So I'm (finally) going to North Korea...! ^__^

[Dokrib Choseon]

(I'm skipping the outright trollish posts, for reference).

Not particularly likely.

I've already studied the THEORY of Kimilsungism at fairly large length, and, at the very least, as a theory, I really like it.

At the very worst, by some large stretch of the imagination, I might (against all expectations I have at this point, to be honest) find evidence to lead me to the conclusion that North Korea is no longer following this philosophy post-Kim-Il-Sung. At which point I'd have to redefine myself very slightly as an "Orthodox Kimilsungist" or something. I doubt that'd actually happen, but if it did, very little would change with my theory, just my narrative of North Korea post-1994.

Well considering the Marxism-Leninism formerly espoused by Kim Il-Sung has been covered up and demonized, mentions of class struggle have been all but abandoned in favor of support of entrenched hierarchies and family leniages, Internarional revolution was completely abandoned and replaced with hyper nationalism, and all mentions of communism were dropped from the revised constitution, it's pretty damn obvious that the already ambiguous concept of "Kimilsungism" has no true bearing on the state today. Of course, you'll want to avoid saying that, as such observations will result in you never again seeing be light of day.

That's one narrative on it sure. Not one I particularly think is likely to be true, but if I saw sufficient evidence to convince me of such, I suppose I'd have to consider myself an "Orthodox Kimilsungist" at such a point. Which really wouldn't be much of a change in theory from my current position - maybe something of a re-analysis of some of Kim Jong Il Dongjinim's works on Songun, in such a light - I'd just have to analyze North Korea as being in deviation from 1994 onwards. *shrug*

Don't hold your breath, because I for one don't find it to be very probable. But if so, while perhaps a bit frustrating, my actual theoretical position wouldn't change much, so it's still practically irrelevant.

[Bulgar Rouge]

1. That's awesome. I was thinking actually of moving there (Dadong) next year as one of a few possible cities. Beijing is nice and all, but a change of scenery could be cool.

Dandong is particularly interesting because there are North Koreans from all walks of life there, and you really can ask them a lot of things (and they will generally be very friendly and tell you everything), which is not something you can do easily in NK itself.

5. 0__________________0 THAT. SOUNDS. AMAZING! Inside the DPRK you mean, or...?

Yes, inside the DPRK. But you'll have to look good for those tailor shops, no chance of finding one accidentally. Maybe go to some kind of party with your guides and State Security shadows, have a few drinks and they might open their mouths and tell you where to get yourself a uniform.

[Glasgia]

Enjoy your journey. However, please realise the state's control over what you see. They won't let you meet the starving masses, see the oppression that goes on there. Why would they? Don't expect to see both the positives and the negatives, as it's only in the state's interest to show you one side of the story.

Also, as a Socialist, I'm interested as to why you think North Korea is the most advanced nation in terms of Socialist theory. To my understanding, the economy is almost entirely state owned, with the exception of illegal businesses, and the worker's have very little power or freedom. While the Bourgeoisie have been overthrown, they've simply been replaced by a new bureaucratic regime.

It's a fair point to consider; they're not going to go out of their way to show any negative side of the nation, sure. That said, a lot of things can't be hidden, a lot of things can't be faked. There's something at least to be said for being there in person to see things.

I'm a Kimilsungist in terms of theory, but if North Korea today really was at odds with the theory Kim Il Sung Suryongnim laid out, I'd be the first to be upset over such betrayal of the revolution. Not expecting to see that, but if I did, I'd certainly have to analyze it as such.

To your point on theory, I find Kimilsungism to be a particularly advanced theory as it is essentially the synthesis of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, joining the two struggles into one in the same. It also very much advocates the importance of preserving the national culture as a means of resistance to cultural imperialism, which I really like, and preserves the Leninist theory of the necessity of an intellectual vanguard. Really, of all modern theories, I find it to be the "truest" to the Leninist core of things.

