North Korea: An Explanation?

[Norseman]

I just found what I think is one of the most insightful explanations of the whole North Korean issue, so much so that I think it warrants a seperate post. B.R. Myers has written quite a few great books, but his speech on his book The Cleanest Race is something you should really hear (link to video). It's kind of long, but definately worth watching to the end. If he is right then there really is no way for the North Koreans to back down from their military stance. That makes me wonder if the structural problems with North Korea makes a war inevitable.

[adam_grif]

I already posted that link in the Korean War 2 thread in Off Topic, but yes, it was quite insightful.

[xt828]

Yeah, it was an interesting watch. The base of legitimacy idea that he talks about makes sense, and does a lot to explain the DPRK's intransigence towards the various proposals. What I found most unexpected was when he said that RoK doesn't want reunification - do we have any Korean members who can speak to that?

[K. A. Pital]

I think Lankov's analysis of the DPRK is superior. Also, Lankov predicted the shooting incident before it happened.

[Prannon]

My understanding of North Korea - which comes from reading Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader - in a nutshell, is that Northern leadership built their society up from the ground based on lies and the idea that their system of life was superior to the South's. During the 1950s when the North was surrounded by Communist allies like Russia and China and other Eastern Bloc states with which to trade, it could afford to say this. Indeed, the Northern economy and military was larger and more powerful than the south for most of the 50s and 60s. They had mechanized farming and a higher standard of living than the South did until the 70s.

Ever since the 1960s when South Korea started its economic explosion and surpassed North Korea's economic abilities, that idea has been directly challenged. Northern leadership under Kim il-Sung couldn't afford to let the people question the system he had built up. This is partly because il-Sung's Party had built itself up over so many dead bodies and socio-political indoctrination that if the system were to be challenged, it would fall with violent upheaval that would see the ruling class utterly ruined.

So, in order to save face for their people and for their political rivals in the Party, they have refused to change the course of their economic policies, since that would basically be admitting defeat. It's a very Asian, Korean response to the problem. If they were forced to admit that they can't stand up to the US or South Korea, over whom it was dominant for so long, it would be the ultimate humiliation. They would honestly rather die. Essentially, it would cause a crisis of confidence in the Party and would lead to internal strife and likely the failure of the system.

As for most North Koreans, they don't truly know how far outclassed they are by the rest of the world, but they do have hints. Ever since the economic collapse and famine in the mid 1990s, many Northerners have had to rely on acquiring foreign exchange to purchase consumer goods in special stores. Many have kinda been forced to admit, even if only in their minds, that the stuff coming out of South Korea is of far better quality than anything produced locally. It's just that the Party system in place - which encourages citizens to tell on each other for unpatriotic thinking - is so oppressive that this realization can't really come to fruition.

[xt828]

Stas, which Lankov book would you recommend as best covering his analysis?

Apologies if this would be better in the history forum.

[K. A. Pital]

The Natural Death of North Korean Stalinism is a good place to start.