Most N.Korean Defectors Come from N.Hamgyong Province

[The Vegan Marxist]

Surprisingly, this article by the right-wing Chosun Ilbo sheds some light on the NKorean defections towards SKorea. Here, it states that 7/10 defectors come from North Hamgyong Province, the strict border access with China. Whereas, the others come from North Pyongan Province, another border access with China, just a lot less strict.

For the longest time, we've been told that defections are made because of "starvation, economic downfall, or escaped prison". Instead, what we have are people defecting from areas that are militarily stricter than everywhere else throughout NKorea.

We can now show exactly why the defections are needing to be somewhat blamed on U.S./SKorean aggression. Without that aggression, there'd be no need of a strict military border whatsoever!


Most N.Korean Defectors Come from N.Hamgyong Province
May 16, 2011

Seven out of 10 North Koreans who defected to South Korea are from North Hamgyong Province on the border with China, or 13,583 of over 20,000 people. Yet only 2.9 percent come from North Pyongan Province, which also borders China.

The stark contrast has something to do with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's paranoia. "Security is tight at the border near Sinuiju in North Pyongan Province, where Kim's armored train passes through, but relatively loose in North Hamgyong Province," said Lee Young-hwan of activist group Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights.

Women make up 68.8 percent of North Korean defectors in the South. "From the 2000s, the Chinese government carried out massive raids on places like logging camps where men who escaped from North Korea used to hide, but women remained invisible because they worked as maids or prostitutes," a defector said.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/05/16/2011051600998.html

nb4 reactionary anti-DPRKists sabotage this thread.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It also shows the illusion that a better life is elsewhere away from NKorea. Where women are not sold as prostitutes and is seen as an equal throughout NKorea, once they defect, the contrary takes place.

[hatzel]

people defecting from areas that are militarily stricter than everywhere else throughout NKorea

...except for the fact that the article says that the 7/10 come from the province where security is less tight, and only 2,9% from where it is tight...which is kind of the complete opposite of what you just said there...

[agnixie]

It also shows the illusion that a better life is elsewhere away from NKorea. Where women are not sold as prostitutes and is seen as an equal throughout NKorea, once they defect, the contrary takes place.

After the green book and Baath, TVM repeats his exploits by defending Juche. :rolleyes:

And by not reading his own sources.
For his next trick, he will explain how the military nationalist regime in North Korea, which even Hoxha thought was absolutely insane, is, in fact, marxism in action.

[Leftie]

It also shows the illusion that a better life is elsewhere away from NKorea. Where women are not sold as prostitutes and is seen as an equal throughout NKorea, once they defect, the contrary takes place.

Okay then, go live in North Korea?

Send us a postcard :rolleyes:

If the DPRK was a nice place to live, there wouldn't be any defectors would there?

You're not honestly blaming the defections on South Korean aggression?

Kim is an autocrat and that is all.

[danyboy27]

Its not really surprising that the defectors came from the border province.

you need authorisation has a citizen to move trought certain north korean provinces.

[RadioRaheem84]

Okay then, go live in North Korea?

Don't descend to that.

Just critique his position.

[The Vegan Marxist]

...except for the fact that the article says that the 7/10 come from the province where security is less tight, and only 2,9% from where it is tight...which is kind of the complete opposite of what you just said there...

haha, thanks for catching that.

And yes, to those who say "If you love it so much, why don't you just live there!?" Seriously? You resort to that as your "critique"? You're a moron.

Thanks though to Rabbi for pointing that out. I must've misread it by accident. :blushing:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Without that aggression, there'd be no need of a strict military border whatsoever!

But the DPRK rulers have turned necessity into virtue in order to prop up and strengthen their rule. Of course "the primacy of the national army" has absolutely nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class.

[PhoenixAsh]

So...another interesting part about this article is its the border with China...which does not allow refugees apparantly...but this also caught my attention:

but women remained invisible because they worked as maids or prostitutes," a defector said.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I find it interesting that most people here resort to hostility rather than actually critiquing my error. I simply misread the article, and what do people do? Become hostile. Reason why I prefer Rabbi's response.

[graymouser]

If the DPRK was a nice place to live, there wouldn't be any defectors would there?
North Korea is a country that has been facing outright economic depression for two decades. People flee from poverty - it's why there are so many Mexicans in the United States, you know. This is really an unworthy argument for someone proclaiming themselves a revolutionary leftist.

Of course, orthodox Trotskyists regard the DPRK as a deformed workers' state; perhaps the most viciously deformed of the lot. And we view international socialism as a necessity, precisely the opposite of the juche idea that the DPRK's rulers have put forth, making autarky a virtue. But that means that revolutionaries should defend the state from imperialist aggression. Kim Jong-Il and his coterie are for the Korean workers to settle accounts with, and no one else.

[HEAD ICE]

hey TVM, Karl Kautsky called and wanted me to tell you that he thought your posts are, in his words, "TRASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/445703/jurassic-park-hammond-o.gif

[The Vegan Marxist]

hey TVM, Karl Kautsky called and wanted me to tell you that he thought your posts are, in his words, "TRASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/445703/jurassic-park-hammond-o.gif

Ahhh, the usual RevLefter. Instead of an honest critique and/or debate, Stagger here resorts to nothing but pure, what was that again...oh yeah, trash.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think there are two observations to be made about North Korea.