But you cannot argue that, in the eyes of Marx, North Korea would be considered an advanced Socialist state. In fact, I believe Marx would likely condemn North Korea with a burning passion. No semblance of freedom or power has been granted to the worker, it has rather been restricted further than under the wage slavery of Capitalism with physical enslavement and torture. Meanwhile, equality appears to have been vastly increased between the elite and the working class - The Supreme Leader enjoying his delicacies while his people starve.

In fact, Marx condemned the use of the Socialist cause to install a new elite - As proposed by Lenin and practiced by many others after. In the Communist Manifesto, he states:

"Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres," of establishing "Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria" -- duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem -- and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel."

While the above may simply be a block of text to some, if we analyse it there is evidently an outright condemnation of the "intellectual vanguard" so often claiming to support the working class. We can apply this criticism from hindsight, while Marx believed in his pre-Leninist world that the first revolutionaries would at least stay true to the Socialist cause. Marx understands that any intellectual elite must eventually turn to reinstate class boundaries if they are to keep hold of their grip on power, creating a new class above the Proletariat. They promise many utopias of Socialism and Communism, yet must suppress political actions from the working class for fear of the Proletariat losing faith in their gospel - A mere rebranding of their former oppression.

Therefore, North Korea cannot be in the slightest labelled as Marxist and is not advanced at all in the face of Socialist theory. It is rather a State Capitalist society in which Kim Sung Il and his descendants have enforced themselves as new Imperialists, holding claims over the South in order to present an enemy upon which they may further their own domestic power.

[Dokrib Choseon]

1. That's awesome. I was thinking actually of moving there (Dadong) next year as one of a few possible cities. Beijing is nice and all, but a change of scenery could be cool.

Dandong is particularly interesting because there are North Koreans from all walks of life there, and you really can ask them a lot of things (and they will generally be very friendly and tell you everything), which is not something you can do easily in NK itself.

5. 0__________________0 THAT. SOUNDS. AMAZING! Inside the DPRK you mean, or...?

Yes, inside the DPRK. But you'll have to look good for those tailor shops, no chance of finding one accidentally. Maybe go to some kind of party with your guides and State Security shadows, have a few drinks and they might open their mouths and tell you where to get yourself a uniform.

Makes sense. It's definitely somewhere I'm considering living in next year (along with Xi'an - to actually WORK with this travel agency, potentially, or Hainan, where a good friend of mine is already living). Thanks for the tip. ^__^

And that sounds awesome. There's quite a few things I want to ask the guides/North Korean government folks, so that'll be definitely among them. ^__^

[Boomhaueristan]

Well have a safe trip. I'd convince you to go anywhere besides there, but I'm not going to bother. I'm sure you got the gist from other posters that it's a bad idea.

[Herrebrugh]

Well have a safe trip. I'd convince you to go anywhere besides there, but I'm not going to bother. I'm sure you got the gist from other posters that it's a bad idea.

Why is that, though? It's pretty much fully safe. Well, unless you're an American Korean War veteran and actually admit you are. But then you're just really stupid.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Have fun. Make sure you bring food, but hide it well and ensure that it was not made in the United States.

[Bulgar Rouge]

Well have a safe trip. I'd convince you to go anywhere besides there, but I'm not going to bother. I'm sure you got the gist from other posters that it's a bad idea.

It's a bad idea if you're acting like one of those righteous Americans gone on a human rights crusade against the oppressive heathens. Thousands of people go there every year and get back home without much problems.

EDIT: Thinking about it, it might actually be one of the safest countries to visit. For the past 10 years, one tourist got shot and two got arrested. Out of maybe 50,000 or more who have visited the country for the same period.

[Dokrib Choseon]

It's a fair point to consider; they're not going to go out of their way to show any negative side of the nation, sure. That said, a lot of things can't be hidden, a lot of things can't be faked. There's something at least to be said for being there in person to see things.

