DPRK or Cuba?

[The Ben G]

Since this was brought up in a previous post.

[Weezer]

Cuba, obviously.

[Vendetta]

Neither.

[VILemon]

I'm not sure if I've ever made an easier decision.

[Tablo]

If I had to choose then Cuba. Otherwise I would pick neither.

[scarletghoul]

Both, was my point in the other thread.
Both are revisionist but still socialist and should be defended against imperislism

[comradshaw]

If I had to choose then Cuba. Otherwise I would pick neither.

I second this comrade.

[Sendo]

Is this where' we'd rather defect to? That's easy. What a stupid post.

Let's compare quality of life, civil liberties, quality of services, risk, climate, food, and everything else. Or is it to ask which nation is a purer form of socialism. Only those who advocate near total isolation as necessary for ML would possibly say it's better.

The most you'll get is people responding for Cuba, people abstaining out of disgust for both or support for both, and people voting NK just to spite what they feel is the simplistic dismissal of NK as "a dictatorship".

[The Red Next Door]

Cuba is a dictatorship but compare to The Nk, Cuba is heaven.

[RedSonRising]

Cuba is not really a role model for lots of human rights, but one could make an empirically sound argument in their favor for most of the unclear/undefined controversial issues that they are criticized for, not least because they have much more to say for themselves in terms of regional progress comparison. It's not perfect socialism, but the condition and power of their workers definitely surpasses that of the North Koreanpopulation from what I've read.

Both should be defended from imperialism, obviously, though I'd posit that for just about any nation-state's population and doesn't say much.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Cuba is Socialist, albeit not perfect, and should be defended after the recognition of its adherence to Socialist principles.

North Korea has abandoned, even in rhetoric, Marxism, let alone any anti-revisionism. It has chosen to go down the militarist anti-imperialist route, rather than defying the Capitalist threat through leading by a Socialist example, which is what Cuba has done.

[Chambered Word]

I'd choose neither usually, but if I was forced to choose I'd go with Cuba, so I voted.


Cuba is Socialist, albeit not perfect, and should be defended after the recognition of its adherence to Socialist principles.

North Korea has abandoned, even in rhetoric, Marxism, let alone any anti-revisionism. It has chosen to go down the militarist anti-imperialist route, rather than defying the Capitalist threat through leading by a Socialist example, which is what Cuba has done.

I'm not sure if Cuba is really leading as an example of how socialism should be governed, but it stands as a good example of the quality of life that the masses will enjoy under socialism, especially for Latin America.

Both are state capitalist really, but I would choose Cuba over the DPRK any day. We should show solidarity with Cuba against imperialism and American sabotage. :)

[manic expression]

This is a meaningless poll, so I'll only post to remind people that both Cuba and the DPRK are legitimately socialist societies. Both must be defended by all dedicated revolutionaries.

Just because one has been bombed more, besieged more, slandered more...does not change any of the above. "Socialists" who run away from the DPRK because it's unpopular are usually cowards at best and traitors at worst.

[Q]

I'd like to point to this article that makes perfectly clear North-Korea is far from communist (http://www.slate.com/id/2243112/pagenum/all/), even from a liberal perspective (which I think the author is).

Question to all the DPRK supporters here: Burma (or Myanmar) is ruled by a junta that has a strict control over the economy, even has some aspects of social planning. Yet this regime is rarely supported by North-Korea supporters despite the parallels between both junta regimes. What makes North-Korea qualitatively different and, more to the point, socialist?

[Revy]

This is a meaningless poll, so I'll only post to remind people that both Cuba and the DPRK are legitimately socialist societies. Both must be defended by all dedicated revolutionaries.

Just because one has been bombed more, besieged more, slandered more...does not change any of the above. "Socialists" who run away from the DPRK because it's unpopular are usually cowards at best and traitors at worst.

And just because the DPRK is opposed by the US doesn't mean you need to resort to this Marcyite trolling.

[manic expression]

I'd like to point to this article that makes perfectly clear North-Korea is far from communist (http://www.slate.com/id/2243112/pagenum/all/), even from a liberal perspective (which I think the author is).
While you may value the "liberal perspective", revolutionaries value the working-class perspective. Liberals are enemies of socialism. Why would you possibly want to give their viewpoints validity on this issue? It makes no sense.

Further, it was never the argument that the DPRK is communist, but a socialist society led by communists. Are you denying that the KWP is legitimately communist? Why do you think a liberal article gives you any evidence for doing so?

By the way, Slate is 100% bourgeois. They write hit-pieces against socialism all the time. Showing your true colors, Q?


Question to all the DPRK supporters here: Burma (or Myanmar) is ruled by a junta that has a strict control over the economy, even has some aspects of social planning. Yet this regime is rarely supported by North-Korea supporters despite the parallels between both junta regimes. What makes North-Korea qualitatively different and, more to the point, socialist?Has Myanmar collectivized production in both agriculture and industry? Is Myanmar under the direction of a revolutionary vanguard party, which has stood strong against imperialism in the darkest of hours many times over?

Myanmar doesn't have a universal healthcare system that doubled life expectancy. Myanmar doesn't set urban housing prices at .3% of a worker's salary. Myanmar doesn't have universal literacy. I could go on, but the point is that your comparison is nothing short of absurd once you encounter the most elementary of details.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6178&news_iv_ctrl=1701

[FSL]

I'd like to point to this article that makes perfectly clear North-Korea is far from communist (http://www.slate.com/id/2243112/pagenum/all/), even from a liberal perspective (which I think the author is).




Alas, that poor man who left for DPRK will just end up as soap then?

So, Cuba is racist, DPRK is racist, ehm... oh yeah Stalin hated Jews, didn't he?
The interest some people show in socialism is akin to the interest shown to a dying, lonely man by his greedy little nephews. There are no problems whatsoever with poisoning him even, just as long as it gets our job done.

[manic expression]

And just because the DPRK is opposed by the US doesn't mean you need to resort to this Marcyite trolling.
See my previous post.

[Chambered Word]

While you may value the "liberal perspective", revolutionaries value the working-class perspective. Liberals are enemies of socialism. Why would you possibly want to give their viewpoints validity on this issue? It makes no sense.

Argument from consequence.


Further, it was never the argument that the DPRK is communist, but a socialist society led by communists. Are you denying that the KWP is legitimately communist? Why do you think a liberal article gives you any evidence for doing so?

Argument ad hominem against the authors of the article.


By the way, Slate is 100% bourgeois. They write hit-pieces against socialism all the time. Showing your true colors, Q?

You're already showing your true colours as the Red equivalent of a McCarthyist, and an anti-worker tool who will believe anything he's told as long as a so-called 'communist leader' says it (as opposed to someone who is at the very least honest about being anti-working class scum).


Has Myanmar collectivized production in both agriculture and industry? Is Myanmar under the direction of a revolutionary vanguard party, which has stood strong against imperialism in the darkest of hours many times over?

Myanmar is under the direction of the military, which is clearly the best class to carry out the revolution, because Kim Jong-Il told me so!


Myanmar doesn't have a universal healthcare system that doubled life expectancy. Myanmar doesn't set urban housing prices at .3% of a worker's salary. Myanmar doesn't have universal literacy. I could go on, but the point is that your comparison is nothing short of absurd once you encounter the most elementary of details.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6178&news_iv_ctrl=1701

But Myanmar has always been poor! The leaders have good intentions but are constantly interfered with by revisionists like Aung San Su Kyi! LONG LIVE STALIN, MAO AND THE SOCIALISTS OF MYANMAR!!11shift+fiftynine

In case you haven't realized, some of these so-called socialist elements are seen in liberal 'democracies'. Do you really have no grasp of socialism at all?

[Chimurenga.]

Cuba.

[Revy]

While you may value the "liberal perspective", revolutionaries value the working-class perspective. Liberals are enemies of socialism. Why would you possibly want to give their viewpoints validity on this issue? It makes no sense.

Further, it was never the argument that the DPRK is communist, but a socialist society led by communists. Are you denying that the KWP is legitimately communist? Why do you think a liberal article gives you any evidence for doing so?

By the way, Slate is 100% bourgeois. They write hit-pieces against socialism all the time. Showing your true colors, Q?

Has Myanmar collectivized production in both agriculture and industry? Is Myanmar under the direction of a revolutionary vanguard party, which has stood strong against imperialism in the darkest of hours many times over?

Myanmar doesn't have a universal healthcare system that doubled life expectancy. Myanmar doesn't set urban housing prices at .3% of a worker's salary. Myanmar doesn't have universal literacy. I could go on, but the point is that your comparison is nothing short of absurd once you encounter the most elementary of details.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6178&news_iv_ctrl=1701

Even most Stalinists don't support everything. They go dictator shopping. You Marcyites eclectically support every dictatorship and regime that pops up with even a tenuous connection to socialist ideology, shamefully pretending to be legitimate anti-imperialism when all it is, is opportunism.

Instead of seeing North Korea as it is, you prefer to hold illusions, that it's a "legitimately socialist society" and that all who dare oppose it are "cowards and traitors".

I can respect you if you do some good organizing and activism. But ideologically you're crazy.

[Uppercut]

Cuba, without a doubt. At least they have a democratic-centralist system, and their people can organize and take part in decisions at the local level.

NK is simply a monarchistic police state. Kim jong-il's father would be pissed....lol

[Q]

While you may value the "liberal perspective", revolutionaries value the working-class perspective. Liberals are enemies of socialism. Why would you possibly want to give their viewpoints validity on this issue? It makes no sense.
I was pointing out the sheer irony that even the bourgeoisie, the enemies of the socialist movement, no longer see N-Korea as communist/socialist. So, how stupid are self-proclaimed communists who support this junta then, I ask?


Are you denying that the KWP is legitimately communist?Yes.


By the way, Slate is 100% bourgeois. They write hit-pieces against socialism all the time. Showing your true colors, Q?Yes, I am showing my true revolutionary colors, you on the other hand are a poor excuse for the bourgeois elite to still make a link to N-Korea and the genuine communist movement and scare the working class about communist ideas. Your stance hurts our movement. So, what about your colors?


Is Myanmar under the direction of a revolutionary vanguard party, which has stood strong against imperialism in the darkest of hours many times over?As Comrade Lewis already sarcastically pointed out, this isn't the case in North-Korea either.

[manic expression]

I was pointing out the sheer irony that even the bourgeoisie, the enemies of the socialist movement, no longer see N-Korea as communist/socialist. So, how stupid are self-proclaimed communists who support this junta then, I ask?
Oh, heavens forbid we disagree with the bourgeoisie! :rolleyes:

Cowards or traitors.


Yes.
Then you don't know what you're talking about. The KWP has fought for the interests of Korean workers at every turn, and under the most trying of circumstances. Their credentials on this issue are quite impressive.


Yes, I am showing my true revolutionary colors,

In running to the bourgeoisie for approval. I see.


As Comrade Lewis already sarcastically pointed out, this isn't the case in North-Korea either.
Good to see that you didn't respond to any of the facts I cited. Have fun denying the reality of the DPRK while revolutionaries stick to the facts.

[manic expression]

Even most Stalinists don't support everything. They go dictator shopping. You Marcyites eclectically support every dictatorship and regime that pops up with even a tenuous connection to socialist ideology, shamefully pretending to be legitimate anti-imperialism when all it is, is opportunism.
I know you feel that way, but I want you to prove it. Have any examples of "Stalinists" going "dictator shopping"? Have any proof that the DPRK has only "a tenuous connection to socialist ideology"? Ranting isn't an argument, I hope you learn the difference sooner rather than later.


Instead of seeing North Korea as it is, you prefer to hold illusions, that it's a "legitimately socialist society" and that all who dare oppose it are "cowards and traitors".
See my response to Q, it has more than a few examples of the achievements of the Korean workers in the DPRK.


I can respect you if you do some good organizing and activism. But ideologically you're crazy.
Well, according to that logic, you're ideologically crazy if you do good organizing and activism. :lol:

[greek_anarchist_communist]

greetings!! I'd say none, for no "communist" state that oppresses, one way or another, its citizens, is really communist...

but i've voted for cuba!:rolleyes:

[Comrade B]

Would I like to live in a cruel oppressive dictatorship under an ego-centric nutter, which doesn't have freedom of speech...

Or a dictatorship with some benefits for the people that live in it, which doesn't have freedom of speech

[manic expression]

Argument from consequence.
Not really, you're just zoning in on one portion of my point. I wonder why.


Argument ad hominem against the authors of the article.
Argument ad class. There's a difference. We should point out when hit-pieces are bourgeois. And furthermore, 90% of the arguments against the DPRK are nothing but ad-hominem attacks against its head of state.

And by the way, the fact that you have no problem standing with the capitalists is duly noted.


You're already showing your true colours as the Red equivalent of a McCarthyist, and an anti-worker tool who will believe anything he's told as long as a so-called 'communist leader' says it (as opposed to someone who is at the very least honest about being anti-working class scum).
:laugh: Argument ad hominem, with a heaping helping of hypocrisy on the side. I guess this is what I get for questioning your capitalist-approved lies.


Myanmar is under the direction of the military,
And not a vanguard party like the KWP. Thanks for proving my point.


But Myanmar has always been poor!
The leaders of Myanmar, however, have never pursued a revolutionary path as in the DPRK. See my response to Q for specific examples. Keep up the ranting, though, you're just making your side look even more immature.


In case you haven't realized, some of these so-called socialist elements are seen in liberal 'democracies'. Do you really have no grasp of socialism at all?
So first the DPRK is like Myanmar, and now it's like a "liberal 'democracy'"? Which one is it? You can't even keep your idiotic comparisons straight. Here's a hint: try formulating a congruent argument next time.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

So, if Cuba and North Korea are socialist, where is the evidence to support the fact that the workers have control over the means of production?

And for the stalinists: the government and the workers are not the same thing, Sorry

the government in these countries are merely the new bourgeoisie running their state capitalist dictatorships

And like I said in the other tread. North Korea doesn't even consider themselves socialist. And some "expert revolutionary" on a message board is trying to tell the whole world that they are, indeed, the saviors of the working class. Quite good entertainment the red fascists provide at least.

[bailey_187]

And like I said in the other tread. North Korea doesn't even consider themselves socialist.

hey fuckface, how about you go back and check the response to that post?

[Manifesto]

Chose Cuba. Not really a question in there, now is there?

[Sogdian]

Had not the imperialist US ruling class threatened, attacked, imposed evil blockades for decades for both Cuba and DPRK in the past and present, they would possibly be very different today.

I might disagree how Cuban or North Korean socialism works, but defend both against US imperialism. Under current circumstances, criticizing them looks very unfair, like armchair revolutionaries.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What are we voting for? The least revisionist of the two Capitalist states?

[Winter]

I chose Cuba.

I don't see what everyone's problem is with Cuba. I consider them Socialist, or at least as Socialist as a country can possibly be while having the big bad imperialist nation just 90 miles north of them!

People complain about workers control and nitpick at the July 26th Movement, but let's look at the accomplishments. It's always fun to look at the state of workers in Cuba and say "WELL THEY DONT DIRECTLY CONTROL THE STATE!" But the reality is that they do practice democratic centralism, the government has the interest of the people at heart.

But the fact remains that Cuba needs a strong central government. A tiny socialist island can't let it's guard down for even one second. I can understand why certain things are monitored. As it is, the younger generation of Cuba's youth want capitalism because they've never experienced it personally and they have the illusion in there head that every capitalist is succesful.

I don't know, maybe I just have lower standards than the rest of you, but from everything I've studied about the country, Cuba is Socialist :P

[RadioRaheem84]

Isn't this obvious? Cuba. Who would vote for NK?

[The Red Next Door]

While you may value the "liberal perspective", revolutionaries value the working-class perspective. Liberals are enemies of socialism. Why would you possibly want to give their viewpoints validity on this issue? It makes no sense.

Further, it was never the argument that the DPRK is communist, but a socialist society led by communists. Are you denying that the KWP is legitimately communist? Why do you think a liberal article gives you any evidence for doing so?

By the way, Slate is 100% bourgeois. They write hit-pieces against socialism all the time. Showing your true colors, Q?

Has Myanmar collectivized production in both agriculture and industry? Is Myanmar under the direction of a revolutionary vanguard party, which has stood strong against imperialism in the darkest of hours many times over?

Myanmar doesn't have a universal healthcare system that doubled life expectancy. Myanmar doesn't set urban housing prices at .3% of a worker's salary. Myanmar doesn't have universal literacy. I could go on, but the point is that your comparison is nothing short of absurd once you encounter the most elementary of details.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6178&news_iv_ctrl=1701
How long you gonna be in denial?

[The Red Next Door]

This is a meaningless poll, so I'll only post to remind people that both Cuba and the DPRK are legitimately socialist societies. Both must be defended by all dedicated revolutionaries.