* The system is horrible....

* This is also caused and worsened by the isolationism imposed on the country by the US, Japan, S.Korea...the military pressure...and the boycot and economic sanctions.


The political and economic situation in North Korea did not develop in a vacuum. Nobody, not even the most strongly opposed to teh N. Korean state should forget that simple truth. I do not like the DPRK at all. I have strong criticism against it. I think its authoritarian, non socialist, militarized dictatorship which actually oppresses and brainwashes the workers and all its citizens. BUT that can not be taken out of its social and historical global context.


This article however neither proves nor disproves this...it offers no further analysis than pointing to the supposed psychological status of the countries leader. It does however shine some light on interesting issues:


Most people flee through China to South Korea.
China does not allow Refugees...instead of helping they are hunting....which leads to the following: women are exploited in China because they lack protective judicial status as refugees.

[Imposter Marxist]

North Korea is a country that has been facing outright economic depression for two decades. People flee from poverty - it's why there are so many Mexicans in the United States, you know. This is really an unworthy argument for someone proclaiming themselves a revolutionary leftist.

Of course, orthodox Trotskyists regard the DPRK as a deformed workers' state; perhaps the most viciously deformed of the lot. And we view international socialism as a necessity, precisely the opposite of the juche idea that the DPRK's rulers have put forth, making autarky a virtue. But that means that revolutionaries should defend the state from imperialist aggression. Kim Jong-Il and his coterie are for the Korean workers to settle accounts with, and no one else.

Marcyite! ;)

[pranabjyoti]

But the DPRK rulers have turned necessity into virtue in order to prop up and strengthen their rule. Of course "the primacy of the national army" has absolutely nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class.
In that case, I want to propose to build up an international army to defend DPRK. If we see that after that, the rules are still in same level strict as before, then I will certainly agree to the criticism of DPRK made by NHIA and others. If not, then .........

[Heathen Communist]

The Kim regime is reactionary. How can the workers of the world unite if your borders are sealed off from the rest of the world?

[KC]

I think it would be interesting for TVM to clarify his position on the matter. Does he, as Manic Expression does, believe that North Korean elections are legitimate, with 99% of the country voting to uphold the current regime, even during the years of the famine? Does he think that, as North Koreans died of starvation and malnutrition, they fully supported allocation of national funds towards fighter jets as opposed to food? Did they deem themselves necessary sacrifices for the socialist fatherland?

As for the claim that the DPRK is under constant threat from the international community to destroy it, what does one make of aid to the country, either from South Korea, Japan or the United States (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21834.pdf)? What of domestic food production? Why hasn't the regime attempted to engage in more widespread trade with the outside world, (as this is what countries do to avert a famine) instead of becoming dependent on these states for aid?

[Tim Finnegan]

It also shows the illusion that a better life is elsewhere away from NKorea. Where women are not sold as prostitutes and is seen as an equal throughout NKorea, once they defect, the contrary takes place.
Over two million people died in the famine during the 1990s. Don't know about you, but that rates in as a "Pretty Fucking Bad" on the "How Bad Is It?" scale for me.

Oh, and the "not sold as prostitutes" and "seen as equal" bits? Both bullshit. North Korean society is heavily patriarchal in the Confucian tradition, and prostitution has become quite common since the breakdown of industry, very often with party officials and military officers acting as pimps. I know that you've got your little list of utopian assumption about any country flying a more-or-less-reddish flag, but, really, do a bit of research before you go flapping yer lips.


Of course, orthodox Trotskyists regard the DPRK as a deformed workers' state; perhaps the most viciously deformed of the lot. And we view international socialism as a necessity, precisely the opposite of the juche idea that the DPRK's rulers have put forth, making autarky a virtue. But that means that revolutionaries should defend the state from imperialist aggression. Kim Jong-Il and his coterie are for the Korean workers to settle accounts with, and no one else.
Lucky for you, then, that the South has begun turning the now rather desperate North into an economic colony- it's amazing how cheap manufacturing wages are in a half-starved backwater- which will in all likelihood lead to the erosion of an autonomous North Korean state and the emergency of a quasi-colonial military authority, thus saving the "orthodox Trotskyists" of having to defend a rancid, racial-supremacist despotate for any longer than is- apparently- necessary. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[KC]

Over two million people died in the famine during the 1990s. Don't know about you, but that rate's in as a "Pretty Fucking Bad" on the "How Bad Is It?" scale for me.

AFAIK that's among the worst famines in modern history (if not the worst) if you go by percentage of population killed off.

[pranabjyoti]

The Kim regime is reactionary. How can the workers of the world unite if your borders are sealed off from the rest of the world?
I don' think he isn't that level of idiot to stop an international brigade who are coming to defend DPRK. But, the question it we first have to take the initiative and then see the reaction from the rulers of DPRK.

[graymouser]

Lucky for you, then, that the South has begun turning the now rather desperate North into an economic colony- it's amazing how cheap manufacturing wages are in a half-starved backwater- which will in all likelihood lead to the erosion of an autonomous North Korean state and the emergency of a quasi-colonial military authority, thus saving the "orthodox Trotskyists" of having to defend a rancid, racial-supremacist despotate for any longer than is- apparently- necessary. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif
The historical pattern has been that deformed workers' states only get worse for the majority of their people when they revert to capitalism. While such economic colonization may mean the end of desperate hunger and rolling blackouts for some of North Korea, it would still be subject to desperate poverty.

