for instance if you check the CIA's website, it describes all cold-war era communist run states as "communist states" but not post 1990's communist run states that way), so its less universial.

I really don't see the objection to calling it a "socialist republic" since socialism in this sense referes to collectivized property, rather than private property, and the european style democratic socialists are in fact practicing a system of private investment based property with heavy welfare spending, which may superficially resemble socialism but would never be refered to as a 'socialist state' in a political science context (its more like an American slur on Europe to call them that). For instance if you check the socialist state article, it gives 'workers state' and 'socialist republic' as alternatives and only describes it in the sense of collectivized public/state property systems, not private property systems.

Given this i think that "Socialist Republic" is the optimal choice, "Socialist State" an equally correct choice but one that would deviate from the naming conventions used in the other articles, and "Communist State" a choice that would make a reasonable amount of sense, but that would i think betray a more narrow perspective, but i don't think its really valid to say that just because Marxists view the idea of a Communist state as oxymoronic is a reason to dismiss the possibility of using it altogether as this is an article form a general point of view, not a Marxist one. In any case, i've always understood the adjective "communist" in the context of "communist state" to refer to "marxism-leninism", meaning the ideology, not "communism", meaning the theoretical social structure, and i think thats how people try to use it. But again, can't be Juchist State cause Juchist isnt' a word and it doesn't refer to any system of government. NoJoyInMudville 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, isn't communism a sub-field of socialism? If so, then is there a real difference beween calling the DPRK communist or socialist, as long as you refer to their system as being run under the juche ideology? As for calling it a state or republic, I don't think that matters too much - I don't think any states cannot qualify as a republic in some form. So in the end, whether you use communist state (valid only insofar as the DPRK are not 'true' Marxists) or socialist republic, it does not really matter too much. However, some reference to juche needs to be put in the same breath when mentioning the DPRK's government system. Strictly speaking, the DPRK insists that juche is not the same as Marxism-Leninism, which in many senses allows flexibility for the Kims' rule. However, many people may be confused if the DPRK were simply described as a juchist state, since it is a relatively new concept, and one used only by one state in the world today. Jsw663 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In a way though i think the idea of a "communist state" is so vague whereas "socialist state" or "socialist republic" refers to a specific government type, it is a technical term that refers to a governments structure and legal system, whereas "communist state" is a non-technical term thats more of a way of commenting on its politics. For instance Socialist Law practiced in socialist states is a different legal system, comperable to common law and civil law. Moreover "Socialist republic" is used for the other cold-war era communist countries in their wikipedia entries so it keeps it consistent with the other articles.

I think there is some confusion over what Juche actually is, it is not an attempt to replace Marxism-Leninism and the Korean Workers Party and Kim Jong Il continue to refer to themselves as Marxist Leninist (see my link on that topic in the text), rather Juche is an *additional* ideology that covers social organization and values, not government and economic organization...Juche is in some ways similar to existentialism, it is essentially a humanistic philosophy that was meant to replace confucianism. To call something a "Juchist state" makes about as much sense as calling something an "Existentialist state", a "Postmodernist state" or a "Logical-Positivist State."

About the thing with the definition of "republic", when states are refered to as a "republic" its in contrast with a constitutional monarchy, most states official names include either "republic" or "kingdom." It is part of the standard naming convention more than anything. NoJoyInMudville 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think socialist state works well. Dudtz 9/4/06 1:56 PM EST

After looking over the archives of various related articles ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5], and seeing what and how they decided, I've decided to throw my support behind "Socialist Republic." With caps and Republic, not "socialist republic" or "socialist state." crazyeddie 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The official term to describe our country by adjective is "Socialist state" or "Socialist country". Using "Socialist Republic" is also a good description. --Bjornar 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Prison state" would be functionally, if not politically, accurate.