Just because one has been bombed more, besieged more, slandered more...does not change any of the above. "Socialists" who run away from the DPRK because it's unpopular are usually cowards at best and traitors at worst.
In denial. This is why i can never talk people into what good, a communist society can do, because they end up coming across people like you.

[Comrade Anarchist]

They should both be destroyed and everyone willing following these regimes should be smacked in the face.

[scarletghoul]

The reason I kept pushing for people to compare these 2 countries in that other thread was not so you would all just state your readymade opinions and go "why, cuba is better of course!". I was kinda hoping you would actually think about, and maybe even investigate, the concrete facts.

How many of you people have actually researched North Korea and its system, beyond the passive swallowing of bourgeois commentary and Team America ? The level of knowledge and research carried out seems to be the differance between the 2 sides in this debate. manic expression has been giving good and coherent arguments, explaining why he defends the DPRK and referring to objective facts, and all you people do is keep saying how North Korea is a 'dictatorship' and that it sucks because Kim is 'nuts', without explaining why you think that, and without referring to any objective facts. I'd be willing to bet that Kim is more inteligent that the vast majority of you kids.
Anyway yeah try and argue properly as you're really showing yourselves up.

[scarletghoul]

They should both be destroyed and everyone willing following these regimes should be smacked in the face.
Haha. Destroyed how ? If either of those regimes were destroyed they would certainly be replaced by an Amerikan puppet state.

If you want these regimes to be destroyed then you are either an idealist fool or a supporter of imperialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

They should both be destroyed and everyone willing following these regimes should be smacked in the face.

....and should be given a copy of the Fountainhead! :rolleyes:

[RedSonRising]

So, if Cuba and North Korea are socialist, where is the evidence to support the fact that the workers have control over the means of production?

And for the stalinists: the government and the workers are not the same thing, Sorry

the government in these countries are merely the new bourgeoisie running their state capitalist dictatorships


http://books.google.com/books?id=9CJec-NWjS0C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=workers%27+control+in+cuba&source=bl&ots=RnJtPOGstP&sig=rJZiGF8wydvvG7pX0zQNbFzDFYI#v=onepage&q=workers%27%20control%20in%20cuba&f=false

This is a study that examines the changing relationship between different levels of interaction, participation, and control between workers and the decision-making processes in the workplace in Cuba. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to look through it. As for North Korea, I do not consider that country socialist as I have seen a lack of evidence supporting workers' control in the region amidst the negative criticisms (hence my poll choice).

However I'd love to see anyone who defends that State provide a study or journalistic piece of evidence describing the condition of the working people of North Korea.

[The Red Next Door]

The reason I kept pushing for people to compare these 2 countries in that other thread was not so you would all just state your readymade opinions and go "why, cuba is better of course!". I was kinda hoping you would actually think about, and maybe even investigate, the concrete facts.

How many of you people have actually researched North Korea and its system, beyond the passive swallowing of bourgeois commentary and Team America ? The level of knowledge and research carried out seems to be the differance between the 2 sides in this debate. manic expression has been giving good and coherent arguments, explaining why he defends the DPRK and referring to objective facts, and all you people do is keep saying how North Korea is a 'dictatorship' and that it sucks because Kim is 'nuts', without explaining why you think that, and without referring to any objective facts. I'd be willing to bet that Kim is more inteligent that the vast majority of you kids.
Anyway yeah try and argue properly as you're really showing yourselves up.
Number one: The man starve people who do not live in the fucking capital, who have happen to be relate to people who oppose him, and he execute people for just writing a little graffiti on how much he suck as a communist and a ruler. He spend more money on his military and his luxury home with the pool than he does is own people.

Number:2 I think we are much smarter than that idiot because we wouldn't pretend that all of our people are okay when they are fucking eating human flesh because they have no food.

[the last donut of the night]

Just gonna throw out this one:

Marxism-Leninism was replaced by Juche as DPRK's national ideology.

[Robespierre2.0]

DPRK, obviously.
I know they're not perfect, but honestly, the things you liberals criticize them for (police state, lack of free speech) don't bother me, because if I were in their position- faced with the threat of foreign domination and the debasement of everything that makes Korean culture unique, regardless of what I thought of Kim Jong-Il, Juche, and the WPK, I'd have no tolerance for those who take any position that could threaten the DPRK's sovreignty. Expecting the DPRK to give you the right to 'free speech' - to denounce it- is as preposterous as expecting a warm welcome running through London in 1942 loudly declaring your allegiance to Adolf Hitler.

[Sendo]

DPRK, obviously.
I know they're not perfect, but honestly, the things you liberals criticize them for (police state, lack of free speech) don't bother me, because if I were in their position- faced with the threat of foreign domination and the debasement of everything that makes Korean culture unique, regardless of what I thought of Kim Jong-Il, Juche, and the WPK, I'd have no tolerance for those who take any position that could threaten the DPRK's sovreignty. Expecting the DPRK to give you the right to 'free speech' - to denounce it- is as preposterous as expecting a warm welcome running through London in 1942 loudly declaring your allegiance to Adolf Hitler.

Wow, I wasn't aware the Kim Jong-il was the last bastion of cultural value and the defender of Korean culture. Sure is strange that in Seoul and in Jeolla and in Jeju I've found a culture different from America's. I wasn't sure what to call it and now I know it isn't Korean after all! Next time I see militant strikers with red headbands I'll tell them they're wasting their time and to go to the North. I'm not sure why you think KJI preserves Korean culture, but if he's holding onto Neo-Confucianism and the eating of dogs, I'm all over it.

This will be the last you hear from me. I'm going to pack my bags and hike up to the DMZ to join the internet-free utopia that awaits me. This magical bubble with no ties to any revolutionary movements outside its borders. I wonder if Pyongyang is enclosed in a big bubble to protect us from the world as it collapses around us due to wars and global warming.

The more socialist you are the more you love NK above all others!

And I agree that people should not have free speech to denounce the government where they live. These are hard times (it's a new and temporary thing, don't worry). If Deng Xiaopeng didn't step all over people in the 1980s and 1990s, then they might have demanded a greater hand in decision making or called out corrupt officials. I don't think your "Heil Hitler in 1942" allegory went far enough. It's more like this: Eugene Victor **** the socialist was criticizing his government in WW1 and Woodrow Wilson put a stop to that! Let's model ourselves after him!

[mykittyhasaboner]

This poll doesn't make any sense to me. How are we to compare two societies as if they are existing on an even plane, abstractly floating in space, with a simple choice of "DPRK or Cuba". My answer is wtf kind of question is this? Are we to pick which one we personally prefer? Which country is more "socialist" using whatever measuring stick you so please?

I think the question is a bit more complex than this, the question being, is there anything worth defending within the DPRK or Cuba, and which one is less distorted from their socialist development. I won't even bother picking, because I find it unfair and well, pointless.



So, if Cuba and North Korea are socialist, where is the evidence to support the fact that the workers have control over the means of production?

Well first, you have to define exactly what "workers control over the means of production" entails, before you can go demanding proof. If workers actively play a role in managing their economy, whether their role is most of the time secondary to the role of state officials or not, then I would consider workers have control over the means of production. However, it's likely you may find issue with this, and go on to claim that unless workers have no state officials to deal with, that they don't have control over the economy. This is why you have to be a bit more specific; because if were going to end up arguing about the degree of which laborers have control over the economy of Cuba or DPRK, then we are going to end up debating about these theoretical concepts.

Laborers control over the economy is certainly one aspect of having "control", but as is political and social aspects. One has to consider how the political processes influence the economy and society, and how the political process in a socialist society manifests itself to begin with. As far as I know, elected officials in Cuba are re callable and cannot be appointed by the Communist Party (or any party for that matter), and are certainly kept in check by workers through their municipal organizations or even on a national scale. This is basically the definition of worker's democracy, but yet some people (you) are still acting like there's no proof regarding this. Do a little research, and you'll find that what I'm saying is valid; if manic expression want's to drop the link bomb, that would be useful for discussion as well. Unfortunately I have not come across much information on the political discourse in DPRK, so I cannot speak at length about their system.



And for the stalinists: the government and the workers are not the same thing, SorryNo, they aren't--but I don't see where "STALINISTS!!!11111" (:scared:) claim such a thing.


the government in these countries are merely the new bourgeoisie running their state capitalist dictatorshipsThat's a nice suggestion but you simply haven't made a case for this, and you need not to--since we know it's going to be as crap as all the other attempts to somehow finally prove that socialist states are "capitalist".

Until you can prove that state officials are directly involved in extracting wealth from laborers, then you have no business calling them capitalist. State officials aren't a class of individuals; furthermore state officials do not own the means of production exclusively, rather alongside society as a whole, since you know socialism means common ownership.


And like I said in the other tread. North Korea doesn't even consider themselves socialist. And some "expert revolutionary" on a message board is trying to tell the whole world that they are, indeed, the saviors of the working class. Quite good entertainment the red fascists provide at least.On the other hand, it's entertaining to find someone on a message board who cannot make a real argument, yet condescends their ideological opponents in the form of sectarian insults. You can call anyone a "red fascist" all you want but I think it just makes you look ignorant.

[manic expression]

How long you gonna be in denial?
I'm the one citing facts. Let me know when you get around to dealing with them...good luck.

[Nosotros]

Neither, correct me if I'm wrong but are they not both Stalinist counrties anyway?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You've got to love this:

A country that still adheres to Socialism, has one of the great healthcare systems in the world, along with a particularly good education system, a country that has the very real threat (as evidence by the missile crisis, and by the numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel) of the US on its doorstep, as well as a trade embargo that rivals any political or economic sanction placed on the DPRK.

You then have teh DPRK, which has abandoned Socialism. It isn't Marxist-Leninist, it just does not want to know. It has rejected Marxism-Leninism in favour of its own more militaristic and somewhat nationalistic ideology of Juche. Its healthcare system does not even come close to Cuba's. It has handled the threat of 'swirling imperialists' so, so much worse than Cuba, it is almost laughable.

If Cuba, a tiny island, has survived most of its history without sending warheads over the border and developing nuclear weapons, then why do many people still think that the 'imperialist' thesis applied to the DPRK? Of course, to an extent there is always an imperialist threat to anti-Capitalist countries (Socialism and Juche would both be included here). However, it is clear that the DPRK has simply handled the threat badly.

It is interesting also, that the Cuban people, despite living under a nepotist and somewhat of a dictator, do not run around singing Fidel songs, thanking Fidel for every little bit of joy in their lives. They do not have a picture of Fidel to welcome them to every new day. The hero worship of the Kim's in the DPRK is grotesque. It sickens me to the bone. One of the greatest things I despise is people defending this hero worship and turning it on its head, saying that the Kims are/were in fact a modest bunch, and simply don't want to embarass those who pursue the obviously wrong policy of encouraging a cult of the leader. It is unnatural to the extreme, more than distasteful and does not contain a grain of any Socialist positivism.

[Spawn of Stalin]

From what I have heard from comrades who have travelled to both countries they are fundamentally the same, of course in some respects Cuba has a better social system, but on the flip side, Korea has a better economic system. The biggest difference between Cuba and Korea - the very reason people almost universally prefer Cuba - is the fact that you can fly to the former with so many different travel providers, it has better beaches and therefor makes for a better Summer holiday, basically the general concensus seems to be that if you can't take a honeymoon there, learn to salsa, drink rum and smoke big cigars like el Che, it ain't socialism! It's not really scientific thinking but who am I to argue with the majority? Even if they do happen to be a bunch of bourgeois democrats. All things said I am planning on visiting both in the forseeable future but don't think I'll cope too well with the Cuban weather, for that reason I have voted for Korea. I wish them both all the best and firmly believe that given their respective conditions they are doing the very best they can.

[scarletghoul]

A country that still adheres to Socialism, has one of the great healthcare systems in the world, along with a particularly good education system,
North Korea has all those things too.


a country that has the very real threat (as evidence by the missile crisis, and by the numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel) of the US on its doorstep,
Aaahahaha. North Korea has 10,000s of US troops stationed on or just across its border.

This is a textbook example of the double-standard and willful ignorance applied by fools on the left to these 2 countries.

You have just listed a load of things that Cuba and North Korea have in common.


as well as a trade embargo that rivals any political or economic sanction placed on the DPRK.
'Rivals', yes. You're pretty much admitting that they're both in the same situation here.


You then have teh DPRK, which has abandoned Socialism.
What. When did this happen.

It isn't Marxist-Leninist, it just does not want to know. It has rejected Marxism-Leninism
The name it gives to its state ideology is not the most important thing is it. What they've done is adapted and changed things, in ways which i dont necessarily agree with, but at the core of their ideology you can clearly see Marxist-Leninist principles and ideas.


in favour of its own more militaristic and somewhat nationalistic ideology of Juche.
Haha, so Cuban communist ideology isn't nationalist at all ?? And of course the 'militarism' is a consequence of the 1000s of US troops at its border.


Its healthcare system does not even come close to Cuba's.
Please elaborate.

It has handled the threat of 'swirling imperialists' so, so much worse than Cuba, it is almost laughable.
Please elaborate.


If Cuba, a tiny island, has survived most of its history without sending warheads over the border and developing nuclear weapons, then why do many people still think that the 'imperialist' thesis applied to the DPRK?
First, you just mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis, which in terms of danger is comparable to say the least with anything DPRK's ever done to defend itself.
Second, the 'sending warheads over the border' issue is an idiotic comparison, not least because the korean border is within Korea itself. Korea is one country, one people, divided artificially by imperialists.


It is interesting also, that the Cuban people, despite living under a nepotist and somewhat of a dictator, do not run around singing Fidel songs, thanking Fidel for every little bit of joy in their lives. They do not have a picture of Fidel to welcome them to every new day. The hero worship of the Kim's in the DPRK is grotesque. It sickens me to the bone. One of the greatest things I despise is people defending this hero worship and turning it on its head, saying that the Kims are/were in fact a modest bunch, and simply don't want to embarass those who pursue the obviously wrong policy of encouraging a cult of the leader. It is unnatural to the extreme, more than distasteful and does not contain a grain of any Socialist positivism.
Actually they do have a lot of pics of Fidel, Che and Raoul in public. And "Viva Fidel!" is a top revolutionary slogan. Fidel is an inseperable symbol of the revolution.

[scarletghoul]

You've got to love this:

A country that still adheres to Socialism, has one of the great healthcare systems in the world, along with a particularly good education system, a country that has the very real threat (as evidence by the missile crisis, and by the numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel) of the US on its doorstep, as well as a trade embargo that rivals any political or economic sanction placed on the DPRK.

You then have teh DPRK, which has abandoned Socialism. It isn't Marxist-Leninist, it just does not want to know. It has rejected Marxism-Leninism in favour of its own more militaristic and somewhat nationalistic ideology of Juche. Its healthcare system does not even come close to Cuba's. It has handled the threat of 'swirling imperialists' so, so much worse than Cuba, it is almost laughable.

If Cuba, a tiny island, has survived most of its history without sending warheads over the border and developing nuclear weapons, then why do many people still think that the 'imperialist' thesis applied to the DPRK? Of course, to an extent there is always an imperialist threat to anti-Capitalist countries (Socialism and Juche would both be included here). However, it is clear that the DPRK has simply handled the threat badly.

It is interesting also, that the Cuban people, despite living under a nepotist and somewhat of a dictator, do not run around singing Fidel songs, thanking Fidel for every little bit of joy in their lives. They do not have a picture of Fidel to welcome them to every new day. The hero worship of the Kim's in the DPRK is grotesque. It sickens me to the bone. One of the greatest things I despise is people defending this hero worship and turning it on its head, saying that the Kims are/were in fact a modest bunch, and simply don't want to embarass those who pursue the obviously wrong policy of encouraging a cult of the leader. It is unnatural to the extreme, more than distasteful and does not contain a grain of any Socialist positivism. Hey why not argue with this guy-

You've got to love this:

A country that still adheres to Socialism, has one of the great healthcare systems in the world, along with a particularly good education system, a country that has the very real threat (as evidence by the current nuclear issue, and by the 10,000s of US troops stationed across the border) of the US on its doorstep, as well as a trade embargo that rivals any political or economic sanction placed on Cuba.

You then have Cuba, which has abandoned Socialism. Ideologically it is militaristic (everyone has guns!) and nationalist. Its healthcare system does not even come close to North Korea's. It has handled the threat of 'swirling imperialists' so, so much worse than North Korea, it is almost laughable.

If North Korea, a tiny landlocked country, has survived most of its history without almost triggering a nuclear war by pointing soviet nukes at the US, then why do many people still think that the 'imperialist' thesis applied to Cuba? Of course, to an extent there is always an imperialist threat to anti-Capitalist countries (Socialism and Fidelism would both be included here). However, it is clear that Cuba has simply handled the threat badly.

