Is North Korea fascist?

[Free Palestine]

The Wikipedia article for the WPK lists it as far-right.  And, that doesn't seem so inaccurate.

[dead0man]

Facism-Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascist ideology exalts the Nation instead of the individuals and favor plans by the few instead of plans by the many.[3] Fascists seek to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity, in which individuals are bound together in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.[4] To achieve this, fascists purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[4] Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, discipline and family policy (such as eugenics).[5][6] This state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the fascist movement, the government and other state institutions.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition.

Sounds about right.  I don't fully understand why it's a "right" position and not "left" though...what with all the nationalism of industry and commerce and property and what have you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Fascism is technically a syncretic political ideology but is more commonly considered right than left for reasons of, among other things, historical affinity in the countries where it was most prominent.

[Хahar 🤔]

IMO, if you call North Korea fascist, then you're saying that "fascist" is synonymous with "totalitarian", thereby making the word "fascist" useless. I prefer leaving that term for parties like Jobbik that closely resemble interwar European fascism.

[Free Palestine]

IMO, if you call North Korea fascist, then you're saying that "fascist" is synonymous with "totalitarian", thereby making the word "fascist" useless. I prefer leaving that term for parties like Jobbik that closely resemble interwar European fascism.

I was thinking more in terms of their gross nationalism, militarism, reactionary tendencies, etc.

[Хahar 🤔]

IMO, if you call North Korea fascist, then you're saying that "fascist" is synonymous with "totalitarian", thereby making the word "fascist" useless. I prefer leaving that term for parties like Jobbik that closely resemble interwar European fascism.

I was thinking more in terms of their gross nationalism, militarism, reactionary tendencies, etc.

Those are all pretty common to military dictatorships in general, though. North Korea is in a fundamentally different context, so I feel like the label of fascism would be off.

[Free Palestine]

IMO, if you call North Korea fascist, then you're saying that "fascist" is synonymous with "totalitarian", thereby making the word "fascist" useless. I prefer leaving that term for parties like Jobbik that closely resemble interwar European fascism.

I was thinking more in terms of their gross nationalism, militarism, reactionary tendencies, etc.

Those are all pretty common to military dictatorships in general, though. North Korea is in a fundamentally different context, so I feel like the label of fascism would be off.

Don't they practice feudalism, in NK?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't think there has ever been a personality cult as big as that which surrounds the Kims.  I mean... Hitler had a personality cult... but it was *nothing* compared to the DPRK.  But then, fascist Germany didn't have 70 years to cultivate one either.

I don't think the DPRK is fascist, though, by any means.  It is probably the closest thing to Stalinism that remains in the world.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The Wikipedia article for the WPK lists it as far-right.  And, that doesn't seem so inaccurate.

That's called vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Currently, it's listed as "Far-left" again on Wikipedia.

[RI]

No, for what Xahar said.

[opebo]

No, in fact it is one of the very few countries still opposing fascism.  Though that's not to say there's anything particularly 'better' about its totalitarian socialism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The sole aim and end of the North Korean power structure is to remain the North Korean power structure (true of most power structures, but the North Korean one is particularly explicit and severe about it). This isn't technically fascist, although a lot of the rhetoric produced for domestic consumption is redolent of that of Japanese para-fascism, mixed with decreasing amounts of Marxist-Leninist rhetoric and increasing amounts of a sort of homegrown almost Romanesque (terminal decline Rome, not Five Good Emperors Rome) god-emperor-worship*.

*Japanese para-fascism also involved god-emperor-worship, of course, but it wasn't the same kind.

[Хahar 🤔]

The sole aim and end of the North Korean power structure is to remain the North Korean power structure (true of most power structures, but the North Korean one is particularly explicit and severe about it). This isn't technically fascist, although a lot of the rhetoric produced for domestic consumption is redolent of that of Japanese para-fascism, mixed with decreasing amounts of Marxist-Leninist rhetoric and increasing amounts of a sort of homegrown almost Romanesque (terminal decline Rome, not Five Good Emperors Rome) god-emperor-worship*.

*Japanese para-fascism also involved god-emperor-worship, of course, but it wasn't the same kind.

Calling the Shōwa state fascist also seems wrong to me, although there were certainly elements that approached fascism (more nearly than in the North Korean case, because of the direct influence of fascist parties). But I'm sure you know much more about this field than I do.

[© tweed]

Sounds about right.  I don't fully understand why it's a "right" position and not "left" though...what with all the nationalism of industry and commerce and property and what have you.

because of how it historically developed and its class basis of support.  united the middle class and elements of the business class against labor and left-Marxists, social democrats, etc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The sole aim and end of the North Korean power structure is to remain the North Korean power structure (true of most power structures, but the North Korean one is particularly explicit and severe about it). This isn't technically fascist, although a lot of the rhetoric produced for domestic consumption is redolent of that of Japanese para-fascism, mixed with decreasing amounts of Marxist-Leninist rhetoric and increasing amounts of a sort of homegrown almost Romanesque (terminal decline Rome, not Five Good Emperors Rome) god-emperor-worship*.