I'm a Kimilsungist in terms of theory, but if North Korea today really was at odds with the theory Kim Il Sung Suryongnim laid out, I'd be the first to be upset over such betrayal of the revolution. Not expecting to see that, but if I did, I'd certainly have to analyze it as such.

To your point on theory, I find Kimilsungism to be a particularly advanced theory as it is essentially the synthesis of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, joining the two struggles into one in the same. It also very much advocates the importance of preserving the national culture as a means of resistance to cultural imperialism, which I really like, and preserves the Leninist theory of the necessity of an intellectual vanguard. Really, of all modern theories, I find it to be the "truest" to the Leninist core of things.

But you cannot argue that, in the eyes of Marx, North Korea would be considered an advanced Socialist state. In fact, I believe Marx would likely condemn North Korea with a burning passion. No semblance of freedom or power has been granted to the worker, it has rather been restricted further than under the wage slavery of Capitalism with physical enslavement and torture. Meanwhile, equality appears to have been vastly increased between the elite and the working class - The Supreme Leader enjoying his delicacies while his people starve.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?

Do you think I've really never heard that narrative before? Really? I mean, this is about on par with throwing John 3:16 at an atheist or something.

I don't buy that narrative for a second, obviously. If I did, though, I'd certainly be opposed to such a state. My philosophical stance of Kimilsungism ITSELF would CAUSE me to be opposed to such a state. Such a state would certainly be at odds with its theory and deserve to be abolished. And I'm sure if Kim Il Sung and the KPA of his day were still around today, and such a state existed today, they'd do the job themselves.

But again, I don't believe that's really the case there.

In fact, Marx condemned the use of the Socialist cause to install a new elite - As proposed by Lenin and practiced by many others after. In the Communist Manifesto, he states:

"Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres," of establishing "Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria" -- duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem -- and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel."

While the above may simply be a block of text to some, if we analyse it there is evidently an outright condemnation of the "intellectual vanguard" so often claiming to support the working class. We can apply this criticism from hindsight, while Marx believed in his pre-Leninist world that the first revolutionaries would at least stay true to the Socialist cause. Marx understands that any intellectual elite must eventually turn to reinstate class boundaries if they are to keep hold of their grip on power, creating a new class above the Proletariat. They promise many utopias of Socialism and Communism, yet must suppress political actions from the working class for fear of the Proletariat losing faith in their gospel - A mere rebranding of their former oppression.

And this, essentially is why I don't fall into what Mao would call the "dogmatist" school of Marxism. Marx granted us a brilliant methodology for analyzing social developments and class dynamics. The praxis of Marxism is probably the most tried and tested accurate means of socio-political analysis in history. That doesn't mean, however, that each and every word he spoke ought to be taken as some sort of divine word of god apart from evidence.

And indeed, it was Lenin, not Marx, who helped organize and oversee the development of the first large-scale successful revolution. So on matters of the practicality of building a state and revolution, it's Lenin's more empirically experienced wisdom (along with others later on engaged in similar work) to whom I defer. Lenin's vanguardism works if the goal is a successful revolution. History is a testament to that.

Therefore, North Korea cannot be in the slightest labelled as Marxist and is not advanced at all in the face of Socialist theory.

In the strictest, Salafi-Marxist sense, I suppose not. But in practical terms, just about nobody holds to that these days anyhow, and - rather ironically - I doubt Marx himself would want his words to be treated so dogmatically. It was supposed to be more about the method than the datapoints themselves.

It is rather a State Capitalist society in which Kim Sung Il and his descendants have enforced themselves as new Imperialists, holding claims over the South in order to present an enemy upon which they may further their own domestic power.

Wait, what? Did you, a self-proclaimed socialist, just defend the right of existence of a state in which it is still legally punishable by death to advocate socialism? Which of us is now more at odds with Marx now?

[Boomhaueristan]

Well have a safe trip. I'd convince you to go anywhere besides there, but I'm not going to bother. I'm sure you got the gist from other posters that it's a bad idea.

