Talk:Workers' Party of Korea

Name

What is the source for this translation Workers Party of Korea instead of Korean Workers' Party. I used the standard Political Parties of the World by Alan Day. Gangulf 20:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The WPK uses the name WPK in its international relations. A quick google search will show that the name KWP is used by Western sources whereas WPK is the name used by all DPRK websites. --Soman 21:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, the earlier debates on the party can still be found on Talk:Korean Workers' Party. --Soman 22:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at lease use then Workers' Party of Korea ? Gangulf 22:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This really ought to have an apostrophe. A Google search indicates that some use it and some don't, but this is surely just bad grammar on the part of those who don't, rather than a valid alternative. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. For some reason I can't move the page but I'll apostrophise as much as I can.Dafyddyoung 17:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think "朝鮮勞動黨" is transliterated into hangul as "조선노동당" not "조선로동당, no? --Ce garcon 12:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

로동당 is right in North Korea. Caffelice 07:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

This freed the North Korean Communists from any control by a Communist Party whose headquarters was in US controlled territory, it also reflected the hardening of the Cold War by marking the intention of the Soviets to create a separate state in North Korea rather than work with the Americans to create a joint administration throughout the peninsula.

Is this true/NPOV? Is it undisputed that the Soviets wanted a seperate state and the Americans wanted a joint administration? This is not a retorical question, but an honest one... Gerrit ^MUTE 11:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles for separate parties

This article encompasses not just the history of the WPK proper, but also that of its forerunner. Separate articles should be created for the separate parties mentioned, like Korean Socialist Party, Communist Party of Korea, Communist Party of Korea (1921), Communist Party of North Korea, New People's Party, Workers Party of North Korea and Workers Party of South Korea. --Soman 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to start those articles. -- Visviva 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now articles have been created for Communist Party of Korea, Workers Party of North Korea and Workers Party of South Korea, and material has been shifted from this article to those articles. Still some work needs to be done on the early 1910-1920 socialist/communist groups, creating articles for them. --Soman 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rossiya:

Состав руководства ЦК ТПК по состоянию на середину 2006 [5]

Член Президиума Политбюро

1. Ким Чен Ир — Генеральный секретарь ТПК Члены Политбюро

2. Ким Ен Дю — почетный зам. Председателя Президиума ВНС КНДР 3. Пак Сен Чёр — почетный зам. Председателя Президиума ВНС КНДР 4. Хан Сен Рён — секретарь ЦК ТПК, председатель Бюджетной комиссии ВНС КНДР 5. Ким Ён Нам — Председатель Президиума ВНС КНДР 6. Ке Ын Тхэ — секретарь ЦК ТПК 7. Тен Бён Хо — секретарь ЦК ТПК Кандидаты в члены Политбюро

8. Цой Тхэ Бок — Председатель ВНС КНДР, секретарь ЦК ТПК 9. Цой Ён Рим — секретарь Президиума ВНС КНДР 10. Хон Сек Хён 11. Ян Хен Себ — зам. Председателя Президиума ВНС КНДР 12. Ким Чер Ман 13. Хон Сен Нам Секретариат ЦК ТПК

1(1). Ким Чен Ир 2(6). Ке Ын Тхэ 3(4). Хан Сен Рён 4(14). Ким Гук Тхэ 5(15). Ким Дюн Рин 6(7). Тен Бён Хо 7(8). Цой Тхэ Бок 8(16). Ким Ги Нам 9(17). Тен Ха Чер —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.67.81 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideology

Although the Worker's Party rule might be be Stalinist, it's ideology never was. It should be either deleted or replaced with Marxism-Leninism, which was the countries official ideology until 1977. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosfeld (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever changed it back to Stalinism, at least leave a comment backing up your case other than “the regime is Stalinist“ or something. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.136.218 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But B.R. Myers in his excellent "The Cleanest Race" (2010) says it's actually a far-right regime (or in a position where the two extremes of the political spectrum meet). According to him Juche is a sham, a vanity project to simulate ideological profoundness that just isn't there. The real ideology of NK apparently is a supremacist, race-based exceptionalist nationalism which has much more in common with WW2 Japanese "military socialism" or European fascism. (I'd say it just sounds like National Bolshevism to me, but that'd be original research.) Now is a single expert's (well-argued and insightful, I must say) opinion relevant for this article? 91.42.227.67 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue the same and with Jong-il’s recent death, Myers was at least featured on Al Jazeera[1] where he repeated that statement. In fact, the categorization of nationalist and far-right is the (at least to my knowledge) only one that can be scholarly verified whereas the current far-left/communism categorization seems to stem from mere “common knowledge” that “workers’ parties” are left-winged. As there hasn't been any objections 91.42.227.67’s statements since September, I will now change the article accordingly. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Although they are well argued, I don't feel that the opinions of a few stated in editorials are a good basis for changing the political position. Within Wikipedia, it seems Communist parties are consistently classified as far left. (Such as the Chinese and the now defunct Soviet Communist Parties.)It troubles me to classify the party solely on its supremacist views. Perhaps though we could have a section on the views of these scholars as a compromise? Mpgviolist (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

According to one of those references, the party does now longer even claim to be communist. So how can we categorize them as left on the basis of being communist, when the party itself does not even claim to be communist?