*Japanese para-fascism also involved god-emperor-worship, of course, but it wasn't the same kind.

Calling the Shōwa state fascist also seems wrong to me, although there were certainly elements that approached fascism (more nearly than in the North Korean case, because of the direct influence of fascist parties). But I'm sure you know much more about this field than I do.

That's why I'm using the term para-fascism. It's not universally accepted but it's a fairly broadly used term for governments that appropriated extensive fascist elements but can't be described as fascist as such due to lacking the interbellum European political/cultural background of 'true' fascism.

From a Japanese perspective, Taisei Yokusankai was a right-wing national-supremacist 'sonno joi' sort of party. It wasn't anywhere near as ideologically new (or new-seeming) to Japan as the fascist parties in Europe were; its main innovations were its expansionism and appropriation of a certain degree of race-rhetoric (Japan had certainly been a racist state in the past, but at least after the retreat of the Emishi into Hokkaido and Hideyoshi's death in Korea had been so in an isolationist rather than imperialist context) and the fact that quite simply it was, rhetorically and functionally, nastier than many previous Japanese ideologies of its general kind. Domestically it wanted to be perceived as being of a piece with the kokugaku cultural movement of the late eighteenth century, but I can't think of any serious figure in Asian studies who would argue that kokugaku posed any threat to countries other than Japan, and a lot of us are actually inclined to have a fairly positive view of kokugaku as nationalist ideologies go.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fascism refers to a precise ideology. North Korea is, at this point, nothing more than a rotten totalitarian State with the insanest personality cult to ever exist.

[k-onmmunist]

North Korea is actually more of an absolute monarchy/theocracy than anything else. Or a necrocracy if you want to count Mr. Eternal President

[Simfan34]

There is a very good case for deeming North Korea fascist, at least after the fleshing-out of the military-first "Songun" policy by the 1990s, in its complete rejection of Marxism-Leninism and internationalism in favour of a more "original" form of socialism (as well as capitalism and liberalism, which goes without saying), emphasis on the organic ties between the charismatic leader and the masses through the revolutionary political movement (the party), militarist revanchism, and belief in the superiority of the Korean nation. It very closely fits the bill and I'm surprised I don't hear this being mentioned more often- I'm guessing because of the dilution of the term "fascism".

Forgive the 2+ year bump, I was thinking of the very same question and I since I stumbled upon this thread I guessed it was better to post here rather than making a new one. I was responding to the thread about Engelbert Dollfuss when my response went on a very long digression on what constitutes fascism. I suppose this is as good a place as any to post the rest of it, too.

HP in hindsight, but I would have supported him as a FF during that era (I've always thought that fascists like Dollfuss, Mussolini, Franco and Horthy were better than the totalitarians like Hitler or Stalin).

I'd agree except with Mussolini for obvious reasons, and beyond those obvious reasons Mussolini was a fascist as opposed the sort of authoritarian traditionalists that the others were, which is a considerable difference between them.

Dollfuss is perhaps a borderline case; I'd actually say he was more like Salazar than Mussolini. "Austrofascism" is a bit of a weasel word, really, that posits an resemblance to Italian Fascism that didn't really exist (at least not to the degree the term implies) as well as tying it to the generalised pejorative epithet. I believe historians in Austria generally prefer the use of the term "Ständestaat", which would translate pretty closely to "corporate state", which seems to be a more accurate term.

Indeed, broadly speaking I'd say there were far fewer Fascist regimes than are generally considered. Regimes like those of Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss, and most others applied the term lack the modernist outlook, revolutionary nature, and motive of creating a new, innovatively organised society that I think differentiates "fascist regimes" from "corporatist regimes". This is in addition to the fact that most of the corporatist regimes discarded the hostility to market liberalism as well, although admittedly this wasn't a meaningful distinction in the 1930s. Of course, this conflation has a lot to do with the general erosion of the term "fascist" to now refer to anything perceived as authoritarian or oppressive.

But the main difference is that only a handful of regimes had the universally-understood characteristics of Fascism (rejection of liberal democracy and economics, a nationalist outlook, emphasis on the supremacy of the state and the subservice of the citizen/subject) in addition to the crucial distinction of the goal of creating an original, revolutionary, and entirely new social order (rather than returning to an old one).

The only regimes I would say that would fall under such a term would be the obvious choices- those of Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany, with the crucial distinction that the latter turned to racialism rather than rationalism for the basis of its reordering (Strasserism would have been closer to the Italian "model"), as well as a few others- those of the Arrow Cross in Hungary, Quisling in Norway, and the Ustase in Croatia (although it is somewhat difficult to distinguish the creation of a novel social order there from merely striving for a pure Croatian one). I'd also say there is a good case for deeming Vargas' Estado Novo in Brazil a fascist regime, if somewhat lacking in overt hostility to representative democracy as opposed to disregard and contempt, otherwise it possessed all the hallmarks thereof.