It's a bad idea if you're acting like one of those righteous Americans gone on a human rights crusade against the oppressive heathens. Thousands of people go there every year and get back home without much problems.

EDIT: Thinking about it, it might actually be one of the safest countries to visit. For the past 10 years, one tourist got shot and two got arrested. Out of maybe 50,000 or more who have visited the country for the same period.

There's a difference between visiting and making oneself a citizen.

[Vulpae]

from everything I've seen that Isn't state sanctioned information by the NK government, mostly relying on Koreans that leave/escape the world's most repressive state, it's a tiny dictatorship with political little man syndrome, a massive military, & dominated in large part by a cult of "the most glorious leader" It relies heavily on outside aid and strikes political stances & saber raddles to get what it needs.

it is technically communist as it is a mono-party system and all things are owned by The State including the people.
It also has parinoia befitting such an authoritan regime, they also have a serious racial purity stance, which caused them to throw a hissy fit when SK allowed "dirty foreigners" to marry "pure Koreans"

Have fun, stay quiet, watch for the cameras, and the fake "oh god somebody save us" smiles.


I find the best way of judging a country is not by ideology, but actions, goals, and treatment of outsiders and it's own people.
NK completely failed my test, I hope Kim 3 will be better than Kim 2, and open it up... but I'm not holding my breath. We should cut off aid, and let them wither and die on the vine, no matter how many temper tantrums they throw.

[Glasgia]

But you cannot argue that, in the eyes of Marx, North Korea would be considered an advanced Socialist state. In fact, I believe Marx would likely condemn North Korea with a burning passion. No semblance of freedom or power has been granted to the worker, it has rather been restricted further than under the wage slavery of Capitalism with physical enslavement and torture. Meanwhile, equality appears to have been vastly increased between the elite and the working class - The Supreme Leader enjoying his delicacies while his people starve.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?

Do you think I've really never heard that narrative before? Really? I mean, this is about on par with throwing John 3:16 at an atheist or something.

I don't buy that narrative for a second, obviously. If I did, though, I'd certainly be opposed to such a state. My philosophical stance of Kimilsungism ITSELF would CAUSE me to be opposed to such a state. Such a state would certainly be at odds with its theory and deserve to be abolished. And I'm sure if Kim Il Sung and the KPA of his day were still around today, and such a state existed today, they'd do the job themselves.

But again, I don't believe that's really the case there.

The existent of such camps are not denied by the North Korean government, with camps such asKaechon being officially recognised. If you cannot believe that forced labour is practiced in such camps, there are clear signs of forced labour in such camps. Meanwhile the UN, an organisation held as unbiased and with North Korean allies within its ranks, has ruled that multiple human rights violations are practiced within these camps. While I understand that defectors and western news agencies are likely to be majorly biased against the state, you cannot argue against all facts in favour of an obvious oppression carried out against the workers.

In fact, Marx condemned the use of the Socialist cause to install a new elite - As proposed by Lenin and practiced by many others after. In the Communist Manifesto, he states:

"Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres," of establishing "Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria" -- duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem -- and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel."

While the above may simply be a block of text to some, if we analyse it there is evidently an outright condemnation of the "intellectual vanguard" so often claiming to support the working class. We can apply this criticism from hindsight, while Marx believed in his pre-Leninist world that the first revolutionaries would at least stay true to the Socialist cause. Marx understands that any intellectual elite must eventually turn to reinstate class boundaries if they are to keep hold of their grip on power, creating a new class above the Proletariat. They promise many utopias of Socialism and Communism, yet must suppress political actions from the working class for fear of the Proletariat losing faith in their gospel - A mere rebranding of their former oppression.

And this, essentially is why I don't fall into what Mao would call the "dogmatist" school of Marxism. Marx granted us a brilliant methodology for analyzing social developments and class dynamics. The praxis of Marxism is probably the most tried and tested accurate means of socio-political analysis in history. That doesn't mean, however, that each and every word he spoke ought to be taken as some sort of divine word of god apart from evidence.