As far as defending regimes against US attacks, one of the main differences between Marcyism and Trotskyism is that Trotskyists draw a line where we don't offer actual political support for regimes, we only refuse to support hostility toward them or, in the case of deformed workers' states, capitalist restoration. We have no love for the Kim dynasty, but feel that it's more important in imperialist countries to put forward the line that we are totally against US war or other intervention there.

[Sir Comradical]

Cuba sits so close to the United States and yet they're no way near as authoritarian as the DPRK. So no, I don't buy that the DPRK does all of this out of necessity and capitalist encirclement.

[dernier combat]

In that case, I want to propose to build up an international army to defend DPRK.
I was thinking for you paranbjyoti, maybe a frontline position? To defend the socialist fatherland, of course.

No but seriously. I don't know whether what you said was intended as sarcasm or whatever, since emotion and tone of any kind doesn't really translate well over the internet, but just so you know that's a fucking ridiculous idea. Judging by the ridiculous nature of some of your other posts however, I wouldn't be surprised if you genuinely supported such an army.

[Rooster]

I wonder what would have happened if someone used this article as evidence against North Korea? Would it have been deemed imperialist propaganda by people like TVM?

[Sasha]

Cuba sits so close to the United States and yet they're no way near as authoritarian as the DPRK. So no, I don't buy that the DPRK does all of this out of necessity and capitalist encirclement.

ofcourse not, an cultivated siege mentality is essential to keep an cult together, not much different whether its an family size cult, an jim jones size cult, an Scientology size cult or an whole nation. the mechanics are the same.

some analysis on the causes, drawbacks and benefits of siege mentality, explicitly mentioning NK/juche: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/siege_mentality/

[caramelpence]

It also shows the illusion that a better life is elsewhere away from NKorea. Where women are not sold as prostitutes and is seen as an equal throughout NKorea, once they defect, the contrary takes place.

Don't you defend China as well? Yes, North Korean refugees do have to work as prostitutes and in similar roles and they also have to keep a low profile and try and mix into the Korean communities that live in northeastern China, because if the Chinese government catches them and finds out that they're actually North Korean refugees then they get deported back to North Korea and are obviously subject to harsh punishments once they get there. What does that kind of treatment say about the Chinese government? Not to mention China's support for the expansion of SEZs in the DPRK. Incidentally, if, as you say, the presence of strict border controls is due to US or South Korean aggression, then why would this necessitate a strong military presence in some areas of North Korea's northern border, given that the northern border is adjacent to China, who you presumably see as North Korea's glorious socialist ally? Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that the strong military presence in that area is there because the Chinese and Russian borders present valuable opportunities for escape, and that escapes occur because the military presence is nonetheless uneven, with some sections of the Yalu River having a greater troop concentration than others? I remember reading from a refugee account (and no, I don't think their faultless or even valuable as a source of information) that the choice of which part of the river to cross over was based on a combination of where the river was widest and fastest at a given time of year and how spaced-out border posts were in different areas, which sheds some light on the sources of refugees.

For the record, I don't think you can analyze North Korea through models like totalitarianism (in fact, I'm generally suspect of social science models of that kind) and I'm also hesitant to view the whole of North Korean society as one big cult. My dominant impression based on the little we know about North Korea is that the state does not function with the degree of efficiency and hegemony that totalitarian regimes are supposed to exhibit, rather, there are clashes of interest groups, and there is also a great deal of ad-hoc decision-making and crisis management, rather than the steady or controlled implementation of long-term plans. In the area of economic planning in particular, the position of individual enterprises is such that they often have to order more of a given input than they actually need to fulfill their quota simply because the inadequacy of the economy and the planning system is such that they will almost always get less of what they ask for, so it is hoped that by providing a large estimate, the amount they receive will be appropriate for their actual requirements, at least for a particular production cycle.

[Tim Finnegan]

The historical pattern has been that deformed workers' states only get worse for the majority of their people when they revert to capitalism. While such economic colonization may mean the end of desperate hunger and rolling blackouts for some of North Korea, it would still be subject to desperate poverty.
Not to suggest any particular sympathy for capitalism, but I honestly think that this may be the one scenario in which it really is a step up. I wouldn't've said that in 1991, but in the last couple of decades the bloated, grotesque bureaucracy of the Kim regime has proven itself to be spectacularly incapable of being able to even consistently feed, house and clothe its citizens without external intervention, so there's not any sort of "iron rice bowl" to defend here, as could be claimed of the former USSR and so forth.
For most North Koreans, rock bottom was hit- hard- in the mid 1990s, when around a tenth of the population dropped dead, and most of what was left spend years languishing in severe malnutrition. I doubt that they'll shed even the slightest tear for what the ruling priest-bureaucracy presumes to call a workers' state.


As far as defending regimes against US attacks, one of the main differences between Marcyism and Trotskyism is that Trotskyists draw a line where we don't offer actual political support for regimes, we only refuse to support hostility toward them or, in the case of deformed workers' states, capitalist restoration. We have no love for the Kim dynasty, but feel that it's more important in imperialist countries to put forward the line that we are totally against US war or other intervention there.
Fair point.

