@Cowbee [he/they] It’s not counted because it’s not any more a part of the DPRK’s economy than is any other foreign trade. The government allows foreign-owned businesses to operate on DPRK soil for the trade benefits inherent in that, but it is still foreign trade, as opposed to economic activity of the country itself.
I’m a Marxist marten here to talk about politics, tabletop games, Linux, and to help along my fellow anticapitalists.
My politics may not be identical to yours, but that’s okay; hub.workersofthe.world is open to all revolutionary anticapitalists who stand by the entirety of the working class without discrimination.
- 0 Posts
- 29 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
Cake day: July 26th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
The DPRK does have limited private property in its Special Economic Zones. See A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom. Foreign investment and ownership happens there too, such as from the Emperor Group owning a casino and whatnot, a group based in Hong Kong.
I’ve read the book. Yes, it’s foreign-owned operating on DPRK soil. There is no private industry native to the DPRK as there is in China.
If China’s mineral industry is publicly owned, that’s news to me. My understanding that its mineral industry (most of what you’ve listed) is all private, including its overseas endeavours. I’ll have to look more into this, thank you.
All economies are mixed, really, even the DPRK with its Special Economic Zones.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what special economic zones are in the DPRK. They are not as they are in the PRC, where they are capitalist safehavens. In the DPRK, these are zones for international trade. All industry is still publicly owned.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, not private ownership.
This just isn’t true, though. The public sector in China is the same as the public sector in most mixed economies: Transportation, parts of agriculture, some electrical and telecomms, etc. It is no different. In fact, China has a larger private sector compared to its public sector than some of these western countries. China’s healthcare system is more privatized than most of these western countries. Your analogy with the rubber vs the ball just doesn’t apply here; China’s primary industries are all privately owned except for certain areas in agriculture. I do very much pay attention to this, because I am waiting with bated breath for it to change.
@Cowbee [he/they] I can’t find the official interview (thought I’d saved it) but here is a good synopsis: #[1](https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/08/25/china-model-zhang-weiwei-interview/)
Second, economically, we call it a socialist market economy.
In fact, it is a kind of mixed economy. But many countries also have a mixed economy. But the Chinese one is unique.
It means the state owns so many resources, from minerals to land, everything. Yet, the right to use the land is flexible. It’s very often shaped by market forces.
A good example of why China can be so successful in internet applications, even for those apps used in the United States, such as TikTok, Temu, or Shein.
They are Chinese inventions, because it came from internal competition within China. And after this, they become very competitive internationally.
What’s being described here is really no different from any mixed economy that funds certain public services (so, basically every mixed economy in the first world). Only Americans look at the way China functions and think it’s socialist, for the same reason so many Americans think universal healthcare is a form of socialism.
Dialectics, materialist dialectics, very specifically is not about principle. It’s about material conditions, not ideals. “We have a mixed economy, but we have the people in mind” doesn’t make something socialist from a dialectical perspective, but quite the opposite. “At the same time, the private sector, like Alibaba Group, made the best use of this availability of top-notch infrastructure, to provide internet services and e-commerce to the best of their capability” on the other hand, very much makes the economy not socialist. This isn’t an argument that can be had. You can’t judge the way an economy functions based on vibes; it either is, or it isn’t, and China’s top scholars and officials are well aware that it isn’t. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” means “socialism in the future, theoretically”.
@Cowbee [he/they] Their officials acknowledge that they don’t have a socialist economy yet. Regardless of what westerners want to think with their black and white ideas, the CPC itself recognizes that they are not presently socialist. You can see this in interviews. Capitalism is not markets, but it is private ownership of the MoP, which is what 70% of China’s economy is built on. We can acknowledge their progress while also acknowledging that this is not presently socialism.
@Cowbee [he/they] tbf the PRC itself admits that its economy is a market economy and not (yet) socialist, but other socialist countries like the DPRK and Cuba are also pushing hard for green energy. We have lots of evidence of the solution to capitalism and its ecological issues.
@Protestation hey so what is with all the absolute goofballs in the comments trying to “yeah but” this objectively true graphic
@durably465 because it’s haram
@TrippyFocus Which is, again, extremely recent, and also fraught with contradiction among its voting populace. It has an amazing constitution, but it only barely squeezed through (and is still only that — a constitution).
Russia is not at all stable, nor is the rest of the Soviet bloc. It moved straight from the ossified and besieged socialism of the 70s and 80s into fascism, immediately embracing capitalism in crisis, and that’s where it’s remained.
@harc A state being bourgeois is not the only material condition of that state. The west in the 90s saw immense growth and stability, which meant that it could afford more rights to the groups that it had previously marginalized. We’re now seeing that rolled back as said stability comes crashing down.
China, meanwhile, is quite new to stability, so we’re only now seeing rights there increased. The USSR, one could argue, never really saw stability due to constant sanctions and external threat.
@harc almost like material conditions of countries on opposite ends of the globe or literal decades apart make a difference
@HiddenLayer555 I have more respect for you than to believe that you can’t imagine how organized religion whose institutions had a great deal of power might get it into their heads to reshape their religion’s theology in order to say that one must follow that religion to be secure in the afterlife.
Jesus’s whole cult was about, yes, salvation through his sacrifice. This is Christianity 101.
@HiddenLayer555 Which does not require following Jesus, yes. That is a comparatively novel implementation. But hey, congrats on being able to CTRL+F the bible for “hell” and then acting like you know anything about Christian theology.
@HiddenLayer555 Golly, look at all those verses that say you go to hell if you don’t follow Jesus in specific.
@HiddenLayer555 sighhhh.
He’s not.
Liberation theology would disagree.
The idea that the guy who literally started…
No, he didn’t. That didn’t come about until Dante in the 13th century.
Have you ever actually read the bible? I have
No, you clearly have not lmao
[everything else]
Who gives a shit. “Opium of the masses” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Stop dividing the working class; militant atheism died on Reddit a decade ago for very good reason. These days, Marxists support religious freedom.
@Protestation A strangely reactionary sentiment.
@eldavi nah, we still absolutely would. Capitalism leads inevitably to fascism.
@Cowbee [he/they] Well, if we take that to its natural conclusion, then no country can possibly be socialist because the global economy with which all countries trade and interact is broadly capitalist. Same reason that Korean teams working in Siberian lumberyards doesn’t make Russia more socialist, the DPRK trading with capitalist countries doesn’t make it more capitalist. Yes, there are connections, but as the world exists, with hard borders and economic measurements and ownership in terms of nationhood in most cases, the line is quite clear.