Gyula Gömbös, Hungarian Prime Minister in the 1930s, was essentially fascist, and his "Party of Hungarian Life" quite closely fitting in terms of aiming for social reorganisation besides the all the other expected tenets. José Antonio Primo de Rivera, founder of the Falange, put forth a manifesto for the party that followed those of the PNF perhaps more closely than any other movement of significance, making openly revolutionary syndicalism the lynchpin of its social reorganisation, alongside the formation of a classless society on a corporative basis, apathy towards the Church, and several other points. Franco transformed Falangism into a rather amorphous and decidedly less radical and anti-revolutionary authoritarian traditionalist Catholic nationalism that was perfectly compatible with market liberalism (well, as much as such an ideology could possibly be), and probably for the better of all parties involved.

This is quite distinct from the people mentioned before, who were really traditionalists of one stripe or another. Nearly everything they aspired to had already existed in the past in one form or another whereas true fascists placed a priority on invention and inventive reorganisation. And Horthy, in particularly, lacks pretty much every characteristic of the ideology- his whole function was to preserve an already defunct order, which he did for a quarter of a century- a point compounded by the fact that he was a constitutional monarch in all but name. Indeed, it's difficult to judge his efforts anything but positively.

As for the relative merits of Dollfuss he deserves credit for resisting Nazism rather strenuously and specifically, as opposed to simply opposing them as due to his Austrian nationalism, which was certainly a factor, but a secondary one; after all, his party did support Austria becoming part of Germany- albeit a Germany led by Austria. But it is clear that he failed to build any sort of truly national movement against the Anschluss, at least one that was able to engender popular opposition to annexation, or render manifest any pre-existing sentiment to that effect.

As far as I'm aware, a decided and consistent majority of Austrians during the interwar supported their country's incorporation into Germany. Honestly, however, this might only be a bad thing insofar as the Nazis are involved, because otherwise there isn't anything particularly terrible about one country voluntarily electing to join another.

The problem, I would hazard to guess, was related to the fact that the Fatherland Front never really took off as a mass political movement, it neither invigorated any large segment of the population in favour of its distinctive ideology nor was it able to co-opt many outside it into forming a cohesive front against the prospect of Nazi rule. Indeed, it's a bit surprising that that they made no effort (as far as I know) to highlight either Nazi hostility to the Catholic Church (as was sharply condemned in the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge) or leftists of all stripes, which was considerably worse in Germany than in Austria.

It would seem a more pragmatic and versatile leader- at least someone more like Schuschnigg- who was willing to tolerate and work, if even temporarily, within a parliamentary structure and with political opponents, would have been able to mount a more effective resistance to Nazi predations. Someone in the mould of Horthy would have fit the bill rather well, actually.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, it's Juche.

[Cassius]

Its a kleptocracy with delusions of grandeur.

[Potus]

"Fascist" is just a word people on the Atlas use to describe things they don't like.

[Simfan34]

"Fascist" is just a word people on the Atlas use to describe things they don't like.

I feel ignored.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think you're defining fascism too narrowly; any definition of fascism that excludes Dollfuss's movement doesn't really strike me as useful, especially considering the historic ties between Dollfuss and Mussolini. Moreover, one of the most important features of fascism in the Italian sense was futurism, whereas the Third Reich was not futuristic at all. The very name of the regime consciously hearkens back to Charlemagne and Otto. The Nazis might not have been reactionary in the same sense that the Junkers were, but they were preoccupied with the past all the same.

Furthermore, in terms of cultural policy, the futurism encouraged by Rome was condemned as degenerate in Berlin. I don't think it's possible to write this off as a simple preference of racialism over rationalism. Der Ring des Nibelungen is hardly a futuristic work in any sense, and it's not clear to me how the regime that glorified Wagner would differ essentially from the movements to its east but not those to its south.

[Simfan34]

The main point is that fascism is not traditionalist, and generally seeks to create a new society rather than return to a prior one. Even if the Nazis were not futurist, they rejected the conservative Prussian order in favor of an invented synthetic pan-Aryanism of the likes that had never existed before. Even if they drew from the past, which they did, just as the Italian Fascists did with Rome, the ultimate goal was social (well, racial) "evolution" and purification as opposed to a return to some prior ideal. That is the key distinction from mere corporatist authoritarianism. With the ease at which the phrase is applied I'd hazard it'd be better to use it overly narrowly rather than overly broadly.

The fact that Mussolini and Hitler were both hostile to Christianity whereas Dolfuss made Catholicism the keystone of Austrian nationalism is certainly a meaningful difference; while Pavelic or Primo de Rivera might have tolerated the Church they all saw it as secondary to the state.

[nolesfan2011]

absolutely they are fascist, with stalinist overtones of course. They practice racism and cult leader worship that goes with fascism, along with total adulation and promotion of the military/the glory of war and national prestige and success. Along with the dictator being a "skilled and daring" military commander (all 3 of them)

They also are obsessed with image and throw the politically and physically unsavory in concentration camps or euthanasia programs