It is interesting also, that the Korean people, despite living under a nepotist and somewhat of a dictator, do not run around singing Kim songs, screaming "Viva Kim!" for every little bit of joy in their lives. They do not have posters of the Kims all over the streets. The hero worship of the Castros in Cuba is grotesque. It sickens me to the bone. One of the greatest things I despise is people defending this hero worship and turning it on its head, saying that the Castros are/were in fact a modest bunch, and simply don't want to embarass those who pursue the obviously wrong policy of encouraging a cult of the leader. It is unnatural to the extreme, more than distasteful and does not contain a grain of any Socialist positivism.

[cb9's_unity]

I'm not into god worship. Fidel may not have a perfect record in regards to human rights, but at least he's not worshiped as a god. The collectivized monarchism in North Korea is pretty disgusting, Fidel will never become an 'eternal president'.

Power is entirely out of the hands of the North Koreans, juche is the justification (and glorification) of that. No matter how much rhetoric they put out about how they help the working class, can people really dispute the idea that power is essentially in only a few hands. To my knowledge the only force that really threatens Kims power is a few military generals.

Why do people have such confidence that the leaders of North Korea will do away with the obviously more reactionary elements of juche. They already have a system in place that justifies disproportionate amount of loyalty to one person.

I just can't understand supporting a system that seems to be damn near a theocracy, no matter how they arrange their economy.

[Sendo]

Hey, scarlet ghoul, NK isn't landlocked. It's got access to the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan. Where do you think naval artillery firing that just happened have been happening?

[Chambered Word]

Not really, you're just zoning in on one portion of my point. I wonder why.

I quoted it in context. I haven't misrepresented your argument in any way.


Argument ad class. There's a difference. We should point out when hit-pieces are bourgeois. And furthermore, 90% of the arguments against the DPRK are nothing but ad-hominem attacks against its head of state.

Argument ad hominem based on the author's class. If Bill Gates says something that is true, does it make it false? Obviously not, although we should always be wary of what the 'bourgeois' elements in society have to say. The fact that you dismiss entire articles as 'bourgeois propaganda' is just ridiculous.

Go and learn what a fucking ad hominem is, seriously. Pointing out that someone has fucked a country up is not an argument ad hominem.


And by the way, the fact that you have no problem standing with the capitalists is duly noted.

Here we go with the usual Marxist-Leninist 'you're with us or you hate the workers' freedumz, hurr durr hurr, I so much more leftist than u' crap. I'm not standing with capitalists, but I'm not standing with MLs/Maoists either.


:laugh: Argument ad hominem, with a heaping helping of hypocrisy on the side. I guess this is what I get for questioning your capitalist-approved lies.

It wasn't an argument ad hominem. I was sarcastically namecalling. I guess this is what I get for arguing with a Stalin kiddie. :rolleyes:


And not a vanguard party like the KWP. Thanks for proving my point.

A vanguard for what? Oppressing workers under the jackboot of the military? Myanmar has one of those, too.

I can call the British National Party a working-class vanguard party, they can hang up Soviet flags at their meetings, whatever. It doesn't make them a working class vanguard party that educates and organizes with the workers.


The leaders of Myanmar, however, have never pursued a revolutionary path as in the DPRK. See my response to Q for specific examples. Keep up the ranting, though, you're just making your side look even more immature.

Yeah the leaders of the DPRK have taken a real revolutionary path, and they've been doing it by...um...shit, I dunno, forcing people to eat dirt to survive or something?


So first the DPRK is like Myanmar, and now it's like a "liberal 'democracy'"? Which one is it? You can't even keep your idiotic comparisons straight. Here's a hint: try formulating a congruent argument next time.

How about growing a brain and understanding what I'm saying? I've kinda been implying that the DPRK isn't socialist and I have pointed out that both Myanmar - a military dictatorship - and countries like Britain, France and Australia - liberal democracies - have these elements in common with the DPRK that you claim to make it 'socialist'. Here's a hint: learn to read.


Haha, so Cuban communist ideology isn't nationalist at all ?? And of course the 'militarism' is a consequence of the 1000s of US troops at its border.

Yeah, because we can't just have an army that defends the rest of the workers in the country, we've gotta turn it into a policy that shits all over the working class and postures the army as the main revolutionary force in the country! I mean, having a nuclear arsenal just isn't enough!

Do you realize how flimsy this argument is?

[manic expression]

I quoted it in context. I haven't misrepresented your argument in any way.
No, you didn't. You quoted one portion of a longer argument. Better luck next time.


Argument ad hominem based on the author's class. If Bill Gates says something that is true, does it make it false? Obviously not, although we should always be wary of what the 'bourgeois' elements in society have to say. The fact that you dismiss entire articles as 'bourgeois propaganda' is just ridiculous.
If Bill Gates says North Korea sucks, that is an opinion that stems from Gates' subjective class perspective. One's class, or else the class that one identifies with and promotes, is entirely relevant in any political discussion. Bourgeois apologists will of course use any excuse to slander the DPRK, because they want to slander the Korean workers. Those who stand with them and support their lies are similarly opposed to working-class progress.

So you're denying that the article is a hit-piece coming from a bourgeois writer? You're denying that it is a bourgeois perspective that agrees with you, even when the poster who posted the link admitted it was bourgeois to begin with? Have fun dealing with those trifles.


Go and learn what a fucking ad hominem is, seriously. Pointing out that someone has fucked a country up is not an argument ad hominem.
You're already showing your true colours as the Red equivalent of a McCarthyist, and an anti-worker tool who will believe anything he's told as long as a so-called 'communist leader' says it (as opposed to someone who is at the very least honest about being anti-working class scum).

Nope, no ad hominem there. None whatsoever. :lol:


Here we go with the usual Marxist-Leninist 'you're with us or you hate the workers' freedumz, hurr durr hurr, I so much more leftist than u' crap. I'm not standing with capitalists, but I'm not standing with MLs/Maoists either.
Yes, you are standing with the capitalists, and it is quite evident. Not only are you falling over yourself to defend a bourgeois hit-piece against the Korean workers, not only are you toeing the bourgeois line by slandering the DPRK, but you're trying to tell me that none of those things are anti-socialist. And yet you can't even bring a single shred of evidence to show us why the DPRK isn't socialist.

Cowards and traitors.


It wasn't an argument ad hominem. I was sarcastically namecalling. I guess this is what I get for arguing with a Stalin kiddie. :rolleyes:
Well, it was the most sophisticated argument you made.


A vanguard for what? Oppressing workers under the jackboot of the military? Myanmar has one of those, too.
A vanguard for collectivizing production, a vanguard for defeating Japanese and Korean and American bourgeois interests, a vanguard for improving workers' lives as a result of that collectivized production, a vanguard for socialism. I've already posted concrete facts about this, so I suggest you deal with them before making more blanket statements with no support.


I can call the British National Party a working-class vanguard party, they can hang up Soviet flags at their meetings, whatever. It doesn't make them a working class vanguard party that educates and organizes with the workers.
That would have the same concrete support as the argument you're making now. I, on the other hand, have provided concrete evidence for my position.


Yeah the leaders of the DPRK have taken a real revolutionary path, and they've been doing it by...um...shit, I dunno, forcing people to eat dirt to survive or something?
See my previous post where I link to various achievements of the Korean workers.

Your celebration of the DPRK's hardships during the 90's (looks like someone forgot to tell you that the imperialist-imposed famine has been over for about a decade) is noted. And you want to tell me that your position isn't pro-bourgeois? Get real.


How about growing a brain and understanding what I'm saying? I've kinda been implying that the DPRK isn't socialist and I have pointed out that both Myanmar - a military dictatorship - and countries like Britain, France and Australia - liberal democracies - have these elements in common with the DPRK that you claim to make it 'socialist'. Here's a hint: learn to read.
:lol: So, according to you, the DPRK is like both Myanmar and France. Hm. By that reasoning, is France like Myanmar, politically and socially? Are French history and Burmese history parallel? Does that mean there is no real difference between Myanmar and the European Union? The logical conclusions of your arguments are especially comical. :laugh:


Yeah, because we can't just have an army that defends the rest of the workers in the country, we've gotta turn it into a policy that shits all over the working class and postures the army as the main revolutionary force in the country! I mean, having a nuclear arsenal just isn't enough!
The military is under the control of the vanguard, therefore it's a working-class institution. I'm not sure why you have such a disdain for workers and working-class power. Oh, wait, I know why: it's because you get all your rhetoric from bourgeois hit-pieces.

[Patchd]

I voted North Korea, cos Juche thought r kewl.:thumbup1:

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by scarletghoul:
Both, was my point in the other thread.
Both are revisionist but still socialist and should be defended against imperislismThere is no such thing as "revisionist but still socialist".

Now I think all third world countries are deserving of defense against imperialist attacks and domination, but...when it comes to defining socialism we need to have a real grasp of what socialism is and what it's actually about. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional stage. A country is only socialist if is progressing things toward communism in some capacity.

There are no sincerely socialist countries today. Cuba is what I call a welfare state. North Korea is basically a feudal monarchy (that is, in the sense that the king owns everything or basically everything). Neither of these countries have radically ruptured with commodity relations and remain very really tied to world imperialism and great power nations. Cuba on the one hand is in a protracted process of re-privatizing larger and larger chunks of its economy and selling it ever more off to foreigners while North Korea on the other has delayed that inevitable fact of its orientation only by essentially declaring martial law and binding itself to capitalist China. (Though we see from a report today that even this is failing to restrain the emergence of a new embryonic capitalist class there. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8497603.stm)) The Workers' Party of Korea, despite formally being obligated to hold a congress every five years, hasn't held one in 30 years now. Cuba has likewise recently begun to suspend normal party activity in a similar fashion whilst conducting the largest purge the country has seen yet in order to eliminate official opposition the sale of state farms, etc. The lesson in both cases is that nationalism is not the answer.

[Kaze no Kae]

My only really significant issue with Cuba is the Orwellian-style surveillance by the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution.

[FSL]

of course in some respects Cuba has a better social system, but on the flip side, Korea has a better economic system.


This is one side of the coin.

How is DPRK's economic system "better"?
The mode of production is defined by the production forces and the relations of production. You can't let one lag behind the other without any repercussions.
China decided it should develop its productive forces and it did so by expanding property rights and allowing exploitation to a very large degree. This is one way you can be wrong in your policies. The other way is letting production forces deteriorate out of "revolutionary" stubbornness regarding what can be acceptable. DPRK is in a poverty trap and without any revolutions in developed capitalist states soon, things can get worse.

I don't think either that DPRK is a hellhole with racist, crazy people and an evil, greedy monarch on top. But that's another thing to saying that we they're doing -or trying to do- is right.




North Korea is basically a feudal monarchy (that is, in the sense that the king owns everything or basically everything).




a country that has the very real threat (as evidence by the missile crisis, and by the numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel) of the US on its doorstep, as well as a trade embargo that rivals any political or economic sanction placed on the DPRK.




And this is the other side of it. And frankly the worst.
You're not even being coherent and just plainly demonstrate ignorance.
DPRK has been in a state of war for the past 60 years, a war that it has many times proposed comes to an end (but peace treaties keep getting rejected by the non-militarist, democratic, freedom-fighting S. Korea and the US). It is under a more strict american embargo and subject to many sanctions from the UN.
How could DPRK ever develop stronger ties to workers of other countries when they are more than happy to throw it in the dustbin? Why should it want to?
Is Kim-Jong-Il really larger than life? Because everyone that's giving him credit for single-handedly, brutally opressing tens of millions of people can only think so. Are north koreans dumb? crazy? racist? all of the above?

Maybe the problem here lies -even only in a tiny amount- with you and your judgement?

[Luís Henrique]

Brain cancer or flu? :laugh:

Cuba, of course. Atchoooooooooo!

Luís Henrique

[scarletghoul]

Hey, scarlet ghoul, NK isn't landlocked. It's got access to the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan. Where do you think naval artillery firing that just happened have been happening?
ah crap i dunno why i used that word, my bad. anyway lol that wasnt the main point of my post heh. forgive me

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Well first, you have to define exactly what "workers control over the means of production" entails, before you can go demanding proof. If workers actively play a role in managing their economy, whether their role is most of the time secondary to the role of state officials or not, then I would consider workers have control over the means of production. However, it's likely you may find issue with this, and go on to claim that unless workers have no state officials to deal with, that they don't have control over the economy. This is why you have to be a bit more specific; because if were going to end up arguing about the degree of which laborers have control over the economy of Cuba or DPRK, then we are going to end up debating about these theoretical concepts.

Laborers control over the economy is certainly one aspect of having "control", but as is political and social aspects. One has to consider how the political processes influence the economy and society, and how the political process in a socialist society manifests itself to begin with. As far as I know, elected officials in Cuba are re callable and cannot be appointed by the Communist Party (or any party for that matter), and are certainly kept in check by workers through their municipal organizations or even on a national scale. This is basically the definition of worker's democracy, but yet some people (you) are still acting like there's no proof regarding this. Do a little research, and you'll find that what I'm saying is valid; if manic expression want's to drop the link bomb, that would be useful for discussion as well. Unfortunately I have not come across much information on the political discourse in DPRK, so I cannot speak at length about their system.

And this is exactly why I resort to "sectarian insults". The core of socialist philosophy is workers control and workplace democracy so these are the things I assume to be key aspects of a "socialist state". I have absolutely no reason to believe that to be the case in Cuba or North Korea though. I ask for evidence and you try to tell me I'm not being specific enough?

Oh because a little worker control is so much better than none. :rolleyes: It's ok our super awesome highly bureaucratic government will take care of everything!




That's a nice suggestion but you simply haven't made a case for this, and you need not to--since we know it's going to be as crap as all the other attempts to somehow finally prove that socialist states are "capitalist".

Oh gee, I haven't made an argument that is exactly identical to every debate about this that ever happens. I don't expect you to miraculously see the light this time.


On the other hand, it's entertaining to find someone on a message board who cannot make a real argument, yet condescends their ideological opponents in the form of sectarian insults. You can call anyone a "red fascist" all you want but I think it just makes you look ignorant.

Meh. I'd say the governments of Cuba and North Korea speak a lot louder than I do.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01362/north-korea_1362611c.jpg

YEAH GUYS WERE TOTALLY SOCIALIST LOOK AT HOW BIG OUR DICKS ARE

[What Would Durruti Do?]

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/11/ryugyong-hotel-lg.jpg

CHECK OUT THIS COMMUNIST COCK, CHINA. YEEEAH

[dar8888]

Given the fact that Cuba has had the boot of the U.S. government on its neck since day one - it is remarkable that Comrade Fidel has achieved as much as he has. Cuba has never shied away from aiding other nations, nor has it kowtowed to U.S. imperialism.

N. Korea is a fantasy-land run by a lunatic (very sad, since Kim Il-sung was actually a Marxist).

[Red Monkey]

I vote for North Korea for a lot of reasons.

Unlike most of the other people who've commented on this topic, I don't take a dogmatic position vis-a-vis socialist countries taking wrong approaches. I don't consider Cuba non-socialist or anything. But I do think they're making mistakes in their policies at present, namely in terms of, in a lot of areas, abandoning the national sovereignty and privatizing too many things. Cuba today is a politically divided country. North Korea, in contrast, has become politically and militarily mighty in spite of the difficulties they encountered during the Arduous March period (the period of famine during the mid-1990s). Previous to the Arduous March period, North Korea, proceeding from the orientation of self-reliance, had achieved full food self-sufficiency. Unprecedented flooding however, when fused with the severe sanctions on the country, yielded an exceedingly difficult period. Even during that period, however, they didn't sacrifice their socialist system. A report from the Korean Central News Agency from yesterday (February 4th) highlights this and some of the yes actual benefits it had:


The Korean socialist system gives equal rights of labor to all the people, legally ensures all conditions needed for their labor and enforces such people-oriented policies as free medical care and education. There has been no change in their application, even in the period of the "Arduous March", forced march.

The citizens actually experience the benefits of socialism through many things like the everyday supply of bean-flour drink to their schoolchildren, vaccinations given to all the people and recreation system for the working people.

Feeling grateful for the advantageous socialist system, Pyongyangites have renewed their enthusiasm on the way to work to make greater achievements in their work...

[From the article, "Pyongyangites Go to Work with Full Confidence"]One could contrast this easily with say China, which has, to a very substantial degree, abandoned the provision of free health care and education, for instance, even without experiencing an Arduous March-like period.

Another article highlights the importance of the songun idea in terms of the country's ability to make it through such a period and now to actually go on the offensive once again in a new Chollima period recently brought forward by their General Kim Jong Il:


The soldier-builders in the construction sites of the Huichon Power Station have given free rein to the revolutionary soldier spirit and the revolutionary spirit of fortitude, opening a bright prospect for completing in a matter of two or three years the large-scale project which would take more than a decade at an ordinary pace. [Emphasis mine.]