[Ocean Seal]

nb4 reactionary anti-DPRKists sabotage this thread.
Umm, wut?

[pranabjyoti]

I was thinking for you paranbjyoti, maybe a frontline position? To defend the socialist fatherland, of course.

No but seriously. I don't know whether what you said was intended as sarcasm or whatever, since emotion and tone of any kind doesn't really translate well over the internet, but just so you know that's a fucking ridiculous idea. Judging by the ridiculous nature of some of your other posts however, I wouldn't be surprised if you genuinely supported such an army.
Well, I have a habit of thinking "out of the box" which some so-called "practical pragmatists" can consider "ridiculous". But, I don't care about that. But, at least I want to inform you that I AM SERIOUS in this regard.

[agnixie]

Umm, wut?

I figure reactionary anti-Juche would be fascists who think Juche isn't extreme enough or something.

[Thirsty Crow]

In that case, I want to propose to build up an international army to defend DPRK.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous propositions made here, ever.
Line up to get blown away, all for the defense of a reactionary regime. Fabulous.


Well, I have a habit of thinking "out of the box" which some so-called "practical pragmatists" can consider "ridiculous". But, I don't care about that. But, at least I want to inform you that I AM SERIOUS in this regard.
I don't doubt you being serious. That's what is really precious.
And by "out of the box", you mean thinking about sending workers and the poor to get slaughtered? Well, out of the box it surely is, but the "box" is, in this case, any kind of human faculty which might be called "reason".

[pranabjyoti]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous propositions made here, ever.
Line up to get blown away, all for the defense of a reactionary regime. Fabulous.


I don't doubt you being serious. That's what is really precious.
And by "out of the box", you mean thinking about sending workers and the poor to get slaughtered? Well, out of the box it surely is, but the "box" is, in this case, any kind of human faculty which might be called "reason".
You want to mean that we must never face imperialist forces because that means being "blown away". World's great superpowers would be very happy with your argument.
To me (and many others), standing against imperialism is reason enough, though it may seem "not enough" for people like you.

[RedHal]

Cuba sits so close to the United States and yet they're no way near as authoritarian as the DPRK. So no, I don't buy that the DPRK does all of this out of necessity and capitalist encirclement.

big difference, the Korean war, and the constant war excercises by the US, S Korea and Japan. Cuba does not face the same military threat like the DPRK.

[Tim Finnegan]

big difference, the Korean war, and the constant war excercises by the US, S Korea and Japan. Cuba does not face the same military threat like the DPRK.
Right, because it's not as if Cuba is less than one hundred miles of the American mainland. Why, if Washington ever wanted to invade, they'd be helpless to get troops across in, say, about an hour. No, no, it would take at least an hour and a half, no doubt about it, and that quite clearly makes all the difference... :rolleyes:

[KC]

Right, because it's not as if Cuba is less than one hundred miles of the American mainland. Why, if Washington ever wanted to invade, they'd be helpless to get troops across in, say, about an hour. No, no, it would take at least an hour and a half, no doubt about it, and that quite clearly makes all the difference... :rolleyes:

Another difference: RoK/US/Japan prepare for a DPRK invasion because the DPRK has actually done so in the past, and threatened to do so numerous times. Cuba, afaik, has never threatened to invade the United States.

[VeritablyV]

I always found it odd that Cuba wasn't attacked, I mean other than attempted coups. I imagine it may be partially because they're so close but yet I don't really think Cuba, as a military presence, would be able to invade U.S. that much lol.

Any thoughts?

[Tommy4ever]

I always found it odd that Cuba wasn't attacked, I mean other than attempted coups. I imagine it may be partially because they're so close but yet I don't really think Cuba, as a military presence, would be able to invade U.S. that much lol.

Any thoughts?

Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[manic expression]

Another difference: RoK/US/Japan prepare for a DPRK invasion because the DPRK has actually done so in the past, and threatened to do so numerous times. Cuba, afaik, has never threatened to invade the United States.
Ah, so imperialism is the good guy, just trying to defend itself. :rolleyes:

People here are forgetting that the DPRK is still at war with the US and RoK. Not metaphorically, not ideologically, but actually in a state of war. I freely admit that the example of Cuba is nothing short of superb, but just because the DPRK sees a different application and defense of socialism doesn't mean it should be condemned. It means, on the contrary, that the DPRK deserves the support of all socialists.

[caramelpence]

Ah, so imperialism is the good guy, just trying to defend itself. :rolleyes:

People here are forgetting that the DPRK is still at war with the US and RoK. Not metaphorically, not ideologically, but actually in a state of war. I freely admit that the example of Cuba is nothing short of superb, but just because the DPRK sees a different application and defense of socialism doesn't mean it should be condemned. It means, on the contrary, that the DPRK deserves the support of all socialists.

I don't think anyone would object to the view that socialist societies need to be defended, the concern is whether the DPRK and/or Cuba are actually socialist societies, and whether a socialist society can exist for any long period of time when surrounded by capitalist states. What makes you think that the DPRK is socialist?

[manic expression]

To be brief, the absence of generalized commodity production, the political construction of the vanguard party.