The party has its roots in a communist party and the article states that in the history section but the infobox is not about past ideology or its roots but its current ideology. So unless someone has encyclopedic references that the academic consensus of North Korea experts is that Myers is actually wrong I don't see any encyclopedic base to challenge that view.

As Wikipedia writers, it's irrelevant if we are troubled by contents of an article if the references support that content. We can't just claim things for facts just because our gut feeling tells us so. That's against the foundations of Wikipedia. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to classify the Workers' Party of Korea as either left /or/ right-wing. There are sources claiming it to be far-right, and there are undoubtedly sources claiming it to be far-left. North Korean propaganda is always spouting about a "socialist paradise", which by definition is left-wing politics. The uniqueness of the North Korean ideology means that describing it on a Western-style left-right system makes no sense. I've just removed it from the infobox. Maxim_(talk) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

and i assume you have sources for these claims , because no sources no discussion , simple isn't it Arab editor 9212 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The politics of the WPK are analogous to that of North Korea, as it a single party state. It is unwise to describe it as only far-right, or only far-left. Here are some quotes from a news story with opinions from experts in the field:

"There is something of Stalin in North Korea" - Stalin had an indisputably far-left ideology

"The country is a theocracy"

"South Korean specialists don't see North Korea as a real communist country"

Source [2].

My point here is that there are many, many differing opinions from experts in the field. It doesn't make sense to call the WPK as merely far-right or far-left party. It certainly doesn't make sense to insist on calling it a far-right party based on only one scholar's opinion. Maxim_(talk) 19:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

i dont really think that a personal opinion is a reliable source , where are the notable sources like political scientists and well known opinions ?! Arab editor 9212 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Two professors (of politics and foreign affairs/public policy) are not reliable in your opinion? Maxim_(talk) 20:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

well i still smell something fishy about this whole thing , lets just wait until another well established user gives a third opinion Arab editor 9212 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maxim; the only reason that some wanted to change it to far-right was a personal opinion (that of BR Myers). In the end, it is most challenging to prove a certain political position, and given the amout of editors who have changed it back to far left, (by the way, I don't see why that counts as 'vandalism', from wikipedia's own definition, "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page".) it seems that far right is having trouble garnering much support. As I suggested earlier, since there are so many opinions on the topic, perhaps it would be good to have a section in the article on the issue.Mpgviolist (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

91.42.227.67 argued for far-right in September. Nobody challenged that comment in three months and now after just 3 days the amount of editors doing something should count for anything….
http://www.rickross.com/reference/nkorea/nkorea12.html is a pre-2009 source. As explained in one reference and the paragraph I added, the official policy changed in 2009 with the omission of communism from the constitution and public statements by officials that communism is “not viable”. Myers’ is a post-2009 analysis. 2009 seems to have been a turning point in official DPRK politics. One can't disprove a post-2009 analysis with a 2003 analysis. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern. This endorsement of socialism is from what is essentially the DPRK's official website, and is more recent. http://www.korea-dpr.com/ocn/?p=785 It states the following: "The realities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea demonstrating its dignified appearance as an invincible bulwark which opposes imperialism and staunchly defends the cause of socialism instill great confidence and courage in the minds of the peoples throughout the world. True to the Songun politics administered by leader Kim Jong Il, the Korean people are resolutely frustrating the anti-socialist offensive of imperialism by directing great efforts to the buildup of self-defensive forces and, at the same time, pushing forward their drive to build a great, prosperous and powerful socialist country." Though socialism and Stalinism are different, they would both be hard to classify as "far right". That being said, I still think it would good to put both views in the article, although I'm a bit too lazy to write that section :). This website seems most helpful in giving information on the ideological matters, not limited to the left v. right debate.Mpgviolist (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, I probably should add that the above link is from September of this year; also published in that month ( http://www.korea-dpr.com/ocn/?m=201109 )is an article on the victory of socialism. Mpgviolist (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