The "Huichon speed" represents a new Chollima speed in the Songun era as it is based on the revolutionary soldier spirit the keynote of which is the spirit of devotedly defending the leader, the work style of carrying through his instructions in a do-or-die spirit and the heroic self-sacrificing spirit. Herein lie the essence and the inexhaustible might of the new Chollima speed in the era of Songun.

[From the article, "All People Called upon to Advance at "Huichon Speed"]Oh I can see the repulsive "this is speedup" arguments coming a mile away. Yes, it's speedup...to meet the needs of the people! (As opposed to speedup for the purpose of increasing the profit margins of capitalists.) The workerist opposition to speedup in such a situation is in effect the proposing of a pauperist alternative: mass starvation, inadequate clothing, more power shortages, etc. It reflects an idiotic trade unionist mentality, not a revolutionary, communist mentality.

To sum up: North Korea remains a the most firmly socialist country in the world today despite the difficulties they face. More so than any other country in the world, North Korea is socialist in economy, socialist in social relations, and socialist in ideas. Even songun itself is a huge revolutionary innovation in that it reconciles the labor division between the military and the civilian population.

[revolution inaction]

Haha. Destroyed how ? If either of those regimes were destroyed they would certainly be replaced by an Amerikan puppet state.

communists aim for the destruction of all states through revolution.



If you want these regimes to be destroyed then you are either an idealist fool or a supporter of imperialism.

if you don't support the destruction of these regimes you are an idealistic fool with a military fetish.

[dar8888]

To sum up: North Korea remains a the most firmly socialist country in the world today despite the difficulties they face. More so than any other country in the world, North Korea is socialist in economy, socialist in social relations, and socialist in ideas. Even songun itself is a huge revolutionary innovation in that it reconciles the labor division between the military and the civilian population.

North Korea is a dictatorship based upon the personality of one man, a man that has lost all grip on reality.

An emperor sitting on a lavish throne, with the multitudes chanting his name and singing his praises, is not a socialist.

[ls]

Gah, this whole 'OMG WHOS THE MORE REVISIONIST" mentality again. This is a really dumb thread if you ask me, no matter what your ideology is or whether you support either of these two. It's completely moronic twatnuttery, by all means understand and even analytically compare them (as I note some have done in this thread) but saying OMG WHICH ONE IS TEH MORE SOCIALIST is beyond idiotic, just stop doing it please.

My only thought on this thread is saying NK is more-so or equally as under the thumb of imperialism is completely untrue when compared to Cuba, Cuba is right in America's "backyard", of course the conditions aren't comparable and I mean it was the Soviets who went INTO NK that started the movement there. The same can't quite be said for Cuba's revolution, which was obviously aided by them and especially later on, but they didn't actually go and fight for the country at the very beginning. The very fact that NK receives a fair amount of media attention for its nuclear development right now whereas Cuba doesn't, is testament to the fact that the NK government has relative autonomy in doing what they want, partly thanks to neighbours such as China (which for instance, NK has all of its internet routed through). When the Khrushchev armed Cuba with missiles look what happened there, they felt the need to place nuclear warheads in the Turkish border with Russia, threaten invasion and threaten to destroy both territories. Although the whole "war on terror" thing has been aimed at NK somewhat, it's not really comparable.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Cuba has a vastly more advanced economy than the DPRK, & a lot better than here in the States. So I'm with Cuba on this, no doubt.

[FSL]

Gah, this whole 'OMG WHOS THE MORE REVISIONIST" mentality again. This is a really dumb thread if you ask me, no matter what your ideology is or whether you support either of these two. It's completely moronic twatnuttery, by all means understand and even analytically compare them (as I note some have done in this thread) but saying OMG WHICH ONE IS TEH MORE SOCIALIST is beyond idiotic, just stop doing it please.

My only thought on this thread is saying NK is more-so or equally as under the thumb of imperialism is completely untrue when compared to Cuba, Cuba is right in America's "backyard", of course the conditions aren't comparable and I mean it was the Soviets who went INTO NK that started the movement there. The same can't quite be said for Cuba's revolution, which was obviously aided by them and especially later on, but they didn't actually go and fight for the country at the very beginning. The very fact that NK receives a fair amount of media attention for its nuclear development right now whereas Cuba doesn't, is testament to the fact that the NK government has relative autonomy in doing what they want, partly thanks to neighbours such as China (which for instance, NK has all of its internet routed through). When the Khrushchev armed Cuba with missiles look what happened there, they felt the need to place nuclear warheads in the Turkish border with Russia, threaten invasion and threaten to destroy both territories. Although the whole "war on terror" thing has been aimed at NK somewhat, it's not really comparable.


Being in someone's "backyard" is much less important for anyone who's been updated on military matters even once these past few centuries. Afghanistan is relatively safe from imperialism I'm sure? Riiight...
Not to mention the US have military presence in South Korea anyway.

North Korea was aided in the war by communists as the south was aided by imperialists (my country sent troops, I doubt it was because we were concerned). Had there be no support we would trully never hear the end of it.

Lastly, comparing the missile crisis of Cuba to the nuclear arms development by DPRK is also incorrect. The missile crisis happened during the cold war when the bourgeoisie could still reasonably think of communism as a "menace". This is much less so today. The US did invade Korea for example while in the case of Cuba, they just sent CIA-supported cuban expatriates. Should that lead us to think they were maybe ok with the cuban revolution? Of course not. The bourgeoisie chooses its fights as well.

[FSL]

Cuba has a vastly more advanced economy than the DPRK, & a lot better than here in the States. So I'm with Cuba on this, no doubt.


This is a reasonable stance (one of the few reasonable stances at that).

But one must also consider why is it that while both Cuba and North Korea had economies that were advancing before 1991 and while they both went through a massive crisis in the early 90s, Cuba is today in a better state. If we are able to see why, we will have made progress in knowing what generally works and what doesn't, even if all the situations require specialized measures to a degree.

[ls]

Being in someone's "backyard" is much less important for anypone who's been updated on military matters even once these past few centuries. Afghanistan is relatively safe from imperialism I'm sure? Riiight...

Hm, well the Soviets did try to spread "revolution" to Afghanistan in all fairness but then they pulled out. There is nothing to particularly say they were losing.

With a war and defeat that great for the working-class, what do you expect?


Not to mention the US have military presence in South Korea anyway.

Yes, I am aware of this, but it's not the same as being directly opposite mainland USA. How you could think otherwise is quite hard to understand.


North Korea was aided in the war by communists as the south was aided by imperialists (my country sent troops, I doubt it was because we were concerned). Had there be no support we would trully never hear the end of it.

But you still can't compare it to Cuba.


Lastly, comparing the missile crisis of Cuba to the nuclear arms development by DPRK is also incorrect. The missile crisis happened during the cold war when the bourgeoisie could still reasonably think of communism as a "menace".

What are you talking about?

They do view NK as a "menace", jesus Bush even lists it on the "axis of evil"?


This is much less so today. The US did invade Korea for example while in the case of Cuba just sent CIA supported cuban expatriates. Should that lead us to think they were maybe ok with the cuban revolution? Of course not. The bourgeoisie chooses its fights as well.

Don't you think that an economic embargo on the tiny island next to it had a massive effect? Or do you just think it was plain sailing all the way..

You almost make it sound like a party. Come on though, at one point an invasion was considered inevitable, you don't deny this surely?

[FSL]

Hm, well the Soviets did try to spread "revolution" to Afghanistan in all fairness but then they pulled out. There is nothing to particularly say they were losing.

With a war and defeat that great for the working-class, what do you expect?


There was a left government in Afghanistan, USSR didn't just drop in to say hi and enslave some people. And despite the fact that Afghanistan was really far away from the US, they could still train militants and supply them with weapons which further illustrates my point. The whole world can be considered imperialism's backyard.



Yes, I am aware of this, but it's not the same as being directly opposite mainland USA. How you could think otherwise is quite hard to understand.



There is a wall seperating american forces from north korea and 90 miles separating the beaches of Florida from those of Cuba. Indeed it is not the same but the two situations are alike in that regard. It could be reasonable to argue DPRK gets the short stick here too, though I have no interest in doing so.




What are you talking about?

They do view NK as a "menace", jesus Bush even lists it on the "axis of evil"?


DPRK is a "menace", but not one the american capitalists think could challenge the global status-quo. Soviet Union was and this is why they were devoting great efforts in long and costly crusades (Korea, Vietnam etc). We haven't seen the american army mobilizing in that manner for years.
For example, even Belarus was considered to be a country among the "outposts of tyranny", because they elected the cp-backed candidate and reversed most of the privatisations.
All in all, a more moderate stance is taken today not because Korea has strong backing or because it's allowed space, but only because with the current circumstances there is little reason in pursuing tougher policies. Not even Bush could start wars with all the countries he found problematic. And what is more, he didn't need to. The US is still largely unchallenged.



Don't you think that an economic embargo on the tiny island next to it had a massive effect? Or do you just think it was plain sailing all the way..

You almost make it sound like a party. Come on though, at one point an invasion was considered inevitable, you don't deny this surely?


I'm not saying that Cuba had good relations with the US. You brought it up to demonstrate what the US does when it wants to threaten countries. But the US did much more back then because it felt trully threatened as well. I don't think they chose to invade Korea and Vietnam but not Cuba because they thought of Cuba as a lesser threat. They also didn't invade Nicaragua or Chile and they mostly stopped in offering military aid to Greece in its civil war. They'd certainly view a revolution in any of these countries unfavorably (to put it mildly).
But things are different today. And we can see that even in the US-Cuban relationships. The embargo is "loosening" to some degree, there are talks of even repelling it. Not because they suddenly like socialism but because that's what diplomacy entails. Even the most anti-peoples government will try to build a concensus before bringing out the army. Doing otherwise is juvenile.

[Kassad]

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/11/ryugyong-hotel-lg.jpg

CHECK OUT THIS COMMUNIST COCK, CHINA. YEEEAH

Please don't spam. Consider this a verbal warning.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah that is a pretty worthless post.

Besides, it doesn't even look like a cock. I mean, there are plenty of much more phallic Pyongyang landmarks you could have picked. The constant display of missiles in propaganda could be interpreted as phallic imagery and an assertion of the masculinity of the fatherland too, but the Ryugyong hotel really does not look like a penis at all. Unless your penis is like a kinda jagged incomplete empty pyramid ish shape thing ..

[Lyev]

The DPRK receive quite a lot of aid from China, do they not? China are undeniably capitalist. Furthermore, they replaced Marxism-Leninism with Juche in the seventies; how an earth can the military be the "decisive revolutionary force", rather than the proletariat? Such a thought has nothing to do with Marxism. Anyway this theory that North Korea can somehow sufficiently sustain themselves economically without any outside help has been refuted; they can't sustain themselves. Since the collapse of Stalinism in the 80s and early 90s they have relied largely on imports and foreign aid.

Anyway, here's an excerpt from an article (bear in mind concise statistics and facts are from the DPRK are hard to come by*):
Reliable statistics are hard to come by, of course, given the obsessive secrecy of the North Korean state. Still, when a South Korean university polled 500 defectors from the North in 2005, 58 percent of them said that the biggest change in their home country over the previous three years was the widening gap between rich and poor; another 28 percent cited the increase in personal wealth. Last year the South Korean aid organization Good Friends, which boasts a broad range of sources in the North, published a revealing study of its own. It concluded that North Korea's wealthy now spend 10 times as much on food as those less privileged, live in homes equipped with modern conveniences like refrigerators and washing machines (largely unknown to their countrymen), and can even afford maids and private tutors for their children. "What you're seeing now on the one hand is more cars on the street and nice fruit being sold in Unification Market in [the capital city of] Pyongyang," notes Marcus Noland, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "And yet many people still don't have food security."Why defend North Korea?

*If they're being secretive about information, statistics, censuses etc. does it suggest they have something suspicious to hide?

[LeninBalls]

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, of course, given the obsessive secrecy of the North Korean state. Still, when a South Korean university polled 500 defectors from the North in 2005, 58 percent of them said that the biggest change in their home country over the previous three years was the widening gap between rich and poor; another 28 percent cited the increase in personal wealth. Last year the South Korean aid organization Good Friends, which boasts a broad range of sources in the North, published a revealing study of its own. It concluded that North Korea's wealthy now spend 10 times as much on food as those less privileged, live in homes equipped with modern conveniences like refrigerators and washing machines (largely unknown to their countrymen), and can even afford maids and private tutors for their children. "What you're seeing now on the one hand is more cars on the street and nice fruit being sold in Unification Market in [the capital city of] Pyongyang," notes Marcus Noland, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "And yet many people still don't have food security."

Stopped reading there.

Anyways, I myself don't really support the DPRK outside of the need to defend it from imperialism.

[Lyev]

Stopped reading there.

Anyways, I myself don't really support the DPRK outside of the need to defend it from imperialism.
500 is better than none at all, surely? Anyway, I acknowledge that intervention, embargoes and imperialism can seriously impede on a said country trying to build socialism, but any country should be defended from imperialism, "socialist" or not.

[LeninBalls]

500 is better than none at all, surely?

I just happen to be a bit iffy when someone defects to the no.1 enemy country (excl. US) where defectors are treated like gods, and are interviewed about donor country.


Anyway, I acknowledge that intervention, embargoes and imperialism can seriously impede on a said country trying to build socialism, but any country should be defended from imperialism, "socialist" or not

I didn't say only "socialist" countries should be defended from imperialism. Every country should be. I don't even consider the DPRK as socialist.

[Revy]

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/11/ryugyong-hotel-lg.jpg

CHECK OUT THIS COMMUNIST COCK, CHINA. YEEEAH

It's actually quite similar to the description of the Ministry of Truth in 1984. 300 m high, pyramidal.

[Chambered Word]

It's actually quite similar to the description of the Ministry of Truth in 1984. 300 m high, pyramidal.

Made me lol, as well as Helix's posts. :laugh:


No, you didn't. You quoted one portion of a longer argument. Better luck next time.

Alright then, we'll quote the whole section of text:


While you may value the "liberal perspective", revolutionaries value the working-class perspective. Liberals are enemies of socialism. Why would you possibly want to give their viewpoints validity on this issue? It makes no sense.

Further, it was never the argument that the DPRK is communist, but a socialist society led by communists. Are you denying that the KWP is legitimately communist? Why do you think a liberal article gives you any evidence for doing so?

By the way, Slate is 100% bourgeois. They write hit-pieces against socialism all the time. Showing your true colors, Q?Go figure.


If Bill Gates says North Korea sucks, that is an opinion that stems from Gates' subjective class perspective.So Bill Gates is biologically incapable of telling the truth?


One's class, or else the class that one identifies with and promotes, is entirely relevant in any political discussion. Bourgeois apologists will of course use any excuse to slander the DPRK, because they want to slander the Korean workers. Those who stand with them and support their lies are similarly opposed to working-class progress.Here we go with the black-and-white view of 'if you don't like the DPRK you hate FREEDOM!'


So you're denying that the article is a hit-piece coming from a bourgeois writer? You're denying that it is a bourgeois perspective that agrees with you, even when the poster who posted the link admitted it was bourgeois to begin with? Have fun dealing with those trifles.He admitted it was from a liberal perspective. Are you denying that liberals are biologically capable of telling the truth?

This is the logical issue with dismissing anyone perceived as a 'liberal' as a complete and utter liar who only writes baseless propaganda.


You're already showing your true colours as the Red equivalent of a McCarthyist, and an anti-worker tool who will believe anything he's told as long as a so-called 'communist leader' says it (as opposed to someone who is at the very least honest about being anti-working class scum).

Nope, no ad hominem there. None whatsoever. :lol:Highlight in bold where the argument ad hominem was. :rolleyes:


Yes, you are standing with the capitalists, and it is quite evident. Not only are you falling over yourself to defend a bourgeois hit-piece against the Korean workers, not only are you toeing the bourgeois line by slandering the DPRK, but you're trying to tell me that none of those things are anti-socialist. And yet you can't even bring a single shred of evidence to show us why the DPRK isn't socialist.I'm not falling over myself to defend anything. I'm attacking your stupid arguments. I'm not towing any bourgeois line (here we go again with that 'if you hate the DPRK YOU HATE THE WORKERS HURR DURR' bullshit) infact by defending socialism from being related to the DPRK I'm doing the exact opposite.


Cowards and traitors.

Eat shit.


Well, it was the most sophisticated argument you made.Maybe if you knew what an argument was, you'd realize that it wasn't an argument. :rolleyes:


A vanguard for collectivizing production, a vanguard for defeating Japanese and Korean and American bourgeois interests, a vanguard for improving workers' lives as a result of that collectivized production, a vanguard for socialism. I've already posted concrete facts about this, so I suggest you deal with them before making more blanket statements with no support.Made me giggle. :laugh:


See my previous post where I link to various achievements of the Korean workers.