[Reznov]

haha, thanks for catching that.

And yes, to those who say "If you love it so much, why don't you just live there!?" Seriously? You resort to that as your "critique"? You're a moron.

Thanks though to Rabbi for pointing that out. I must've misread it by accident. :blushing:

And don't answer that posters response and just call him a moron (Kind of ironic, since you can't even get your own facts straight before you post a thread.)

He was trying to prove his point that the DPRK is run by an Autocrat, and that is the real reason why North Korea has defectors.

[KC]

Ah, so imperialism is the good guy, just trying to defend itself. :rolleyes:

People here are forgetting that the DPRK is still at war with the US and RoK. Not metaphorically, not ideologically, but actually in a state of war. I freely admit that the example of Cuba is nothing short of superb, but just because the DPRK sees a different application and defense of socialism doesn't mean it should be condemned. It means, on the contrary, that the DPRK deserves the support of all socialists.

When a state perceives another to be an imminent military threat they prepare for the possibility of it happening. The reason they perform war-games is because they're still technically at war and North Korea has shown aggression numerous times over the past couple of decades to RoK and Japan.

The only way you could believe what you do is if you hold a delusional position that the DPRK hasn't and can do no wrong and that they're always victims, which holds absolutely no water.

[Rooster]

Right, because it's not as if Cuba is less than one hundred miles of the American mainland. Why, if Washington ever wanted to invade, they'd be helpless to get troops across in, say, about an hour. No, no, it would take at least an hour and a half, no doubt about it, and that quite clearly makes all the difference... :rolleyes:

I know this is getting off topic, what ever that was, but the Americans already have a military base in Cuba...

[Demogorgon]

When a state perceives another to be an imminent military threat they prepare for the possibility of it happening. The reason they perform war-games is because they're still technically at war and North Korea has shown aggression numerous times over the past couple of decades to RoK and Japan.

The only way you could believe what you do is if you hold a delusional position that the DPRK hasn't and can do no wrong and that they're always victims, which holds absolutely no water.
Not to mention, the chances of those three countries actually going to war with North Korea without North Korea seeking it are pretty remote. In the case of Japan and South Korean, the reason is obvious, both countries have developed a high standard of living that would be jeopardised by a major war on their door step not to mention-in Japan's case-so much as hinting you want a war ends your political career and-in South Korea-not acting in a manner seen as favourable towards "reconciliation" does likewise. America too has good reasons not to go to war. For one it doesn't want to threaten Japan and South Korea and for another it is already rather tied up elsewhere and would prefer not to be seen to retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The notion that North Korea is under some kind of imminent threat is just an excuse. There is nothing for America or its allies to gain in North Korea that could not be gained more readily elsewhere and at much less risk. Unless you see these countries as cartoon villains out to do things for the sole purpose of being bad, they will not seek to attack North Korea when it is so much easier simply to isolate it.

Even if you believe that America would invade a country simply because it terms itself "Communist" (or rather used to in North Korea's case), the notion that the first choice would not be Cuba borders on the absurd.

[manic expression]

When a state perceives another to be an imminent military threat they prepare for the possibility of it happening. The reason they perform war-games is because they're still technically at war and North Korea has shown aggression numerous times over the past couple of decades to RoK and Japan.

The only way you could believe what you do is if you hold a delusional position that the DPRK hasn't and can do no wrong and that they're always victims, which holds absolutely no water.
If you've paid any attention, the DPRK has constantly and consistently made efforts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451114.stm) to bring about a peace treaty. Requests for negotiations on the subject have been denied...by the imperialists.

Your idea that "North Korea" is the aggressor is outright ludicrous. Any glance at a history book will disprove such a sympathetic view of imperialist belligerence.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't think anyone would object to the view that socialist societies need to be defended, the concern is whether the DPRK and/or Cuba are actually socialist societies, and whether a socialist society can exist for any long period of time when surrounded by capitalist states. What makes you think that the DPRK is socialist?
To put it in bullshit pseudo-mathematical goobledigook:

Flag^DPRK > 0.5(red) .'. Socialism

Is basically what it boils down to.

[KC]

If you've paid any attention, the DPRK has constantly and consistently made efforts (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451114.stm) to bring about a peace treaty. Requests for negotiations on the subject have been denied...by the imperialists.That is because on the one hand they act conciliationist and then they start warmongering to support the delivery of food aid (which in the case of your article specifically took a measly 4 months). This is a typical ploy they have used over the past couple of decades to convince western governments and NGO's to send food aid.


Your idea that "North Korea" is the aggressor is outright ludicrous. Any glance at a history book will disprove such a sympathetic view of imperialist belligerence.I'm not being like you, I recognize that there has been conflict stemming from both sides, the only way you can hold the view you do is if the DPRK is a complete victim, which it has not, which has been proven by its actions against the DPRK/Japan over the past few decades.

What are your feelings on the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858? Or the Axe Murder Incident? Surely they must have been imperialist conspiracies like the sinking of the Chenoan or the bombing of Yeonpeong Island?

