North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un
- Thread starter terminator363
- 3,319 comments
- 187,291 views
- 712
- Athens
- GTP_Shaman
- Othershidapu
What do you mean it was forced and where did i say that...all i said is that the rulling class in MY country desided to join EU and NATO for their own interests...
There was a guy born in your country almost 200 years ago you should read him for your own good.
Oh! and another guy born in russia said amongst other things,something about the "United states of Europe" you should read that also...
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 712
- Athens
- GTP_Shaman
- Othershidapu
You have the right to think whatever you want...It's a litlle more complicated than this
What is so bad about reading to many Karl Marx?
And the video will help if you press play...try it...
- 4,897
- UK
Do you think I have time to watch a 56 minute video on theory?
You linked a video which titles 'Class Society & the State' so I presume you are referring to the Karl Marx idea of Proletariat Vs. Bourgeois which has no links to the topic of this thread. If you want advocate the work of how we shouldn't live in a Capitalist ideology then this isn't the place. So move on.
- 6,963
- South Africa
...Simple Googling came up with this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Also, this fun trivia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea
Above link says "3693 armed N.K agents" have infiltrated South, and that number is not counting alleged incursions and terrorist activities away from the border area.
To compare, South breached the border, or performed raids, on North 200 times.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Korea chaffed under Japanese annexation and occupation from 1910 until the end of WWII. At the end of WWII, instead of returning Korea to the Koreans, the victors of the war awarded Korea to themselves. Koreans, ultimately with the assistance of the Chinese, attempted to evict the foreigners from their land, but didn't succeed south of the 38th parallel.Yes, but apart from that war which killed half a million soldiers and two million civilians they've never attacked anyone.
Yes, but apart from that....
History seems dim on the last time Koreans invaded anyone.
- 712
- Athens
- GTP_Shaman
- Othershidapu
Yes, but apart from that war which killed half a million soldiers and two million civilians they've never attacked anyone.
Yes, but apart from that....
Well some may disagree with that..who really pull the trigger first?
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
In general, perhaps. For @Shidapu's specific assertion that "DPRK never attacked anyone" it's a little more clear. With each side "backed" by their "allies" (I know, I know) my response remains that DPRK invaded South Korea. @Shidapu has produced an interesting article to that response although it seems a little too myopic for my own tastes.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
And has been explained, North Korea is not socialist. They don't fit anywhere on the traditional political spectrum. If you were to plot it out on a graph, the you would have progressive and conservative on the x-axis (left/right), and authoritarian and libertarian on the y-axis (up/down). In order to place North Korea on this spectrum, you would first of all need a z-axis (forwards/backwards). You will notice that we now have three dimensions to this graph. So where does North Korea fit? In a theoretical fourth dimension. That's how extreme they are.
North Korea emphasises what they call "juche", or a philosophy of self-reliance. We would otherwise know it as autarky, or about as close as you could possibly get to it; it is a state where you are effectively a closed system, producing everything that you need to sustain yourself, and only producing what you need to sustain yourself. You do not import or export anything. True autarky is practically impossible, and indeed North Korea relies on China for some things, but they are about as close to true autarky as anyone could (and likely will) ever get. This idea of "juche" is deeply embedded in the North Korean political philosophy to the point where "juche" and their political structure are inseparable. Traditional ideas of socialism, free market capitalism, libertarianism et al don't come into it.
- 712
- Athens
- GTP_Shaman
- Othershidapu
I don't know how much familiar you are with "marxist-leninist" theory,and is something that myself i can't explain it to you english...it would be different if i had to explained to someone else in my language.
Marxist - leninist is not something you can grasp over an afternoon reading it from wikipedia,it will take you years to understand it...but once you do...trust me it will change your world view....so don't get me wrong i still consider DPRK a socialist country......and they don't want to attack to anyone.
Please watch this video
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
As it happens, I am very familiar with Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. I teach critical responses to literature, as well as an introductory form of political science. It is not something that I learned in "an afternoon of reading Wikipedia", but rather something that I have spent the better part of ten years on (though that time was not exclusively dedicated to Marxism and its various incarnations).
Which is why I feel suitability qualified to tell you that your idea that North Korea is a socialist state is fundamentally wrong. While Kim Il-sung did look towards the Soviet Union to model his country after its foundation, he selectively chose elements of its that complimented his philosophy of "juche". By the time Kim Jong-il took over, those elements of Marxism-Leninism had largely faded.
- 29,150
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The idea that the US or anyone else is opposed to the Kim regime because of their adherence to socialism/Stalinism is false. There are plenty of sound reasons to be opposed to the Kim regime besides that. The DPRK is essentially a criminal state, and a state that poses as much of a risk to its own people as it does to its neighbours and beyond. The DPRK has backed itself into a corner and now finds itself in today - proclaiming self-sufficiency while in reality it is totally dependent on outside help (e.g. China), pursuing nuclear weapons 'in self-defense' which is only likely to hasten attempts to bring down the Kim regime etc.
This isn't about double standards or fairness. Any entity that is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability needs to be assessed on its own merits. No-one is arguing against the principle of a sovereign state's right to defend itself - but the DPRK is much more than that - it is an unstable criminal state almost (if not certainly) without precedent in the world... the DPRK is probably unique in the extent of its direct involvement in a whole range of serious criminal activity, and as such their nuclear ambitions are cast in a very different light, especially when they are making explicit threats and claiming to have developed miniaturized nuclear weapons that could generate a lot of useful income if they decide to sell it on to terrorist groups or states that sponsor them.