No, you are right. Marx was no god, but he most certainly was the forefather of most modern Socialist movements. If a nation is to label itself Socialist, it cannot ignore the words of Marx without replacing his role with the words of others such as Blanqui or Ricardo.

And indeed, it was Lenin, not Marx, who helped organize and oversee the development of the first large-scale successful revolution. So on matters of the practicality of building a state and revolution, it's Lenin's more empirically experienced wisdom (along with others later on engaged in similar work) to whom I defer. Lenin's vanguardism works if the goal is a successful revolution. History is a testament to that.

Yet in what way were the revolutions of the Bolsheviks successful? They did nothing to further the cause of the Proletariat, at least not after Stalin's succession. In my quoted paragraph, Marx accurately predicts and condemns such vanguard parties as they simply establish a new ruling elite. Neither under the Soviet Union or the DPRK have we seen any advancement in the welfare of the workers, so to claim success is a farce.

Therefore, North Korea cannot be in the slightest labelled as Marxist and is not advanced at all in the face of Socialist theory.

In the strictest, Salafi-Marxist sense, I suppose not. But in practical terms, just about nobody holds to that these days anyhow, and - rather ironically - I doubt Marx himself would want his words to be treated so dogmatically. It was supposed to be more about the method than the datapoints themselves.

Marx held entirely to the scientific method of Socialism, in which analysis of such datapoints are central to forming the future Socialist state. I, and many others world wide - far more than support the Juche state, still hold strongly to his words. I do not hold them as sacred, and have my own criticisms of some of his work, yet they are by far the most influential work of Socialist theory. If you claim North Korea is an advanced Socialist state, you must defer either to Marxist works or other lines of Socialism which would prove more favourable to the regime.

It is rather a State Capitalist society in which Kim Sung Il and his descendants have enforced themselves as new Imperialists, holding claims over the South in order to present an enemy upon which they may further their own domestic power.

Wait, what? Did you, a self-proclaimed socialist, just defend the right of existence of a state in which it is still legally punishable by death to advocate socialism? Which of us is now more at odds with Marx now?

I did not support the South, please try again in labelling me. I simply attempted to point out the irony of a state so proud in it's anti-imperialist method holding imperialist claims elsewhere. While I do believe that South Korea is preferable to the North, with one ideology banned rather than all but one, it is too an abomination of its own values.

[Threlizdun]

Well considering the Marxism-Leninism formerly espoused by Kim Il-Sung has been covered up and demonized, mentions of class struggle have been all but abandoned in favor of support of entrenched hierarchies and family leniages, Internarional revolution was completely abandoned and replaced with hyper nationalism, and all mentions of communism were dropped from the revised constitution, it's pretty damn obvious that the already ambiguous concept of "Kimilsungism" has no true bearing on the state today. Of course, you'll want to avoid saying that, as such observations will result in you never again seeing be light of day.

That's one narrative on it sure. Not one I particularly think is likely to be true, but if I saw sufficient evidence to convince me of such, I suppose I'd have to consider myself an "Orthodox Kimilsungist" at such a point. Which really wouldn't be much of a change in theory from my current position - maybe something of a re-analysis of some of Kim Jong Il Dongjinim's works on Songun, in such a light - I'd just have to analyze North Korea as being in deviation from 1994 onwards. *shrug*

Don't hold your breath, because I for one don't find it to be very probable. But if so, while perhaps a bit frustrating, my actual theoretical position wouldn't change much, so it's still practically irrelevant.