While I have no idea who's behind some random Wordpress blog on a .com domain (whois hints to someone in Spain, North Korea’s TLD is .kp), the official constitution definitely weighs more – even if that website is a legit one by some NK bureaucrat who happens to speak English. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The one I provided was from the Korean Friendship Association, which is North Korea's outlet into the US, where they don't have an embassy. Here is the official constitution which you speak of from the government portal out of Pyongyang: http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/great/constitution.php?2. Note "socialist state" and "revolutionary state" in articles one and two. You will also find the following self-description on the "Political System of the State" page (http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/great/state_pol.php) "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is an independent socialist State representing the interests of all the Korean people.... The DPRK is underpinned by the politico-ideological unity of all the people based on the worker-peasant alliance led by the working class". It also mentions the WPK as the "leadership" for achieving the revolutionary cause of DPRK. Cheers. Mpgviolist (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Korean Friendship Association is a Spanish dude, according to Wikipedia, and he's not part of the North Korean government.

And why are you quoting from the constitution? Myers argues that NK is nationalist and socialist and on the far right of the political spectrum. So far ho one of you have given ANY post-2009 academic reference to counter that argument. So unless academia does not challenge Myers’ argument, it's the academic consensus – after all, he’s not some random guy, nobody knows of. He’s recognized as world-class expert on NK politics.

You guys desperately try to make an argument because your gut feeling for some reason forbids to categorize the ideology as far-right. Even Maxim’s reference does not state that NK does not fit in a political left-right spectrum. He just thinks that's what the pre-2009 reference says but such self-made conclusions are not accepted for us editors to put in articles.

I re-add the categorization as far-right because that's what seems to be the academic consensus. Provide post-2009 academic analysis that counters Myers’ argument, then we’ll can add a paragraph or something that the view is under debate. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided the DPRK's constitution as you recognized its weight as a source as well. The constitution is the best expression of ideology as it is expressed by DPRK and WPK itself. IF you perused it, you would note how closely the state and its goals, as expressed in the constitution, line up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics. The constitution ideologically argues only for the victory of socialism and egalitarianism through the support of the workers. With these views, Encyclopedia Britannica notes (post 2009) that the WPK does not differ significantly with other communist parties.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party/36674/The-single-party-in-the-developing-countries. Cheers. Mpgviolist (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have created the section with these references and others. I feel that it is comprehensive yet concise; however, please feel free to add to it.Mpgviolist (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you quote the constitution, then compare that to an article and then reach the conclusion that WPK is left. That's a classic example of synthesis which is not allowed.
As for the Britannica article: That was written by Maurice Duverger who is now 94 years old and who has last written a scientific text in the 1990s. The Britannica article may be published post-2009 but was definitely not written after Duverger’s 92th birthday. ;-) --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the the Constitution; I'll fix that (Not exactly sure why I put it there to begin with...thanks for pointing that out). As for Duverger, it only lists him as the primary contributor (there are additional contributors, one of which is all editors of Britannica, so the article was written by a multitude of people); while I hope you would retire by age 90, we can't assume beyond what is given to us, and that is that the article was published in 2011, with many people contributing different part of it. If the facts were outdated, Britannica, as it is as reliable of a source as you can get, would update it. Mpgviolist (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, would you take a look at my description of Myers's viewpoint? I am hoping I explained his position well.Mpgviolist (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

One last note: as a backup, we could use CIA's factbook (updated four days ago) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html. It list DPRK as communist. Personally, I prefer Britannica, since it explicitly talk about the WPK, but we've already connected the two entities by using BR Myers's sources, which ,like factbook, speak of DPRK, not the WPK. Mpgviolist (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideology (continuing)

Workers' Party of Korea
General Secretary	Kim jong-un
Presidium	Kim Yong-nam, Choe Yong-rim, Ri Yong-Ho
Founded	June 30, 1949
Headquarters	Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Youth wing	Kim Il Sung Socialist Youth League
Ideology	Socialism, Juche, Songun, Neo-Stalinism
Politics of North Korea Political parties Elections

This article was on the edge of an edit war because of this topic. Myers cannot be a reliable source because he's a pro-South Korean homosexual. Quite obviously the ideology of WPK is based on Socialism - only a complete idiot would try to deny it. Juche is more likely a localization of Marxism-Leninism, therefore it should be mentioned this way. The «Marxism-Leninism (before 1992)» would be an incorrect edit because Juche itself is Marxism-Leninism, only being customized to Korean reality.
And about Stalinism. Of course North Korea is currently the only example of Stalinism on our planet (unfortunately), but it more seems to be a new form of Stalinism, mostly influenced by Juche.

Here you can see my opinion on how should the Infobox in this article look like. Socialism should be mentioned here because WPK is generally a Socialist organisation. Neo-Stalinism is optional — most of the sources describe North Korea as a Neo-Stalinist state, and it seems to be true at least partially.