This isn't about double standards or fairness. Any entity that is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability needs to be assessed on its own merits. No-one is arguing against the principle of a sovereign state's right to defend itself - but the DPRK is much more than that - it is an unstable criminal state almost (if not certainly) without precedent in the world... the DPRK is probably unique in the extent of its direct involvement in a whole range of serious criminal activity, and as such their nuclear ambitions are cast in a very different light, especially when they are making explicit threats and claiming to have developed miniaturized nuclear weapons that could generate a lot of useful income if they decide to sell it on to terrorist groups or states that sponsor them.
- 20,813
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
I'm still trying to fathom how anyone can argue that North Korea is socialist. They might think they are socialist, but unless the definition changed overnight, they are not socialist. Either that, or the socialism/communism practiced in the USSR, China and other locations was actually something else.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It's easy if you don't understand socialism in the first place. And I doubt @Shidapu does - his signature praises the Bolsheviks as establishing a prototype of a socialist political model, but the Bolsheviks gave up Bolshevism, an extreme form of Marxism-Leninism that was one of the most totalitarian regimes in history. His comments on the nature of Marxism sound completely naïve, and no doubt the by-product of the one-sided and ill-informed videos he posts, promisimg that Marxism will bring about a life-changing experience. It reads like someone caught up in the idealised version of the philosophy and oblivious to the flaws that emerged when it was put into practice.
- 4,897
- UK
It doesn't take years to study and it seems like you haven't the grasp the idea of both theories as well so don't talk a load of BS. Let's talk about the Soviet Union who were epitome of Socialism, unlike North Korea they didn't isolate themselves from the World. Stalin went to meet with the leaders at multiple conferences who were on the other side of the Iron curtain and whereas the leaders of the North, not so much. Moving on to Khrushchev who was in the Red Army as the same goes to Kim Il Sung, he had an aggressive stance to the Americans after maintaining the reigns of Stalin, but he still had compromised with the Americans as the Berlin Wall was an example. If you still think they are Socialist then explain to me why the portraits of Lenin and Karl got removed from the square? Also, while you research that then have a look at the term of Isolationism.
Last edited:
- 712
- Athens
- GTP_Shaman
- Othershidapu
Totalitarian...!!!.....Flaws...what else..?? Stalin was like Hitler eh..?? I'm Sorry Start over on Marxism...you're not convinced me.
Read the second line again on my signature....its fundamendal for the communists and eventually for human kind.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Well for one, Stalin wasn't a Marxist. Shortly before he died, Vladimir Lenin wrote a missive to the politburo that warned them that Stalin had well and truly strayed from the ideals of Marxism-Leninism and that he should not be allowed to take power; nevertheless, Stalin was still able to take control. Pretty much all contemporary political scholars agree that Stalin was not a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist
Secondly, Stalin committed all sorts of crimes as the leader of the Soviet Union. The gulag system of forced labour camps rapidly expanded under his regime, while he forcibly relocated millions of people to central and eastern Russia. Worst of all was the Holodomir, where he deliberately withdrew food supplies from what is now Ukraine and redistributed them across the country, creating a famine that led to the deaths of millions of people from starvation. I suggest you read up on the gulags, the Doctors' Plot, the Holodomir and Nikita Khruschev's On the Cult of Personality and its Consequences, "secret speech" in which he acknowledged the extent of Stalin's crimes.
Thirdly, Hitler didn't have a monopoly on totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is simply an aspect of political modelling where the state has absolute control over everything. At the time of Stalin's regime, Europe was home to several totalitarian governments, each one representing a different political ideology: Stalin had Bolshevism, Hitler had Nazism, Benito Mussolini (Italty) and Francisco Franco (Spain) had fascism, Josip Tito (the former Yugoslavia) was staunchly anti-communist, and Enver Hoxha (Albania) was staunchly pro-communist. In Africa Haile Selassie (Ethiopia) was also totalitarian. Following Stalin's death, the likes of Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro and Nicolae Ceaucescu rose to power in China, Cuba and Romania and all introduced totalitarian regimes. Some writers, like WH Auden - a very left-leaning poet - suggested that the likes of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle had elements of totalitarianism about them in the way they handled the Nazis.
Finally, I am not trying to persuade you that Marxism is wrong. Political ideologies in and of themselves are not good or bad; rather, they are only as good or bad as their users (with the exception of Nazism and fascism, which are plain evil). From your posts, it's quite clear that there are considerable gaps in your knowledge of the subject, such as your ignorance of Josef Stalin's crimes (which makes your praise of him and your promises of the Bolshevik model being a life-changing experience a little disturbing), and your repeated insistence that North Korea is socialist. You may consider North Korea to be socialist, but you are the only person who does.
- 712
- Athens
- GTP_Shaman
- Othershidapu
You know what..maybe you have confused social revolution with the walk in the park....http://www.stalinsociety.org/reading/collected-works-of-stalin/
Stalin had a deep knowledge of Marxism-Leninism and his actions was reflecting just that.
Please don't tell me about the crimes of stalin i was growing up listening to that bourgeoisie crap.
And while you're at it read some brecht....http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0903/att-0196/fiveDifficulties_brecht.pdf
Sorry for posting links but is difficult to explain somethin this complicate in english language.
Last edited:
Similar threads