You don't think it's likely that they literally removed all references to communism in their constitution and have in numerous speeches stated that Marxism Leninism fails to address the problems of the world and that Juche is the only solution? I suggest you actually read their constitution and listen to their speeches then. While abandoning Leninism is hardly a bad thing (though what they replaced it with was amazingly an even worse alternative) you still cannot possibly deny the dramatic ideological changes that have occurred.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Hey, when you're there and being chauffeured around by brainwashed soldiers and state-controlled "tour guides," do something like run down a nearby alley or look somewhere they said not to or question the Dear Leader's absolute authority. Then we'll see if we hear back from you.

[Estado Paulista]

2. You can find, buy and smoke pot there freely. It costs something like $ 0.80 per kilo. I don't smoke pot, but just in case you do, that's something you should definitely know.

Holy fuck.

*buys ticket to Pyongyang*

[Estado Paulista]

2. 0____0 Awesome! I was generally aware, but still, awesome! One of the few many things that China is still very backwards on. >___<

Fixed.

[Glasgia]

it is technically communist as it is a mono-party system and all things are owned by The State including the people.

Communism has no state, as opposed to the totalitarian state of North Korea. Communism has no classes, as opposed to the strict classist structure with which the elite oppress the working class. Communism has no currency, as opposed to the use of the North Korean Won. Communism has no property, as opposed to the state ownership of business and the private ownership of the elite. Communism has no inheritance, as opposed to the private inheritance of power shown through the succession of the Kims.

North Korea is not Communist, please don't simply use the term as an insult to totalitarian states. It's a distinct political ideology and theoretical social order, not a type of authoritarian dictatorship.

[New Connorstantinople]

Well dang, I didn't know there was so many supporters of a communist dictatorship.

[Threlizdun]

Well dang, I didn't know there was so many supporters of a communist dictatorship.

Not only is the very idea of a communist dictatorship absurd, but North Korea itself has removed any references to the goal of reaching communism from its constitution and speeches.

[Glasgia]

Well dang, I didn't know there was so many supporters of a communist dictatorship.

it is technically communist as it is a mono-party system and all things are owned by The State including the people.

Communism has no state, as opposed to the totalitarian state of North Korea. Communism has no classes, as opposed to the strict classist structure with which the elite oppress the working class. Communism has no currency, as opposed to the use of the North Korean Won. Communism has no property, as opposed to the state ownership of business and the private ownership of the elite. Communism has no inheritance, as opposed to the private inheritance of power shown through the succession of the Kims.

North Korea is not Communist, please don't simply use the term as an insult to totalitarian states. It's a distinct political ideology and theoretical social order, not a type of authoritarian dictatorship.

[Congotar]

Hope You Enjoy Your Trip.

[Hochste Kaiserreich]

Well dang, I didn't know there was so many supporters of a communist dictatorship.

Communist? No. Human Rights Violating Corrupt Dictatorship? Yes.

I think anyone who defends the nation who has so obviously oppressed and impoverished it's populace for the benefit of a ruling elite deserves to actually live in the country a while to get some sense into their heads. If I myself was Korean, I would actually consider it extremely offensive. However I wish OP luck nontheless but since OP is obviously a supporter of their regime he'll be eating state-sponsored caviar in Pyonyang while thousands starve to death in the provinces, so I doubt much harm will come to him.

[Grenartia]

Hope you don't get shipped off to a gulag by Idiot Comrade.

[Magna Libero]

So will you be flying in or taking the train from China to NK. .

I believe at this point, taking the train in, flying back (so I can make it back to Beijing in time so as not to miss work). May be subject to change before then; not 100% worked out the details yet.

So you are just going there as a tourist and not to see the real people? You could just smuggle yourself through the China-NK border.

Anyways, I hope you enjoy your adventure. I also hope you will survive and that you won't regret it too much, which I think you will have problems with if you are going to stick with the people.

Are you originally a citizen of China?

[United Marxist Nations]

Someone who used to be in my region (I say used to because shortly after, there was a split between pro-DPRK and skeptical members, of which I was in the latter) went there on an independent tour, and was exposed to more of (not the whole of, I'm sure), so that might be a better option.