Your celebration of the DPRK's hardships during the 90's (looks like someone forgot to tell you that the imperialist-imposed famine has been over for about a decade) is noted. And you want to tell me that your position isn't pro-bourgeois? Get real.Yeah, because bourgeois nations didn't send the DPRK any food aid at all and it obviously didn't have anything to do with the collapse of the USSR at all. Bad example on my part though, but oh well.


:lol: So, according to you, the DPRK is like both Myanmar and France.In some small ways, yes. The DPRK has elements in common with Myanmar and others in common with France. That's why citing these elements as proof of socialism is silly.


Hm. By that reasoning, is France like Myanmar, politically and socially?That was your reasoning, not mine. :laugh:


Are French history and Burmese history parallel? Does that mean there is no real difference between Myanmar and the European Union? The logical conclusions of your arguments are especially comical. :laugh:I never made that argument, cool strawman bro. :cool:


The military is under the control of the vanguard, therefore it's a working-class institution. I'm not sure why you have such a disdain for workers and working-class power. Oh, wait, I know why: it's because you get all your rhetoric from bourgeois hit-pieces.How you came to that conclusion, I will never be able to understand. :rolleyes:

[Sendo]

500 is better than none at all, surely? Anyway, I acknowledge that intervention, embargoes and imperialism can seriously impede on a said country trying to build socialism, but any country should be defended from imperialism, "socialist" or not.

Just be careful about whom you cite. Robert Conquest used the exact same research methods. Hearsay from obviously biased people.

[Wanted Man]

It's a bit of a pointless question. In fact, it's difficult to really find out what is being asked. DPRK or Cuba what? Any criteria that the poster prefers? Can we discuss which country has the hottest girls as well? I voted DPRK for the hell of it.

Since someone already brought up phallic symbols (if SubCommandanteHelix thinks that that hotel looks like a penis, I'm a bit worried about him), this is really a discussion that is typical of the tendency towards dick-measuring that is prevalent on Revleft.

The need to have something "better" to support over another country, which is apparently full of creepy sycophantic Oriental dwarves, who are also racist (unlike the man who made this claim, of course). And to find out about this, we can always look for the approval of Christopher Hitchens.

People who believe that both countries are socialist will say that "it doesn't objectively matter, they are both socialist", and people who believe that neither are socialist, will say "it doesn't matter, both are capitalist and not essentially different from Sweden, Myanmar, or Dubai". Anyone else will have to make his choice based on his own personal biases, and ask themselves, why one and not the other?

[Sendo]

It's a bit of a pointless question. In fact, it's difficult to really find out what is being asked. DPRK or Cuba what? Any criteria that the poster prefers? Can we discuss which country has the hottest girls as well? I voted DPRK for the hell of it.

I guess it wasn't for "the hell of it" after all. Everyone's got preferences. I'm a sucker for Cuban music though. The cuisine and cooking styles are toss-ups, but I'm sure the quality of fruit is far better in Cuba.

[Qayin]

Yay nationalism.

Cuba though atleast I wouldnt starve to death.

[manic expression]

Alright then, we'll quote the whole section of text:

Go figure.
Alright then, so you're not going to address the whole section of text.

Go figure.


So Bill Gates is biologically incapable of telling the truth?Obviously you don't understand the role of class. Bill Gates, along with his fellow capitalists, speaks from the bourgeois perspective and promotes bourgeois interests. Therefore, he is surely opposed to workers and the cause of progress. When you agree with people who speak from the bourgeois perspective (such as slandering the DPRK and the workers of Korea), it shows who you stand with.


He admitted it was from a liberal perspective. Are you denying that liberals are biologically capable of telling the truth?My position is that all capitalists slander and oppose socialism and the workers as a matter of course. This is evidently true, and history shows us as much. Capitalists will do anything to destroy the progress of the workers, and the struggle of the Korean workers against imperialism (which you agree with) is no different. Are you denying that liberals speak from a bourgeois perspective? Are you denying that capitalism slanders socialism? Are you denying that you stand with those liars?


I'm not falling over myself to defend anything.Except you're desperately defending capitalist rhetoric coming from a capitalist source, written by a capitalist author. You're trying to convince everyone that liberal capitalists always tell the truth and nothing but the truth, especially when it comes to the question of socialism vs capitalism, when the facts show otherwise (facts I've posted). It's not difficult to tell where your allegiances lie: far, far from the workers.


Eat shit.Capitalists typically tell workers to eat shit, and oftentimes force them to do so. Since you're a capitalist, such words are to be expected.


Yeah, because bourgeois nations didn't send the DPRK any food aid at all and it obviously didn't have anything to do with the collapse of the USSR at all. Bad example on my part though, but oh well.Too bad that changes nothing about your celebration of Korean workers' suffering. Better luck next time.


In some small ways, yes. The DPRK has elements in common with Myanmar and others in common with France. That's why citing these elements as proof of socialism is silly.You've already betrayed the fallacy of your own position. "In some small ways", indeed. Taking this argument at face value, it shows us why you have no perspective: trying to extract "[small] elements" in isolation and extrapolating analyses based on that alone is ridiculous and anti-scientific. Were that the case, then we could easily make the comparison between every modern state and every other modern state: today's France is no different from Vichy-run France, Napoleonic France or absolutist France. After all, they all had centralized states, they all had armed forces and judicial systems, they all had bureaucracies which served the interests of the state, they all had class conflict, they all had plenty of other things in common.

But only a pure fool would seriously compare, in any significant or meaningful way, the France of Louis XIV, the France of Napoleon, the France of Petain and the France of the Fifth Republic. Why? Because it would ignore the hundreds upon hundreds of changes between each one. The social reforms, the victories and defeats of open class conflict, the political/constitutional changes, the institutions of slavery and colonialism, the place of foreign conflicts and occupations...we could go on and on. The point is that absolutism, capitalism and fascism may have similarities in "some small ways", but in real terms, they are very different from each other, and the fundamental nature of those societies are vastly divergent (if not diametrically opposed to one another) as well. In short, we must start with a scientific analysis of society, a genuine analysis of who is in power (and who isn't), why they are in power, what that power does and the context in which all that plays out. Myanmar, France and the DPRK aren't even close when you look at them with materialist eyes. In fact, the three societies are basically incompatible.

Yes, Myanmar has a military...so does the DPRK. France has a system of health care...so does the DPRK. What you fail to address, time and again, are the conditions in which these "elements" operate. The military of the DPRK is under the direction of the KWP, which has shown itself as the vanguard of the Korean workers on multiple occasions. Its credentials as a force for progress are unimpeachable, and it's telling that you haven't even tried to challenge them. Further still, the military of the DPRK is defending a system of collectivized property and production, a worker state. I've shown why this is before and you've ignored it because you're a capitalist hack. The military of Myanmar is doing no such thing, however. The same arguments can be made to the other issue in question.

I await your childish attempts to side-step these uncomfortable realities.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So now, since we have had a poll, and out of 117 respondents, 100 have voiced their preference for Cuba and mostly supplied reasons, would those who voiced their support for the DPRK accept that there is at least the possibility that they may be wrong.

Or are 85% of respondents here just bourgeois lackeys, reformists, agents of Capitalism etc.?

[scarletghoul]

Wait so you look for truth by seeing which view is more popular ? That's a pretty flawed method, man.

Secondly, the poll itself is only suitable for one side of the argument (those who say the DPRK is worse than Cuba, rather than those who say it is as good or not significantly worse). So there is bound to be some votes for Cuba coming from the people who are defending the DPRK, as well as some of us who didnt vote. Most of us arn't saying its 'better than cuba'; we are saying it is not qualitatively worse. The 'cuba V dprk' thing is stupid and distracting people from the real debate of whether those who uphold Cuba should also uphold North Korea

Third, I'm sure that if you read through the thread you'll see that the pro-Korea side has on average longer and more developed posts and explanatoins, reflecting a deeper understanding of things

[FSL]

Secondly, the poll itself is only suitable for one side of the argument (those who say the DPRK is worse than Cuba, rather than those who say it is as good or not significantly worse). So there is bound to be some votes for Cuba coming from the people who are defending the DPRK, as well as some of us who didnt vote. Most of us arn't saying its 'better than cuba'; we are saying it is not qualitatively worse. The 'cuba V dprk' thing is stupid and distracting people from the real debate of whether those who uphold Cuba should also uphold North Korea



I agree with that. I didn't even bother to vote because it is just a very dumb question. A supposedly theoretical discussion reduced to something like "Who's your favourite band, GnR or Nirvana?"

[Forward Union]

Would you rather be hit by a car or win £50?

[Wanted Man]

So now, since we have had a poll, and out of 117 respondents, 100 have voiced their preference for Cuba and mostly supplied reasons, would those who voiced their support for the DPRK accept that there is at least the possibility that they may be wrong.

Or are 85% of respondents here just bourgeois lackeys, reformists, agents of Capitalism etc.?

You're right. I used to think "DPRK > Cuba" (bcuz they have bettar leaderz, armies and hot girlz lolz), but a poll on an internet forum changed my mind.

[mykittyhasaboner]

And this is exactly why I resort to "sectarian insults". The core of socialist philosophy is workers control and workplace democracy so these are the things I assume to be key aspects of a "socialist state".

Right, so, that's why I said, "workers control of the means of production" is not specific enough to know what you mean. If this means absolute decentralization or no state institutions or whatever then that is both predictable (since the majority of those on revleft foolishly believe that such organization is the only kind of "worker's control") and a specific type of "workers control". Mind you there is no golden standard of "workers control", or no workers control--we don't live such a simple world.



I have absolutely no reason to believe that to be the case in Cuba or North Korea though.Why not? Have you researched the political, economic, and social forms of government in both countries enough to be able to determine otherwise? I wouldn't think so, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



I ask for evidence and you try to tell me I'm not being specific enough?That's because if I go and spend time to show you evidence of worker's control in Cuba (I presently don't know of much information on Korea), you can easily dismiss it as "statism" or something if it doesn't meet your criteria for "worker's control". Which is why I asked what you defined "worker's control" as. Since it's the "core" of socialist philosophy then I'd think the concept requires a bit of an explanation rather than simply a nice name ("worker's control")--which again is all you've really mentioned.


Oh because a little worker control is so much better than none. :rolleyes:Well, yeah, I would certainly say so--as a socialist.


It's ok our super awesome highly bureaucratic government will take care of everything!Those "highly bureaucratic governments" [sic] actually do a good job at taking care of most things.

Cue response reading something like "yeah they can take care of undesirables, executions or arrests very good". I know you can't resist.


Oh gee, I haven't made an argument that is exactly identical to every debate about this that ever happens. I don't expect you to miraculously see the light this time.Well you know, you could start by making an argument. That would certainly be a step up.



Meh. I'd say the governments of Cuba and North Korea speak a lot louder than I do.Yeah they do, and if you'd actually bothered to listen to them speak (or rather, type) then maybe you wouldn't wholly reject Cuba or DPRK as "state-capitalist" or whatever name you wish to call them.




http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01362/north-korea_1362611c.jpg

YEAH GUYS WERE TOTALLY SOCIALIST LOOK AT HOW BIG OUR DICKS ARESo socialist societies can't have military technology? I'm sure we can defeat imperialist military interventions solely with second hand rifles and maybe a tank here and there. Perhaps kind words will work just as well.


Also why compare everything to a penis or penises? Just wondering.


Here are some links which I would recommend reading. If you want more I'll give you more later. Perhaps I'll even find some new ones.

http://www.cubatruth.info
http://www.iammyownreporter.com/ElectionsInCuba.htm
http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/democracy.htm
http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/Focus_O/Democracy%20in%20Cuba.htm
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm)
http://w1.1396.telia.com/~u155900388/demokrati.htm (http://w1.1396.telia.com/%7Eu155900388/demokrati.htm)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wait so you look for truth by seeing which view is more popular ? That's a pretty flawed method, man.

Secondly, the poll itself is only suitable for one side of the argument (those who say the DPRK is worse than Cuba, rather than those who say it is as good or not significantly worse). So there is bound to be some votes for Cuba coming from the people who are defending the DPRK, as well as some of us who didnt vote. Most of us arn't saying its 'better than cuba'; we are saying it is not qualitatively worse. The 'cuba V dprk' thing is stupid and distracting people from the real debate of whether those who uphold Cuba should also uphold North Korea

Third, I'm sure that if you read through the thread you'll see that the pro-Korea side has on average longer and more developed posts and explanatoins, reflecting a deeper understanding of things

No, i'm not saying this is a popularity contest. But you'd think that if the majority of people on a revolutionary Socialist website believe - and provide reasons - that Cuba > DPRK (however you want to interpret that), you'd think that it would be a legitimate Socialist position to hold. Either that or the Socialist movement is pretty flawed.

With regards to your last point, that is mere fallacy, and a pretty biased analysis of the situation. There are good arguments on both sides, in all fairness, but it comes down to belief in the end, we each believe our side is right. I do not say that your side of the argument is undeveloped or lacks intellectual content, you should not say the same about the side opposing you, when it is clearly untrue.

[Qayin]

Third, I'm sure that if you read through the thread you'll see that the pro-Korea side has on average longer and more developed posts and explanatoins, reflecting a deeper understanding of thingsOr its appeasement. I can see pro-capitalist explanations on the opposing ideologies forum,doesn't mean it holds water.

[dar8888]

Would you rather be hit by a car or win £50?

An interesting answer to a legitimate question!

Whether or not Cuba is better than North Korea is really a question that need not be asked, or answered. As American Communists, we have far more to do than compare the governments of other nations.

One thing I'll say for both of them is that at least their individual parties seem to have solidarity. How many American Communist parties are there? And how many Cuban or North Korean parties are there?

[Forward Union]

One thing I'll say for both of them is that at least their individual parties seem to have solidarity. How many American Communist parties are there? And how many Cuban or North Korean parties are there?

I dont think that is out of Solidarity

[What Would Durruti Do?]

How funny, the reds thought I was spamming :laugh:

its like stalinists try as hard as possible to fit their character

and the response to the nationalist parade is great. whats wrong with weapons? nothing, unless they're being paraded around as some Juche demigod's playthings

mykittyhasaboner, i appreciate the links though. i'll give them a read but dont expect me to un-become an anarchist. Cuba and North Korea especially just aren't what I'm fighting for.

[dar8888]

I dont think that is out of Solidarity

A poor choice of word. Forgive me.;)

I only meant that we American's probably have 100's of Leftist organisations - very few of which ever make common cause - and that makes it less likely that any of them can be effective in the long term.

Cuba and North Korea may have "enforced" solidarity, but they do have it. Frankly I think that we in America need to spend less time discussing other governments, and more time forging true solidarity with the Workers of the world. If we can let go of the extraneous issues that we seem to delight in bringing up, maybe we could have a Communist Party that can accomplish something on a much grander level than we do at present.

[Honggweilo]

I wonder why no one has begun to raise the issue of mutual economic assistance during the special period/ardous march between Cuba and the DPRK through their historic relations. Both countries have extensive economic ties and Cuba/DPRK would have had a much harder time if it wasnt for that mutual aid (not to forget vietnam and in some way China). Imagine if they had to purely relly on the IMF and the global capitalist market instead.

Although my criticisms on the cultural aspects of North Korean society (bureaucratic and uncritical popular additudes stemming from confucianism/legalist tendencies which is deeply rooted in most south east asian societies, especially Japan/South Korea, which are the capitalist versions of the same aspects in the DPRK), im not going to measure the socialist economic planning and structure of the DPRK by different standards, both countries did what it saw best to do to survive in a hostile enviorment, and its debateable to what measures were right and which were not.

Ofcourse as an eurocentric western leftist its obvious i'd rather live in Cuba since its culture is much more similar then my own, and am not used to the mentallity predominant in south-east asian societies. But i wont let my cultural bias get in the way of my judgement to dismiss a country of to the dustbin of history for that sake. Ofcourse culture doesnt justify anything, but it does bring things in perspective.

So for the heck of it, i'm not voting

[Chambered Word]

Alright then, so you're not going to address the whole section of text.

Go figure.

I'll address it then.


While you may value the "liberal perspective", revolutionaries value the working-class perspective. Liberals are enemies of socialism. Why would you possibly want to give their viewpoints validity on this issue? It makes no sense.

Arguments ad hominem against liberals. You seem to think that the entire article is invalid because it was written 'from a liberal perspective' which is fallacious.


Further, it was never the argument that the DPRK is communist, but a socialist society led by communists. Are you denying that the KWP is legitimately communist? Why do you think a liberal article gives you any evidence for doing so?