[manic expression]

That is because on the one hand they act conciliationist and then they start warmongering to support the delivery of food aid (which in the case of your article specifically took a measly 4 months). This is a typical ploy they have used over the past couple of decades to convince western governments and NGO's to send food aid.
The calls for a peace treaty are constant and consistent. The imperialists are the ones who begin the warmongering (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/09/content_10973989.htm). The DPRK has no choice but to respond in order to defend the interests of the workers and its people.

But yeah, US imperialism is just so sweet and nice that they wouldn't heighten tensions and provoke the DPRK. :rolleyes:


I'm not being like you, I recognize that there has been conflict stemming from both sides, the only way you can hold the view you do is if the DPRK is a complete victim, which it has not, which has been proven by its actions against the DPRK/Japan over the past few decades.No, you're turning a blind eye to Washington's aggression and then casting DPRK self-defense measures as the real culprit. It's typical pro-imperialist argumentation, befitting your role as an opponent of socialism.


What are your feelings on the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858? Or the Axe Murder Incident? Surely they must have been imperialist conspiracies like the sinking of the Chenoan or the bombing of Yeonpeong Island?I don't agree with it at all (Flight 858), and in fact I strongly criticize it, but we can't forget that the DPRK faces imperialist terrorism every day. As for the axe incident, it seemed to be a confrontation in the DMZ, one that the DPRK leadership found regrettable...hardly evidence of aggressionist DPRK policy.

[andyok]

I'm not being like you, I recognize that there has been conflict stemming from both sides, the only way you can hold the view you do is if the DPRK is a complete victim, which it has not, which has been proven by its actions against the DPRK/Japan over the past few decades.


The situation can't be analyzed as a conflict between DPRK/Japan/RK, which has stemmed from "both sides." These nations don't exist in a bubble. The conflict flows from the system of world imperialism and specifically the history of imperialist war against Korea, which killed 2 million Koreans and destroyed 90% of the infrastructure of the north, and is to this day still not technically over. This history, along with decades of imperialist encirclement since, is the basis for the conflict today.

[KC]

the history of imperialist war against Korea, which killed 2 million Koreans and destroyed 90% of the infrastructure of the north

North Korea invaded the south.

[Demogorgon]

North Korea invaded the south.
Oh no doubt, that's all imperialist lies and the whole history of the Korean conflict has been fabricated.

I have to wonder just what it would take to convince these people that North Korea is perhaps not the wonderful example of socialism they think it is.

[KC]

I have to wonder just what it would take to convince these people that North Korea is perhaps not the wonderful example of socialism they think it is.Just listen how manic downplays North Korean state terrorism:


I don't agree with it at all (Flight 858), and in fact I strongly criticize it, but we can't forget that the DPRK faces imperialist terrorism every day. As for the axe incident, it seemed to be a confrontation in the DMZ, one that the DPRK leadership found regrettable...hardly evidence of aggressionist DPRK policy.

This is the delusion perpetrated by imperialists regarding Posada, or the atrocities in Iraq. "A few bad apples" and whatnot.

Then you have this loon claiming that the Korean War was due to imperialist intervention, which I guess is right in the sense that if international powers hadn't gotten involved all those people wouldn't have died because the invasion would have been a cakewalk and Korea would simply be unified under the DPRK (which I'm sure they would have supported).

Basically, nothing. Their entire worldview depends on it.

Oh and of course, anyone that even gives a hint of reality is an imperialist. They love making their own strawmen against which to fight because, again, their worldview depends on everything being black and white, you either support the DPRK or you're an imperialist:


But yeah, US imperialism is just so sweet and nice that they wouldn't heighten tensions and provoke the DPRK. :rolleyes:

Because that's what I was arguing, right? :rolleyes:

[andyok]

Then you have this loon claiming that the Korean War was due to imperialist intervention, which I guess is right in the sense that if international powers hadn't gotten involved all those people wouldn't have died because the invasion would have been a cakewalk and Korea would simply be unified under the DPRK (which I'm sure they would have supported).


North Korea was liberated from the legacy of Japanese occupation/colonialism by Koreans. South Korea remained unliberated because a US puppet, Syngman Rhee, was installed in the south against the wishes of the Koreans who lived there. Indeed, the people of the south waged a massive armed struggle to overthrow this puppet regime and in the course of this struggle the Rhee government killed between 30,000 and 100,000 leftist insurgents (Korea: The Unknown War, Viking Press, 1988). Its also important to remember that Korea had a history of hundreds of years of unity, and that no Koreans at the time felt that a partition of their country was acceptable.

The government in the South was not a representation of the Korean people. It was right for the North to invade and try to unify Korea into an independent nation not enthralled to the United States or capitalism.

[Tim Finnegan]

North Korea was liberated from the legacy of Japanese occupation/colonialism by Koreans.
You misspelled "Russians".

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

It shouldn't be forgotten that even during the war like tensions in Korea, The DPRK still allows for SEZ's with the South Korean government in which North Korean workers operate as those who perform labor for the ROK at a rate lower than South Korean workers. They allow for these type of practices with other states as well, its a strange form of Internationalism. :lol:

1.) Indeed the DPRK however did invade the South, their goal was to reunite the two Korea's, I believe a rationale that could explain this is that if the North didn't invade the South, the South would in the end invade the North. However, its pointless to use this logic, as the South required a grassroots movement in order to build their own Socialist Revolution, which the North didn't even have, as the DPRK was the direct result of Stalin's USSR as opposed to being the foundation of the people of Korea. (Which the Vietnamese Revolution and later reunification was)
2. While Imperialism should not be allowed to operate in the DPRK, it should also be focused that supporting the DPRK isn't the solution, if we are to support an oppressive State-Capitalist state that represents the Bourgeoisie and even disregards all Marxist thinking, then the Working Class interest isn't be pushed forward. Only the goal of allowing for these type of states are being pushed forward that don't represent the Working Class.

