Talk:Workers' Party of Korea

The WPK's critics are given undue weight in the infobox

Seth's, Myers', and Suh's analyses and critiques were made in 2019, 2011, and 1988, respectively. Kim Jong Un changed the WPK's ideological direction in 2021. Irregardless, it seems odd to give those two particular critiques (that the WPK has "little in common with communism" and is "far-right") prominence in the infobox as no other article of a major political party does this. Myers also argues that the WPK has no ideology at all and is just a medium through which the Kim family expresses its cult of personality. Other scholars like American historian Derek R. Ford meanwhile argue that there is a continuity between WPK's ideology and Marxism-Leninism, so why is his opinion not messily cited? Myers' opinion, particularly his book The Cleanest Race, is widely cited or mentioned by academics and non-academic authors alike in news and magazine articles, but his opinion is by no means widely accepted by his peers. Yue🌙 04:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Have removed these from infobox. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I support the removal.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. A view shared by three separate scholars absolutely is prominent enough to at least warrant a mention in a footnote. You ask "why is [Ford's] opinion ["that there is a continuity between WPK's ideology and Marxism-Leninism"] not messily cited" but, as shown by the fact that the infobox denotes the WPK's ideology as "far-left" and lists "communism" as one of its ideologies, this opinion is not only cited but is also given full prominence. Loytra (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no common view shared by all three authors. Seth argues the party is primarily nationalist, Myers argues that the party has no ideology at all and borrowed its rhetoric from Japanese fascism, and Suh argues that the WPK had moved away from communism. To reiterate, these analyses and arguments were made in 2019, 2011, and 1988 respectively, before Kim Jong Un made it clear in 2021 that the WPK would recommit itself to communism. The previous notes attempt to combine three very different sets of analyses into one view, which is not what any of the three authors hold or held.

It is true that the far-left label was readded without the single citation that it had beforehand; I would not oppose its temporary removal until reliable sources are added for it. The communist label, however, is not unsourced or unmentioned in the article. This frequent desire to readd an asterisk to the infobox reflects a lack of knowledge of current WPK policies and relies on the misconstruing of analyses based on outdated information. Yue🌙 06:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Banning and reasons

I searched for information about the ban of the Workers' Party in South Korea and found nothing in the article. I ask myself why workers in South Korea cannot vote in this nor any other socialist/communist party. Is South Korea a liberal state where the working class does not have the right to decide how the economy should be run?

I think a section should be added regarding the reasons why the party was banned with information from opinion polls on how many people would vote for this party if it were unbanned. That would be highly informative. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This party was banned because it advocates for destruction of South Korea, promotes totalitarian dictatorship and is responsible for various abuses and violations of human rights. You can read more information here. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That source is American, not South Korea. If there is a source to explain why SK has banned the WPK I think that should be in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Two proposals regarding the "ideology" in the infobox

1. Kimjongunism should also be added along with Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, it's the current ideology of WPK. I know that leaders are credited with new ideology in DPRK posthumously, but the reality is that Kimjongunism is the concurrent ideology of WPK and it should be mentioned. Suppose, if Wikipedia had developed in the lifetime of Kim Il Sung, shouldn't Juche or Kimilsungism (ideology developed by him) wouldn't be added here? Of course it would be cause it was the ideology then. Likewise, Kimjongunism is the current ideology and it should be added (a note can also be attached), no matter whether WPK confirms it or not.
2. Korean nationalism should be placed below Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism in the infobox. It fells under Juche, which fells under Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism, so of course it shouldn't be highlighted over Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism.

Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The existence of "Kimjongunism" (김정은주의) is only attested to in an official capacity in a 2021 NIS report. The concept itself is undefined, because neither the DPRK (North Korean) government nor the WPK have ever used it in their publications. Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism is still described as the ideology of the state and party. E.g. Naenara says: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist state guided by the great Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism in its activities." Yue🌙 20:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

References