Not sure what you're getting at here, but once again you make more arguments ad hominem about the article's validity instead of going through it and addressing what it says. I haven't even read the fucking thing, so how can I be defending content I have not seen (which you claim I am doing)? The fact is your ad hominems against the article's author are fucking stupid and aren't getting us anywhere at all. Your ego seems to become bruised whenever any criticism of the DPRK comes up and you suddenly feel the need to hand out personal attacks and dismiss criticism without even addressing the content of said criticism.


By the way, Slate is 100% bourgeois. They write hit-pieces against socialism all the time. Showing your true colors, Q?

Yeah, more ad hominems in your little spack-attack and a personal attack on Q, even though he fully acknowledged that the article was written from a liberal viewpoint.

If it really satisfies you I can probably find some articles on the DPRK from socialist viewpoints. You'll probably dismiss anything that is critical of the DPRK as 'counter revolutionary' and 'not REALLY communist', but whatever.

There. Addressed it.


Obviously you don't understand the role of class. Bill Gates, along with his fellow capitalists, speaks from the bourgeois perspective and promotes bourgeois interests. Therefore, he is surely opposed to workers and the cause of progress. When you agree with people who speak from the bourgeois perspective (such as slandering the DPRK and the workers of Korea), it shows who you stand with.

So logically if Bill Gates says something it is always incorrect? I'm not standing with anyone, I'm just trying to point out how fallacious it is to write off everything not written by a communist as lies and anti-worker propaganda. I may not agree with bias or conclusions liberals come up with in their articles but objective facts are a different matter. I'm not expressing an opinion on the article you've been getting wound up about.


When you agree with people who speak from the bourgeois perspective (such as slandering the DPRK and the workers of Korea), it shows who you stand with.

This has similar logical value to 'if you don't like America then YOU HATE FREEDOM!'


My position is that all capitalists slander and oppose socialism and the workers as a matter of course. This is evidently true, and history shows us as much. Capitalists will do anything to destroy the progress of the workers, and the struggle of the Korean workers against imperialism (which you agree with) is no different. Are you denying that liberals speak from a bourgeois perspective? Are you denying that capitalism slanders socialism? Are you denying that you stand with those liars?

In general, liberals do speak from such a perspective. I think right now Korean workers are probably more concerned with being able to express themselves freely and have some personal fucking freedom, which socialism is supposed to deliver.


Except you're desperately defending capitalist rhetoric coming from a capitalist source, written by a capitalist author. You're trying to convince everyone that liberal capitalists always tell the truth and nothing but the truth, especially when it comes to the question of socialism vs capitalism, when the facts show otherwise (facts I've posted). It's not difficult to tell where your allegiances lie: far, far from the workers.

Since when did strawman arguments become valid? :confused:


Capitalists typically tell workers to eat shit, and oftentimes force them to do so. Since you're a capitalist, such words are to be expected.

Human beings also tell other human beings to eat shit, particularly if the other human is perceived to be talking out of his/her arse. Now you know why I say it. ;)


Too bad that changes nothing about your celebration of Korean workers' suffering. Better luck next time.

It's a strawman marathon! Woo!


You've already betrayed the fallacy of your own position. "In some small ways", indeed. Taking this argument at face value, it shows us why you have no perspective: trying to extract "[small] elements" in isolation and extrapolating analyses based on that alone is ridiculous and anti-scientific. Were that the case, then we could easily make the comparison between every modern state and every other modern state: today's France is no different from Vichy-run France, Napoleonic France or absolutist France. After all, they all had centralized states, they all had armed forces and judicial systems, they all had bureaucracies which served the interests of the state, they all had class conflict, they all had plenty of other things in common.

Let's take a look at the point I've been trying to make:


Question to all the DPRK supporters here: Burma (or Myanmar) is ruled by a junta that has a strict control over the economy, even has some aspects of social planning. Yet this regime is rarely supported by North-Korea supporters despite the parallels between both junta regimes. What makes North-Korea qualitatively different and, more to the point, socialist?

Q begins by asking why North Korean is socialist, as opposed to Myanmar.


Has Myanmar collectivized production in both agriculture and industry? Is Myanmar under the direction of a revolutionary vanguard party, which has stood strong against imperialism in the darkest of hours many times over?

Myanmar doesn't have a universal healthcare system that doubled life expectancy. Myanmar doesn't set urban housing prices at .3% of a worker's salary. Myanmar doesn't have universal literacy. I could go on, but the point is that your comparison is nothing short of absurd once you encounter the most elementary of details.

You seem to think collectivizing production, being under the direction of a 'revolutionary vanguard party', opposing imperialism, having a universal healthcare system, having low urban housing prices and universal literacy makes a country socialist. I called you out on that, because there are other countries that currently have some of these elements but probably would not be considered socialist by you. The point is, having these elements of a 'socialist' country does not necessarily make that country socialist.


But only a pure fool would seriously compare, in any significant or meaningful way, the France of Louis XIV, the France of Napoleon, the France of Petain and the France of the Fifth Republic. Why? Because it would ignore the hundreds upon hundreds of changes between each one. The social reforms, the victories and defeats of open class conflict, the political/constitutional changes, the institutions of slavery and colonialism, the place of foreign conflicts and occupations...we could go on and on. The point is that absolutism, capitalism and fascism may have similarities in "some small ways", but in real terms, they are very different from each other, and the fundamental nature of those societies are vastly divergent (if not diametrically opposed to one another) as well. In short, we must start with a scientific analysis of society, a genuine analysis of who is in power (and who isn't), why they are in power, what that power does and the context in which all that plays out. Myanmar, France and the DPRK aren't even close when you look at them with materialist eyes. In fact, the three societies are basically incompatible.

The point is whether they're socialist or not and why. Stop trying to avoid the issue.


Yes, Myanmar has a military...so does the DPRK. France has a system of health care...so does the DPRK. What you fail to address, time and again, are the conditions in which these "elements" operate. The military of the DPRK is under the direction of the KWP, which has shown itself as the vanguard of the Korean workers on multiple occasions. Its credentials as a force for progress are unimpeachable, and it's telling that you haven't even tried to challenge them. Further still, the military of the DPRK is defending a system of collectivized property and production, a worker state.

So just because the DPRK has collectivized property and production makes it a worker state? Just because the DPRK's military is controlled by the KWP? Are Kim Jong-Il and the KWP accountable to the public?


I've shown why this is before and you've ignored it because you're a capitalist hack. The military of Myanmar is doing no such thing, however. The same arguments can be made to the other issue in question.

The military of Myanmar is defending a dictatorial regime where workers do not democratically elect officials or hold ultimate political power in some other fashion and that is the same with the DPRK's military. You've ignored this because you're a useful idiot who will believe anything that comes from the DPRK's ruling class as long as they call themselves 'revolutionaries'.


I await your childish attempts to side-step these uncomfortable realities.

Cry me a river. ;)

[manic expression]

Arguments ad hominem against liberals. You seem to think that the entire article is invalid because it was written 'from a liberal perspective' which is fallacious.
It's not ad hominem, it's argument ad class. Liberals are capitalists, and thus their perspective is intrinsically anti-socialist. If a capitalist says that socialism sucks, it's because they stand to lose from socialist revolution, so it's only natural that they'd oppose progress. I'm not sure why I need to explain this to you, since your arguments are essentially of the exact same anti-socialist character.


I haven't even read the fucking thing,So you're a friend of liberal imperialists, and you're too lazy to actually read the article. Good to know.


Yeah, more ad hominems in your little spack-attack and a personal attack on Q, even though he fully acknowledged that the article was written from a liberal viewpoint.It wasn't a personal attack, it was debunking Q's anti-socialist slander. Pointing out when someone has no facts on their side is not an ad hominem attack. Try to learn the difference.


If it really satisfies you I can probably find some articles on the DPRK from socialist viewpoints. You'll probably dismiss anything that is critical of the DPRK as 'counter revolutionary' and 'not REALLY communist', but whatever.This is about people slandering the DPRK. If you present an anti-DPRK article that actually takes facts into account instead of editorialized capitalist rhetoric, that's one thing...

But you haven't, because you have no facts on your side. You have an imperialist article that you haven't even read, and a collection of arguments that would logically classify absolutist France with the Fifth Republic as exactly the same. Funny that.


So logically if Bill Gates says something it is always incorrect? I'm not standing with anyone,Yes you are, you're standing with anti-socialist liberal imperialists because you're desperately defending anti-socialist slander that you haven't even taken the time to review. Well done on exposing your political bankruptcy once again.

On Bill Gates, that wasn't my point at all. Go back and read my posts again. Thanks a bunch.


This has similar logical value to 'if you don't like America then YOU HATE FREEDOM!'But America isn't free, and I have the facts to back that up. The DPRK, however, is socialist and progressive and a pro-worker force in this world. That's why you hate it and stand with liberal imperialists.


In general, liberals do speak from such a perspective. I think right now Korean workers are probably more concerned with being able to express themselves freely and have some personal fucking freedom, which socialism is supposed to deliver.I'm still waiting for some semblance of facts from you instead of the typical parroting of capitalist lies. Do you have any argument beyond "freedom"? Any at all? I thought so.


Since when did strawman arguments become valid? :confused:It's not a strawman if it's true, and your positions are pro-imperialist. The fact that you can't understand this changes nothing. Oh, and it's interesting that you just cry "strawman" instead of engaging the points, which clearly shows that you CAN'T engage any point.


Human beings also tell other human beings to eat shit,Capitalist human beings tell working-class human beings to eat shit because they hate workers. Who's the one defending liberal imperialist slander here? Right, you. It's not that hard to figure out what you meant by that little comment.


Let's take a look at the point I've been trying to make:I've already taken a look at it, and exposed it for the lie that it is.


You seem to think collectivizing production, being under the direction of a 'revolutionary vanguard party', opposing imperialism, having a universal healthcare system, having low urban housing prices and universal literacy makes a country socialist. I called you out on that, because there are other countries that currently have some of these elements but probably would not be considered socialist by you. The point is, having these elements of a 'socialist' country does not necessarily make that country socialist."Some of these elements" are shared by non-socialist countries. Yes, SOME of those elements, but not all of them, and surely not the majority of them, either. So really, you're back to square one: using your logic, we can comfortably compare Nicolas Sarkozy to Louis XIV because they have "some elements" in common. By the same logic, pre-Civil War US was just like post-Civil War US, since the branches of government were the same! Except such an argument ignores social relations, the institution of slavery, the basics of life, and thus such an argument is idiotic and useless.

But you don't want to face this fact, because it shows how silly your reasoning is: the DPRK has "some elements" in common with other states, therefore it is exactly like those states. This is so nebulous and vague as to be worthless, and the above shows exactly why. Have fun dealing with that.


The point is whether they're socialist or not and why. Stop trying to avoid the issue.:lol: Between the two of us, I'm the only one to have made a coherent argument on that subject. The DPRK is socialist because it is a society led by the working-class vanguard and based on collectivized property and production. You have yet to dispute this because you're still tap-dancing around reality.


So just because the DPRK has collectivized property and production makes it a worker state? Just because the DPRK's military is controlled by the KWP? Are Kim Jong-Il and the KWP accountable to the public?Yes, "just because" capitalist social relations have been abolished and "just because" the working-class vanguard is in power means there's socialism. :lol: Do you even bother reading the crap you come up with?

Who the hell is "the public"? Why are you resorting to liberal terminology to mask your liberal slander?


The military of Myanmar is defending a dictatorial regime where workers do not democratically elect officials or hold ultimate political power in some other fashion and that is the same with the DPRK's military.Good thing the DPRK sees the workers holding ultimate political power through the KWP. But you don't care, because you're too busy defending liberal imperialists and Bill Gates. :lol: Like the pro-imperialist that you are, you have nothing but hatred for workers who abolish capitalism and defend their progressive gains against imperialism. I'm glad your true colors are now being shown, perhaps now you can come to terms with the fact that you're a pro-imperialist hack.

[Chambered Word]

It's not ad hominem, it's argument ad class. Liberals are capitalists, and thus their perspective is intrinsically anti-socialist. If a capitalist says that socialism sucks, it's because they stand to lose from socialist revolution, so it's only natural that they'd oppose progress. I'm not sure why I need to explain this to you, since your arguments are essentially of the exact same anti-socialist character.

I don't seem to be getting through to you. :laugh: The 'argument ad class' bit made me giggle in real life.


So you're a friend of liberal imperialists, and you're too lazy to actually read the article. Good to know.Well you JUST HATE FREEDOM!11

I've been spending my time attacking your poor grasp of logic. If you've read the article, maybe you'd like to show us where it is wrong? It'd be alot more constructive than just throwing vague ad hominems at 'liberals' and making strawman arguments. :rolleyes:


It wasn't a personal attack, it was debunking Q's anti-socialist slander. Pointing out when someone has no facts on their side is not an ad hominem attack. Try to learn the difference.Firstly, try to learn the difference between personal attacks/namecalling and arguments ad hominem, because it seems you've confused the two before in the past.

In the quotes I showed you that all that you did was criticize the author of the source and make the 'well they WOULD say that, wouldn't they?' argument, instead of going through the article that bothered you so much and showing us where it was incorrect.


This is about people slandering the DPRK. If you present an anti-DPRK article that actually takes facts into account instead of editorialized capitalist rhetoric, that's one thing...How about taking the fucking article apart and pointing out where it is incorrect instead of just slandering it? I'd be glad if you did, actually.


But you haven't, because you have no facts on your side. You have an imperialist article that you haven't even read, and a collection of arguments that would logically classify absolutist France with the Fifth Republic as exactly the same. Funny that.The arguments come to no such conclusions. Now I'm starting to become convinced you're trolling me or just chucking insults at me to cover your own arse.


Yes you are, you're standing with anti-socialist liberal imperialists because you're desperately defending anti-socialist slander that you haven't even taken the time to review. Well done on exposing your political bankruptcy once again.

On Bill Gates, that wasn't my point at all. Go back and read my posts again. Thanks a bunch.So you think I can be 'desperately defending' an article that I have no read nor do I necessarily hold any belief in its truth (probably due to the fact I haven't actually viewed its content)?

But I guess this is how your logic works: declare something false immediately using logical fallacies, and then call anyone who objects a 'liberal sympathizer' or a 'anti-socialist capitalist' or whatever uncreative crock of shit you can think up.

And yes, you have indeed been claiming that about Bill Gates (to use him as an example).


But America isn't free, and I have the facts to back that up. The DPRK, however, is socialist and progressive and a pro-worker force in this world. That's why you hate it and stand with liberal imperialists.Maybe instead of making fallacious arguments you could be showing us this 'evidence' and actually making a contribution of useful content instead of provoking arguments with your stupid ranting.

In referral to the added bold part, I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying. :D


I'm still waiting for some semblance of facts from you instead of the typical parroting of capitalist lies. Do you have any argument beyond "freedom"? Any at all? I thought so.
I've already taken a look at it, and exposed it for the lie that it is.How about showing us the evidence then, like I have suggested. :rolleyes:


It's not a strawman if it's true, and your positions are pro-imperialist. The fact that you can't understand this changes nothing. Oh, and it's interesting that you just cry "strawman" instead of engaging the points, which clearly shows that you CAN'T engage any point.Well I can't very well engage a point I did not make, can I now? :)


Capitalist human beings tell working-class human beings to eat shit because they hate workers. Who's the one defending liberal imperialist slander here? Right, you. It's not that hard to figure out what you meant by that little comment.My apologies, but is it considered ageist for me to assume you're 6 years old? :blushing:


"Some of these elements" are shared by non-socialist countries. Yes, SOME of those elements, but not all of them, and surely not the majority of them, either. So really, you're back to square one: using your logic, we can comfortably compare Nicolas Sarkozy to Louis XIV because they have "some elements" in common. By the same logic, pre-Civil War US was just like post-Civil War US, since the branches of government were the same! Except such an argument ignores social relations, the institution of slavery, the basics of life, and thus such an argument is idiotic and useless.Go back and read what I typed and try to understand it. I'm not going to make a bit of effort if you constantly refuse to. :rolleyes:


But you don't want to face this fact, because it shows how silly your reasoning is: the DPRK has "some elements" in common with other states, therefore it is exactly like those states. This is so nebulous and vague as to be worthless, and the above shows exactly why. Have fun dealing with that.LIVE FAST, TROLL HARD, MAKE STRAWMEN!


:lol: Between the two of us, I'm the only one to have made a coherent argument on that subject. The DPRK is socialist because it is a society led by the working-class vanguard and based on collectivized property and production. You have yet to dispute this because you're still tap-dancing around reality.I tried to make a point but instead you start arguing semantics about who the public is:


Yes, "just because" capitalist social relations have been abolished and "just because" the working-class vanguard is in power means there's socialism. :lol: Do you even bother reading the crap you come up with? Who the hell is "the public"? Why are you resorting to liberal terminology to mask your liberal slander?