Its unsurprising though that there are defectors, as-- The DPRK is effectively a State-Capitalist fortress with extremely authoritarian policies, Marxism completely disregarded and the leadership massively consolidated and not representing the proletariat.

[Decommissioner]

You want to mean that we must never face imperialist forces because that means being "blown away". World's great superpowers would be very happy with your argument.
To me (and many others), standing against imperialism is reason enough, though it may seem "not enough" for people like you.

The imperialist machine will be ground to a halt when the workers stop working for the imperialists. The idea of sending an army after the "imperialists" just seems unnecessary. Who will command this army? Who will the army decide to attack and defend? Capitalist powers can fight an army with armies of their own, but they cant do that if workers stop working for capitalists...at which point it would defeat the purpose of forming an army in the first place.

[pranabjyoti]

The imperialist machine will be ground to a halt when the workers stop working for the imperialists. The idea of sending an army after the "imperialists" just seems unnecessary. Who will command this army? Who will the army decide to attack and defend? Capitalist powers can fight an army with armies of their own, but they cant do that if workers stop working for capitalists...at which point it would defeat the purpose of forming an army in the first place.
So far, the German workers haven't stopped working for the Nazi's and if we have to follow your proposed way, most likely a large section of the world would be under the Nazi's. As per your suggestion, instead of fighting an armed struggle with the US invaders, Vietnamese people should just appeal of US workers to stop feeding the US war machinery.:lol:

[caramelpence]

Vietnamese people should just appeal of US workers to stop feeding the US war machinery.

No-one said this, the objection was to your infantile posturing and supporting for a "revolutionary army" comprised of socialists from other countries. Putting aside the issue of whether the DPRK should be defended, when Western leftists like Tariq Ali or Cathy Wilkerson went to Vietnam or to liaison stations in Cambodia in the 1960s in order to learn about the armed struggle and report back to broader constituencies at home, they were explicitly told by the Vietnamese that they should not form international brigades, due to the Vietnamese needing to conduct their own military struggle, and that the most effective way they could support the Vietnamese was by building mass anti-war movements in their own countries that would bring in a large segment of the population and by engaging in civil disobedience.

[pranabjyoti]

No-one said this, the objection was to your infantile posturing and supporting for a "revolutionary army" comprised of socialists from other countries. Putting aside the issue of whether the DPRK should be defended, when Western leftists like Tariq Ali or Cathy Wilkerson went to Vietnam or to liaison stations in Cambodia in the 1960s in order to learn about the armed struggle and report back to broader constituencies at home, they were explicitly told by the Vietnamese that they should not form international brigades, due to the Vietnamese needing to conduct their own military struggle, and that the most effective way they could support the Vietnamese was by building mass anti-war movements in their own countries that would bring in a large segment of the population and by engaging in civil disobedience.
Who were those Vietnamese? If they represent even the revolutionary force, does that mean this model should be followed all over the world in every kind of situations?
IMO, building an international brigade and flourishing class struggle in own countries are NOT diametrically opposite and at present scenario can be substitute to each other. Imperialists know that better than us and that's why they are sending direct assistance to Libyan rebels.

[caramelpence]

Who were those Vietnamese? If they represent even the revolutionary force, does that mean this model should be followed all over the world in every kind of situations?

By "the Vietnamese" I meant the representatives of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the DRV government who invited Western activists like Tariq Ali to go and visit Vietnam during the 1960s in order to experience events on the ground and relay their experiences back to the wider activist community in their home country. Obviously I don't believe that the basic concept of an international brigade is totally invalid in all countries, because I think the role of international brigades in Spain was an important and inspiring one, even if I'm not sure that they could have altered the outcome of the war in the absence of sustained support and cooperation amongst the Republican forces - but in the case of conflicts between oppressed and oppressor nations I think there is an additional issue, which is that the purpose of national liberation struggles, even when led by vacillating petty-bourgeois forces of the kind that dominated events in Vietnam, is to strike a blow against colonialism in its multiple forms, including its psychological and cultural as well as institutional forms. In that context it seems important to me that national liberation movements conduct their own struggles without having to rely on bodies like international brigades, particularly international brigades comprised of volunteers from the metropole, because by doing that you would be replicating the dependency and White supremacism that is such an important part of the colonial relationship - instead, the role of leftists in countries like Britain and the United States is to weaken the war effort from within, through whatever tactics they see fit, whether that means building a broad anti-war movement, or sabotage, or a combination of different tactical approaches. The Vietnamese Communists were Stalinist murderers who killed Trotskyists and other revolutionary socialists but they were correct not to accept the emotional offers of people like Tariq Ali to form international brigades and to clarify how leftists in imperialist countries should respond to wars of national liberation.