Oh yes, it's 'liberal terminology', just like 'comrade' is Marxist terminology (according to Andy Schlafly)! :laugh::laugh::laugh:


Good thing the DPRK sees the workers holding ultimate political power through the KWP. But you don't care, because you're too busy defending liberal imperialists and Bill Gates. :lol:GOING FOR THE STRAWMAN WORLD RECORD! YEEE-HAW!


Like the pro-imperialist that you are, you have nothing but hatred for workers who abolish capitalism and defend their progressive gains against imperialism. I'm glad your true colors are now being shown, perhaps now you can come to terms with the fact that you're a pro-imperialist hack.I have hatred for dictatorships that slander the socialist movement by claiming to be ruling 'for the workers'. I'm sure the workers just asked for the human rights violations that have occured in North Korea! I'm sure they want a national dress code and such.

Come on. Please tell me you're a troll. :crying:

[manic expression]

I don't seem to be getting through to you. :laugh: The 'argument ad class' bit made me giggle in real life.
So you're denying that class means anything when it comes to political stances? You don't think the bourgeoisie is naturally opposed to socialism? You don't think capitalist apologists will slander the revolution? Keep dancing.


I've been spending my time attacking your poor grasp of logic. If you've read the article, maybe you'd like to show us where it is wrong? It'd be alot more constructive than just throwing vague ad hominems at 'liberals' and making strawman arguments. :rolleyes:
You haven't dealt with my logic, but nice try. Looks like you're still too busy defending liberal imperialists, because that's who you agree with.

Oh, and it looks like you're still too much of an immature hack to even open the link. The subtitle of the article? "Kim Jong-il's regime is even weirder and more despicable than you thought." Is this supposed to present something that even borders on factual argumentation? It's a bourgeois hit-piece that contains nothing meaningful, its only function is to reinforce the lies about the DPRK...lies you agree with, lies you promote yourself. But you are a friend of liberal imperialists, after all. We'll get more to your favorite article later.


Firstly, try to learn the difference between personal attacks/namecalling and arguments ad hominem, because it seems you've confused the two before in the past.
Try to learn the difference between ad hominem arguments and pointing out the class character of imperialist rhetoric. Let me know when you get around to doing that, because it will help you figure out who you stand with.


In the quotes I showed you that all that you did was criticize the author of the source and make the 'well they WOULD say that, wouldn't they?' argument, instead of going through the article that bothered you so much and showing us where it was incorrect.
The article doesn't bother me at all, it's just anti-socialist slander. I've went through the article and it contains not a single valid basis for its assumptions, not an ounce of factual foundation and it leaks imperialist rhetoric from every pore. There's really nothing there that's useful, it's just a hit-piece against the DPRK. As I've explained. As you've ignored.


How about taking the fucking article apart and pointing out where it is incorrect instead of just slandering it? I'd be glad if you did, actually.Why, so you won't have to read it? The fact is that I haven't slandered it; everything I've said about the article is demonstrably true. There isn't any factual basis for the claims made within it. Since you've made not the slightest effort to dispute this, it's safe to assume that it's true, and that your argument is only running on hot air.

Would you like to defend this little passage about North Korean workers?:

Starving and stunted dwarves, living in the dark, kept in perpetual ignorance and fear, brainwashed into the hatred of others, regimented and coerced and inculcated with a death cult: This horror show is in our future, and is so ghastly that our own darling leaders dare not face it and can only peep through their fingers at what is coming.

That's what you, the pro-imperialist, have been defending all this time: a racist tirade against the workers of the DPRK. Have fun defending it now. :lol:


The arguments come to no such conclusions. Now I'm starting to become convinced you're trolling me or just chucking insults at me to cover your own arse.
Looks like you're running away from your own logic. I've explained at length as to why your argument logically leads to classifying absolutist France and the Fifth Republic as the same. After all, they have "some elements" in common, do they not? They both had centralized states with armies, judicial systems, taxation, class warfare and more. Under your reasoning, then, the two are very much the same, for that is more than your rubric of "some elements in common". Keep running, it's all you can do at this point. :lol:


So you think I can be 'desperately defending' an article that I have no read
Exactly, you don't even know what you're defending, because you're a hack. Have fun defending the article now that we know it's racist.


And yes, you have indeed been claiming that about Bill Gates (to use him as an example).
You still don't get it, do you? I didn't say that Bill Gates cannot say true things because that was never my argument, I said he's naturally opposed to socialism and to the cause of the working class because he's a bourgeois. As are all pro-capitalists. You haven't addressed this argument head-on, and instead asked if Bill Gates is incapable of saying true things, which has nothing to do with what I said. Like I said, you're a hack.


Maybe instead of making fallacious arguments you could be showing us this 'evidence' and actually making a contribution of useful content instead of provoking arguments with your stupid ranting.
I already posted multiple pieces of relevant evidence a few pages ago. You've ignored them because you're uninterested in intellectual honesty in your anti-socialist crusade.


Well I can't very well engage a point I did not make, can I now? :)You can engage your defense of imperialist slander. You can engage your promotion of anti-socialist lies. You can engage your agreement with racists and reactionaries.

But you won't, because you can't.


Go back and read what I typed and try to understand it. I'm not going to make a bit of effort if you constantly refuse to. :rolleyes:
:lol::lol::lol: This coming from someone who can't even read the article he constantly defends from any and all criticism. Pro-imperialist, racist, anti-socialist. What other true colors of yours are you going to show this time?

And you're running away from your argument yet again. You said "some elements in common" justifies a comparison between Myanmar, capitalist regimes and the DPRK. However, "some elements in common" can be applied to any modern state. Your reasoning is that since the DPRK has an army, it's just like Myanmar; since the DPRK has a healthcare system, it's just like the EU.

Have fun dodging facts yet again.


I tried to make a point but instead you start arguing semantics about who the public is:
I addressed your nonexistent, unsubstantiated "point". I then brought to light your liberal mindset. "The public" isn't a class, it's a nebulous term used by the bourgeoisie to categorize anything that isn't within the state apparatus. Looks like you're tap-dancing even more now. :lol:


I have hatred for dictatorships
More liberal imperialist tripe. You have a clear hatred for socialism and the cause of the Korean workers. When it is pointed out the KWP has shown itself the working-class revolutionary vanguard of Korea, you can offer nothing but vague accusations of "dictatorship" with absolutely no basis. When it is shown that the Korean workers have made great gains through their abolition of capitalism, you can only mumble that other states share "some elements" with that of the DPRK, even though all modern states are in some way comparable under that warped logic.

You are, clearly, a friend of imperialism and an enemy of socialism. At least you're slowly coming to terms with this.

[Sendo]

Although my criticisms on the cultural aspects of North Korean society (bureaucratic and uncritical popular attitudes stemming from Confucianism and Legalist tendencies which is deeply rooted in most Southeast Asian societies, especially Japan/South Korea, which are the capitalist versions of the same aspects in the DPRK),

...I'd rather live in Cuba since its culture is much more similar then my own, and am not used to the mentality predominant in Southeast Asian societies.


WOW! Where to begin. Maybe it's that Korea and China and Japan (arguable Vietnam in certain respects) make up East Asia

Or maybe it's that Confucianism and Legalism were rival ideologies in ancient China.

Or maybe it's your racist attitude that Orientals are obedient to power. The tired cliche that Westerners are individuals and Easterners are members of herd and think as such. And we have Weber and a shocking number of so-called "Marxists" who subscribe to his racist and culturalist theories of history.

Confucianism has its problems, yes, but it's not much worse than any Western standards of elitism, propriety, or sexism. It's like everyone thinks that mutual bowing is so much worse than shaking hands or removing your hat indoors or any other arbitrary custom.

WASP culture dominates American power but not the American people, the same way Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism dominate the minds of the higher-ups in South and Japan (a majority, but slowly shrinking, majority of principals for starters) but not the minds of its people.

As for Legalism, take a look at Ha-Joon Chang's book on how South Korea and other 3rd world nations developed through protectionism and state investment. He talks about bootleg goods and black market goods in his youth, the widespread student resistance to authoritarianism. I can also point to the VERY militant labor in South Korea or the Gwangju Uprising and Massacre in 1980 which was was done with American weapons while the new dictator told his soldiers they were fighting a North Korean invasion while secretly transporting them to the Southwest.

I'd say that the East is FAR FAR less legalist than the West in many respects. Many laws are ignored and police look the other way often (gambling, massage parlors, etc, with the most notable exception of drugs). Also, while South Korean education is a bureaucratic mess, there is a great deal of executive leeway and principals for example can make unethical pressures to get overtime or can give you a day off and then fudge the paperwork. Signatures are treated much less sacred than in America. I've been to restaurants and had the cashier just scribble my signature for me, for example. Legalism was an ideology that went against Confucian attitudes of obedience to authority individuals, loyalty to family, and sage-like virtue. Both stressed incompatible styles of obedience. I could repeat the parable of the son and his criminal father.

[Chambered Word]

So you're denying that class means anything when it comes to political stances? You don't think the bourgeoisie is naturally opposed to socialism? You don't think capitalist apologists will slander the revolution? Keep dancing.

Take your logical fallacies elsewhere. I have already made efforts to explain why this is fucking stupid and you've just ignored me. :rolleyes:


You haven't dealt with my logic, but nice try. Looks like you're still too busy defending liberal imperialists, because that's who you agree with.

Oh, and it looks like you're still too much of an immature hack to even open the link. The subtitle of the article? "Kim Jong-il's regime is even weirder and more despicable than you thought." Is this supposed to present something that even borders on factual argumentation? It's a bourgeois hit-piece that contains nothing meaningful, its only function is to reinforce the lies about the DPRK...lies you agree with, lies you promote yourself. But you are a friend of liberal imperialists, after all. We'll get more to your favorite article later.

Lies I promote? Where have I promoted them?

How amazing. Already you've made another fucking strawman.


Try to learn the difference between ad hominem arguments and pointing out the class character of imperialist rhetoric. Let me know when you get around to doing that, because it will help you figure out who you stand with.

'It was written by somebody I perceive to be a liberal so we should treat the entire article as complete and utter lies' is more of an ad hominem.


The article doesn't bother me at all, it's just anti-socialist slander. I've went through the article and it contains not a single valid basis for its assumptions, not an ounce of factual foundation and it leaks imperialist rhetoric from every pore. There's really nothing there that's useful, it's just a hit-piece against the DPRK. As I've explained. As you've ignored.

You've never explained that before (with evidence).


Why, so you won't have to read it? The fact is that I haven't slandered it; everything I've said about the article is demonstrably true. There isn't any factual basis for the claims made within it. Since you've made not the slightest effort to dispute this, it's safe to assume that it's true, and that your argument is only running on hot air.

facepalm.jpg

My problem is with your stupid logic and that's what I've been arguing about. I can't really dispute it yet as I've not gotten around to reading it obviously, but I don't know if I'd like to dispute it or not.


Would you like to defend this little passage about North Korean workers?:

Starving and stunted dwarves, living in the dark, kept in perpetual ignorance and fear, brainwashed into the hatred of others, regimented and coerced and inculcated with a death cult: This horror show is in our future, and is so ghastly that our own darling leaders dare not face it and can only peep through their fingers at what is coming.

That's what you, the pro-imperialist, have been defending all this time: a racist tirade against the workers of the DPRK. Have fun defending it now. :lol:

Attacking fallacious arguments is not the same as defending the target of said arguments. This goes to show what a poor grasp of logic you have.

I also fail to see what is so racist about that particular quote from the article, but I've noticed whenever somebody criticizes the DPRK there's always a cry of 'racism'.

:rolleyes:


Looks like you're running away from your own logic. I've explained at length as to why your argument logically leads to classifying absolutist France and the Fifth Republic as the same. After all, they have "some elements" in common, do they not? They both had centralized states with armies, judicial systems, taxation, class warfare and more. Under your reasoning, then, the two are very much the same, for that is more than your rubric of "some elements in common". Keep running, it's all you can do at this point. :lol:

The point, in short, was that such elements you deemed 'socialist' did not necessarily make a socialist country. But whatever, keep ignoring the arguments being made.


Exactly, you don't even know what you're defending, because you're a hack. Have fun defending the article now that we know it's racist.

I haven't defended the actual content of the article until you showed me part of it. At the moment, you might as well show us how it's racist instead of going 'LOOK IT'S RACIST TOLD YOU LOL'.


You still don't get it, do you? I didn't say that Bill Gates cannot say true things because that was never my argument, I said he's naturally opposed to socialism and to the cause of the working class because he's a bourgeois. As are all pro-capitalists. You haven't addressed this argument head-on, and instead asked if Bill Gates is incapable of saying true things, which has nothing to do with what I said. Like I said, you're a hack.

Nah, that's pretty much what you implied. Looks like you're backpedalling now.


I already posted multiple pieces of relevant evidence a few pages ago. You've ignored them because you're uninterested in intellectual honesty in your anti-socialist crusade.

Wooh boy. :laugh:


You can engage your defense of imperialist slander. You can engage your promotion of anti-socialist lies. You can engage your agreement with racists and reactionaries.

But you won't, because you can't.

So because you call yourself a socialist I'm not allowed to call you out on your stupid arguments?

Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:


:lol::lol::lol: This coming from someone who can't even read the article he constantly defends from any and all criticism. Pro-imperialist, racist, anti-socialist. What other true colors of yours are you going to show this time?

By now you've shown your true colour to be brown (i.e full of shit ;)).


And you're running away from your argument yet again. You said "some elements in common" justifies a comparison between Myanmar, capitalist regimes and the DPRK. However, "some elements in common" can be applied to any modern state. Your reasoning is that since the DPRK has an army, it's just like Myanmar; since the DPRK has a healthcare system, it's just like the EU.

Have fun dodging facts yet again.

How many strawman arguments can we make in one thread? :cool:


I addressed your nonexistent, unsubstantiated "point". I then brought to light your liberal mindset. "The public" isn't a class, it's a nebulous term used by the bourgeoisie to categorize anything that isn't within the state apparatus. Looks like you're tap-dancing even more now. :lol:

I thought there was only one class under socialism? Are you implying that there are different classes in the DPRK?

Maybe I should make myself more clear: is the DPRK's leadership accountable and instantly recallable to the proletariat?


More liberal imperialist tripe. You have a clear hatred for socialism and the cause of the Korean workers. When it is pointed out the KWP has shown itself the working-class revolutionary vanguard of Korea, you can offer nothing but vague accusations of "dictatorship" with absolutely no basis. When it is shown that the Korean workers have made great gains through their abolition of capitalism, you can only mumble that other states share "some elements" with that of the DPRK, even though all modern states are in some way comparable under that warped logic.

Yeah, the DPRK's a democracy. I just realized you were completely right all along! Who wants more crack?


You are, clearly, a friend of imperialism and an enemy of socialism. At least you're slowly coming to terms with this.

Sorry, but I'd rather not engage in pissing contests.

Inappropriate image removed. -- Kassad

[Sendo]

^

Thanks, I think the internet needs more copies of bullshit spam taking up bandwidth. By the way, the site is hurting for cash with increased hosting costs. You're not helping.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What about how around 27% of North Korea’s population is by or below the poverty line?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/North_Korea.pdf

[danyboy27]

neither.

[manic expression]

Take your logical fallacies elsewhere. I have already made efforts to explain why this is fucking stupid and you've just ignored me. :rolleyes:
So you're still denying the fact that you're standing with capitalists in their opposition to working class power. I expected as much.


Lies I promote? Where have I promoted them?
In your insipid defense of a racist, imperialist tirade against socialism.


How amazing. Already you've made another fucking strawman.
Already you've managed to tip-toe around yet another piece of evidence that you're wrong.


'It was written by somebody I perceive to be a liberal so we should treat the entire article as complete and utter lies' is more of an ad hominem.
Of course you'd defend the article, though, because you support capitalist lies.


You've never explained that before (with evidence).
It's been explained to everyone who read the article with an ounce of competence. Obviously, you haven't, because you're an intellectually dishonest friend of imperialism.


My problem is with your stupid logic and that's what I've been arguing about. I can't really dispute it yet as I've not gotten around to reading it obviously, but I don't know if I'd like to dispute it or not.
:lol: So you're admitting that you're too intellectually lazy to read the article you're defending. You've now managed to construct the most asinine argument made on RevLeft for some time. You'll defend it, even though you have absolutely NO idea what it contains.


Attacking fallacious arguments is not the same as defending the target of said arguments. This goes to show what a poor grasp of logic you have.
My argument is that the article is written by a capitalist, and is therefore naturally opposed to socialism as a matter of course. This is objectively true. Further, my argument is that the article is based on no useful facts, which is also objectively true. You'd understand this if you read the article, but you haven't. In response to this, you shout objections from every which way, even though you have no idea what the article contains. So, in effect, you are very much defending imperialist lies. Thanks for tap-dancing around the issue once more.


I also fail to see what is so racist about that particular quote
You wouldn't, because you're RevLeft's biggest defender of said racist article. Cowards and traitors.


The point, in short, was that such elements you deemed 'socialist' did not necessarily make a socialist country. But whatever, keep ignoring the arguments being made.
:lol: Obviously you're lost. "Such elements", in isolation, do not make socialism. That was never my argument, but you tried to present my argument as such because you're intellectually dishonest. My argument was that the Korean workers' abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a state under the control of the working class has resulted in progress for Korean workers in various categories. You haven't disputed any of that because your argument consists of a logic that would define Louis XIV as analogous to Mitterrand. :lol: Your argument is essentially that: "North Korea has healthcare, so it's like France! North Korea has a military, so it's like Myanmar!" Keep dancing, it just underlines how politically bankrupt you are (which is befitting for a friend of capitalist liars).


I haven't defended the actual content of the article until you showed me part of it.
You've defended the article from straightforward criticisms: it is capitalist propaganda that is not based on any fact. Both of these conclusions are verifiable to anyone who's read the article competently. You're not one of them because you're intellectually lazy.


Nah, that's pretty much what you implied. Looks like you're backpedalling now.
Nah, that's pretty much your imagination. Looks like you're making shit up now. :laugh:


So because you call yourself a socialist I'm not allowed to call you out on your stupid arguments?
You're allowed to, sure, but when you do it from a pro-capitalist position then that says quite a bit about who you stand with. But since your logic classifies every modern state as every modern state, what's the difference? :lol: Keep dancing.


By now you've shown your true colour to be brown (i.e full of shit ;)).
Brown is the color for ultra-nationalist racists. That's the color you're defending every time you voice support for the imperialist article that you haven't even read. ;)


How many strawman arguments can we make in one thread? :cool: It's not a strawman if that's exactly what you argued:

You seem to think collectivizing production, being under the direction of a 'revolutionary vanguard party', opposing imperialism, having a universal healthcare system, having low urban housing prices and universal literacy makes a country socialist. I called you out on that, because there are other countries that currently have some of these elements but probably would not be considered socialist by you. The point is, having these elements of a 'socialist' country does not necessarily make that country socialist.

"Some of these elements" being seen in non-socialist countries therefore makes the DPRK not socialist. That's precisely and directly what you're saying here. The problem, though is that "some of these elements" can be traced to the states of the early modern period and even to Ancient Rome, but under your logic, they now prove that socialism doesn't exist! Your words, not mine. Have fun running away from them even more! :lol:


I thought there was only one class under socialism?
You thought wrong. Maybe you can get the notes from another student in the class.


Maybe I should make myself more clear: is the DPRK's leadership accountable and instantly recallable to the proletariat?
The KWP is fully accountable to the proletariat.

http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/061st_issue/98091708.htm

Article 7, Chapter 1 should be of interest.


Yeah, the DPRK's a democracy. I just realized you were completely right all along! Who wants more crack?
The fact that you fail to understand the mechanics of proletarian democracy is not my problem. The vanguard party is run on a democratic basis, and is accountable to the larger Korean working class (see above). You've avoided this countless times, and it's about time you deal with it.


Sorry, but I'd rather not engage in pissing contests.
More intellectual dishonesty from RevLeft's resident friend of imperialist racism.

[Kassad]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2768303406_fe801ca48e.jpg

Consider this a verbal warning for... I don't even know what the fuck to warn you for, but this is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. Grow up.

[Chambered Word]

:lol: So you're admitting that you're too intellectually lazy to read the article you're defending. You've now managed to construct the most asinine argument made on RevLeft for some time. You'll defend it, even though you have absolutely NO idea what it contains.If you're going to ignore my rebuttals, I may as well ignore yours. Do you selectively choose what to read from my posts? :confused:


My argument is that the article is written by a capitalist, and is therefore naturally opposed to socialism as a matter of course. This is objectively true. Further, my argument is that the article is based on no useful facts, which is also objectively true. You'd understand this if you read the article, but you haven't.So now you're changing your argument?


In response to this, you shout objections from every which way, even though you have no idea what the article contains. So, in effect, you are very much defending imperialist lies. Thanks for tap-dancing around the issue once more.'You cannot call me out on my poor logic unless you have read the article'. How much sense does that make? Oh well, what should I expect from a pro-dictatorship anti-socialist? :rolleyes:


You wouldn't, because you're RevLeft's biggest defender of said racist article. Cowards and traitors.Explain how the part you quoted was racist, because right now you seem like the average Stalin-kiddie with a lefter-than-thou superiority complex.


:lol:Obviously you're lost. "Such elements", in isolation, do not make socialism. That was never my argument, but you tried to present my argument as such because you're intellectually dishonest.Oh, and I'm the one dancing around an issue? :lol:



Question to all the DPRK supporters here: Burma (or Myanmar) is ruled by a junta that has a strict control over the economy, even has some aspects of social planning. Yet this regime is rarely supported by North-Korea supporters despite the parallels between both junta regimes. What makes North-Korea qualitatively different and, more to the point, socialist?Has Myanmar collectivized production in both agriculture and industry? Is Myanmar under the direction of a revolutionary vanguard party, which has stood strong against imperialism in the darkest of hours many times over?

Myanmar doesn't have a universal healthcare system that doubled life expectancy. Myanmar doesn't set urban housing prices at .3% of a worker's salary. Myanmar doesn't have universal literacy. I could go on, but the point is that your comparison is nothing short of absurd once you encounter the most elementary of details.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?pag...s_iv_ctrl=1701 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6178&news_iv_ctrl=1701)

You seem to be backpedalling.

EDIT: By the way, maybe I should ask you how many of these 'socialist' elements does a state require to be considered 'socialist'?


My argument was that the Korean workers' abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a state under the control of the working class has resulted in progress for Korean workers in various categories. You haven't disputed any of that because your argument consists of a logic that would define Louis XIV as analogous to Mitterrand. :lol: Your argument is essentially that: "North Korea has healthcare, so it's like France! North Korea has a military, so it's like Myanmar!" Keep dancing, it just underlines how politically bankrupt you are (which is befitting for a friend of capitalist liars).I've already explained why this is a strawman argument and not what I argued at all (at least 2 posts ago :rolleyes:).


Brown is the color for ultra-nationalist racists. That's the color you're defending every time you voice support for the imperialist article that you haven't even read. ;)I've explained at least twice that I'm not necessarily voicing support for or defending the article, but you conveniently ignored me. :laugh:


It's not a strawman if that's exactly what you argued:

You seem to think collectivizing production, being under the direction of a 'revolutionary vanguard party', opposing imperialism, having a universal healthcare system, having low urban housing prices and universal literacy makes a country socialist. I called you out on that, because there are other countries that currently have some of these elements but probably would not be considered socialist by you. The point is, having these elements of a 'socialist' country does not necessarily make that country socialist.

"Some of these elements" being seen in non-socialist countries therefore makes the DPRK not socialist. That's precisely and directly what you're saying here. The problem, though is that "some of these elements" can be traced to the states of the early modern period and even to Ancient Rome, but under your logic, they now prove that socialism doesn't exist! Your words, not mine. Have fun running away from them even more! :lol:The point was that these elements don't make a socialist state on their own. You're still sidestepping my argument.


You thought wrong. Maybe you can get the notes from another student in the class.So now I know for sure that you're anti-working class scum, and I can end this discussion. Thanks alot for wasting my time. :thumbup1:


The KWP is fully accountable to the proletariat.

http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/061st_issue/98091708.htm

Article 7, Chapter 1 should be of interest.
The electors may recall the deputies they have elected if the latter are not to be trusted.

And when was this election?


More intellectual dishonesty from RevLeft's resident friend of imperialist racism.It's most amusing how I give some criticism of the DPRK and call you out on your silly arguments and now I'm suddenly the RevLeft imperialist racist! :lol:

Working yourself up a bit there?


Consider this a verbal warning for... I don't even know what the fuck to warn you for, but this is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. Grow up.

Fair enough. But in that case you may want to remove the image in your post.

[manic expression]

If you're going to ignore my rebuttals, I may as well ignore yours. Do you selectively choose what to read from my posts? :confused:
You're the only one doing that, but at least you're trying to think of new excuses.


So now you're changing your argument?
No, you're just misrepresenting it in different ways.


'You cannot call me out on my poor logic unless you have read the article'. How much sense does that make? Oh well, what should I expect from a pro-dictatorship anti-socialist? :rolleyes:
Logically, you're intellectually lazy. Thanks for proving that yet again. And further, you don't even know the racist tripe you're defending. Well done.


Explain how the part you quoted was racist, because right now you seem like the average Stalin-kiddie with a lefter-than-thou superiority complex.
If you read it with a shred of impartiality, you'd understand, but you're refusing to read it. That's the point. Keep defending racists, though.


You seem to be backpedalling.

EDIT: By the way, maybe I should ask you how many of these 'socialist' elements does a state require to be considered 'socialist'?
You seem to be ignoring the point: your argument is wholly illogical, and would have us classify Louis XIV with Mitterrand. Obviously, your argument is idiotic to the core.

One element: working-class control of the means of production and of society. The DPRK sees exactly that, as well as the other undeniable pillars of socialism that I've mentioned (and that you've ignored).


I've already explained why this is a strawman argument and not what I argued at all (at least 2 posts ago :rolleyes:).
Another sidestep from RevLeft's master of intellectual dishonesty.


I've explained at least twice that I'm not necessarily voicing support for or defending the article, but you conveniently ignored me. :laugh:
But you are defending the article, in all its bigotry. That's the only reason you're here, really.


The point was that these elements don't make a socialist state on their own. You're still sidestepping my argument.
The whole point is that those elements are not on their own. The DPRK does not contain "some of them" in isolation, as you have continuously claimed throughout your diatribes. The DPRK contains all the central pillars of socialism: working-class control of the means of production and of society, collectivized property and production, a vanguard party.


So now I know for sure that you're anti-working class scum, and I can end this discussion. Thanks alot for wasting my time. :thumbup1:
Says the friend of racist imperialism.


And when was this election?
Moving the goalposts again? I thought as much. You wanted to know if officials are subject to recall, and they are. Your ignorance


It's most amusing how I give some criticism of the DPRK and call you out on your silly arguments and now I'm suddenly the RevLeft imperialist racist! :lol:
Not for criticizing the DPRK, but for defending an article that calls North Koreans "ignorant dwarves". But if you want to stand with the imperialists, that's your choice.

[Sendo]

Not for criticizing the DPRK, but for defending an article that calls North Koreans "ignorant dwarves". But if you want to stand with the imperialists, that's your choice.

To that I would add slant-eyed, greasy, yellow, slope-headed, small-dicked, ignorant dwarves. Let's slap on some more stereotypes. Because it doesn't matter how many 6'3" ethnic Orientals/Easterners exist in real life, they're all hilariously pint-sized!

[Chambered Word]

One element: working-class control of the means of production and of society. The DPRK sees exactly that, as well as the other undeniable pillars of socialism that I've mentioned (and that you've ignored).


The whole point is that those elements are not on their own. The DPRK does not contain "some of them" in isolation, as you have continuously claimed throughout your diatribes. The DPRK contains all the central pillars of socialism: working-class control of the means of production and of society, collectivized property and production, a vanguard party.It doesn't, which I've pretty much proven by your reply when I asked you when these elections have actually taken place:


Moving the goalposts again? I thought as much. You wanted to know if officials are subject to recall, and they are. Your ignoranceAnd you continue to ignore everything I said, either out of stupidity or embarassment, and then accuse me of using excuses. :rolleyes:


Not for criticizing the DPRK, but for defending an article that calls North Koreans "ignorant dwarves". But if you want to stand with the imperialists, that's your choice.
To that I would add slant-eyed, greasy, yellow, slope-headed, small-dicked, ignorant dwarves. Let's slap on some more stereotypes. Because it doesn't matter how many 6'3" ethnic Orientals/Easterners exist in real life, they're all hilariously pint-sized!

I did catch some of the article that spoke of the racist attitudes the author experienced from North Korean people; that and the fact that they're supposedly malnourished (due to the food shortages) was probably why they were called 'ignorant dwarves'. If we interpret it this way, however, you'll be forced to get off your arse and actually issue proper rebuttals to the article instead of just dismissing it. 'HURR DURR YOU'RE JUST DEFENDING THE ARTICLE' etc, because anyone who disagrees with your awful grasp of logic is just pushing an agenda. ;)

In my opinion you've proven yourself to be utterly irrational and anti-workerist.

[Sendo]

It doesn't matter why it was said, it's racist:

The North Koreans are underdeveloped and ignorant
vs
ignorant dwarves.

It obviously wasn't meant to be dwarfism the genetic condition, but rather a harsh slang for someone who might be called a midget. If I called teens in 19th century England pitiful dwarves, I think more people would be like "what? Dwarves" than "this is hyberbole for growth-stunted children laborers".

Koreans are dwarves, Chinese are mindless hordes, etc. It's the same racist propaganda that allows us to conflate leaders with their peoples and make the Cultural evolution to be a phenomenon where 1 billion people lost all "reason" and "went mad" or whatever BS is spewed.

[manic expression]

It doesn't, which I've pretty much proven by your reply when I asked you when these elections have actually taken place:
The process is in place. Simply because its usage isn't published in English on the internet means nothing. But nice try.


And you continue to ignore everything I said, either out of stupidity or embarassment, and then accuse me of using excuses. :rolleyes:
The only one dodging arguments is you, the fact that you've failed to address the majority of what I posted is more proof of your intellectual dishonesty.


I did catch some of the article that spoke of the racist attitudes the author experienced from North Korean people; that and the fact that they're supposedly malnourished (due to the food shortages) was probably why they were called 'ignorant dwarves'. If we interpret it this way, however, you'll be forced to get off your arse and actually issue proper rebuttals to the article instead of just dismissing it. 'HURR DURR YOU'RE JUST DEFENDING THE ARTICLE' etc, because anyone who disagrees with your awful grasp of logic is just pushing an agenda. ;)
You are defending the imperialist article, because you're a friend of imperialism. And you are defending racism because you're making paper-thin excuses for a wholly bigoted mischaracterization of the people of the DPRK. But it's good to know that you think North Koreans are "ignorant dwarves", it makes sense because you hate socialism.


In my opinion you've proven yourself to be utterly irrational and anti-workerist.
That opinion comes from a friend of racist imperialism, so it doesn't bother me too much.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

They should both be destroyed and everyone willing following these regimes should be smacked in the face.
Ergo: anarchism is counterrevolutionary, this proves everything.

[Chambered Word]

The process is in place. Simply because its usage isn't published in English on the internet means nothing. But nice try.

Yeah because English is a pretty obscure language.


The only one dodging arguments is you, the fact that you've failed to address the majority of what I posted is more proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

The majority of what you posted did not address anything. Could be why it wasn't actually proof of anything. You know, mostly being strawman arguments or arguments repeated ad nauseam even when they have been refuted and all...


You are defending the imperialist article, because you're a friend of imperialism. And you are defending racism because you're making paper-thin excuses for a wholly bigoted mischaracterization of the people of the DPRK. But it's good to know that you think North Koreans are "ignorant dwarves", it makes sense because you hate socialism.Every word you type, I laugh harder. Oh yes, us reactionary critics of the DPRK, we all hate socialism and your freedoms and we step on cute little kittens with our big jackboots. We'll probably eat your kids for good measure as well. Seriously, learn to read. :rolleyes:


That opinion comes from a friend of racist imperialism, so it doesn't bother me too much.Cool story bro. Don't expect me to reply to any of your drivel in the future. :)

[manic expression]

Yeah because English is a pretty obscure language.
In Korea, it actually is. And even if it wasn't, it means nothing because the DPRK doesn't cater its policies to the English-speaking world. But being a friend of racist imperialism, I could see why you insist on the superiority of English over Korean.


The majority of what you posted did not address anything.
Except the fact that you have no argument other than your support for imperialism.


Cool story bro. Don't expect me to reply to any of your drivel in the future. :)
You haven't replied to my arguments once, because you're an intellectually dishonest friend of racist imperialism.

[hardlinecommunist]

I wll not cast a vote in this poll because i feel that it is is wrong to put Cuba and the DPRK North Korea aganist each other Cuba and the DPRK are both fraternal Sister Socilaist States who have a long history of good and friendly fraternal relations with each other Comrade Kim IL Sung was a Great Supporter of the Cuban Revolution from the very frist days of Socialist Cuba and in his speeches and writings he would always refer to Cuba as the frist victorious Socialist Revolution in the Americas and he held Comrade Fidel Castro and Che Guevara in the highest regard and they in turn held Comrade Kim IL Sung and the DPRK in the highest regard as well.