All this, however, is fairly academic, in that there would be no point in sending an international brigade to the DPRK, which has one of the largest armies in the world, and would, in the event of a ground war, be defeated because of inadequate and outdated equipment, not because they had to do without a bunch of leftists volunteering themselves. Moreover, the Vietnam War was part of a broader popular and anti-colonial upsurge, whereas this is not true of the current situation of the DPRK, being an unstable and impoverished state that has little to offer socialists in any society.

[pranabjyoti]

Well, at the end you are opposing my suggestion because you think DPRK isn't something eligible to be defended by an international brigade.

[manic expression]

This is the delusion perpetrated by imperialists regarding Posada, or the atrocities in Iraq. "A few bad apples" and whatnot.
False equivalency must be real fun. The bombing is an exception in the history of the DPRK...rape and pillage is the rule in the history of imperialism.


Oh and of course, anyone that even gives a hint of reality is an imperialist.
Your only purpose here was to come to the defense of imperialism. "Oh, it's not the imperialists' fault they engage in wanton intimidation and provocation of the DPRK...it's not their fault they keep rejecting DPRK calls for a peace treaty!" :lol:

[chegitz guevara]

For the record, I don't think you can analyze North Korea through models like totalitarianism (in fact, I'm generally suspect of social science models of that kind) and I'm also hesitant to view the whole of North Korean society as one big cult. My dominant impression based on the little we know about North Korea is that the state does not function with the degree of efficiency and hegemony that totalitarian regimes are supposed to exhibit, rather, there are clashes of interest groups, and there is also a great deal of ad-hoc decision-making and crisis management, rather than the steady or controlled implementation of long-term plans. In the area of economic planning in particular, the position of individual enterprises is such that they often have to order more of a given input than they actually need to fulfill their quota simply because the inadequacy of the economy and the planning system is such that they will almost always get less of what they ask for, so it is hoped that by providing a large estimate, the amount they receive will be appropriate for their actual requirements, at least for a particular production cycle.

This is actually an excellent description of the reality of totalitarian states. Far from the completely control over every aspect of life that dystopic fiction imagines, nearly every totalitarian state, from Nazi Germany to Stalin's USSR, and elsewhere/when, has been barely managed chaos, of just the sort you described. It is because of the lack of control that the government becomes more authoritarian.

[Chimurenga.]

North Korea invaded the south.

Right here. You have just lost all credibility on the issue of Korea with this post.


Seen in this context, the question of who fired the first shot on 25 June 1950 takes on a much reduced air of significance. As it is, the North Korean version of events is that their invasion was provoked by two days of bombardment by the South Koreans, on the 23rd and 24th, followed by a surprise South Korean attack across the border on the 25th against the western town of Haeju and other places. Announcement of the Southern attack was broadcast over the North's radio later in the morning of the 25th.
Contrary to general belief at the time, no United Nations group—neither the UN Military Observer Group in the field nor the UN Commission on Korea in Seoul—witnessed, or claimed to have witnessed, the outbreak of hostilities. The Observer Group's field trip along the Parallel ended on 23 June. Its statements about what took place afterward are either speculation or based on information received from the South Korean government or the US military.
Moreover, early in the morning of the 26th, the South Korean Office of Public Information announced that Southern forces had indeed captured the North Korean town of Haeju. The announcement stated that the attack had occurred that same morning, but an American military status report as of nightfall on the 25th notes that all Southern territory west of the Imjin River had been lost to a depth of at least three miles inside the border except in the area of the Haeju "counter attack".
In either case, such a military victory on the part of the Southern forces is extremely difficult to reconcile with the official Western account, maintained to this day, that has the North Korean army sweeping south in a devastating surprise attack, taking control of everything that lay before it, and forcing South Korean troops to evacuate further south.
Subsequently, the South Korean government denied that its capture of Haeju had actually taken place, blaming the original announcement, apparently, on an exaggerating mili-taty officer. One historian has ascribed the allegedly incorrect announcement to "an error due to poor communications, plus an attempt to stiffen South Korean resistance by claiming a victory". Whatever actually lay behind the announcement, it is evident that very little reliance, if any, can be placed upon statements made by the South Korean government concerning the start of the war.4
There were, in fact, reports in the Western press of the attack on Haeju which made no mention of the South Korean government's announcement, and which appear to be independent confirmations of the event. The London Daily Herald, in its issue of 26 June, stated that "American military observers said the Southern forces had made a successful relieving counter-attack near the west coast, penetrated five miles into Northern territory and seized the town of Haeju." This was echoed in The Guardian of London the same day: "American officials confirmed that the Southern troops had captured Haeju."
Similarly, the New York Herald Tribune reported, also on the 26th, that "South Korean troops drove across the 38th Parallel, which forms the frontier, to capture the manufacturing town of Haeju, just north of the line. The Republican troops captured quantities of equipment." None of the accounts specified just when the attack took place.
..
On 26 June, the United States presented a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning North Korea for its "unprovoked aggression". The resolution was approved, although there were arguments that "this was a fight between Koreans" and should be treated as a civil war, and a suggestion from the Egyptian delegate that the word "unprovoked" should be dropped in view of the longstanding hostilities between the two Koreas.

Fuck, the anti-DPRK sentiment on this forum makes me sick.

[black magick hustla]

the pro state sentiment of swag makes me sick