Questions on North Korea

[Apoi_Viitor]

My assumption is that, ultimately, our rationale for being communists is the betterment of humanity as a whole. Now, if we were to be proven wrong (which I'm doubtful of) we would abandon our beliefs. Thus, if the actualization of communism were to have negative effects on humanity, why would we support it? Regardless of whether or not North Korea is a communist/socialist state, its attempts to create one has only brought misery to its citizens. Sure it doesn't ask for blockades and embargoes - nor does it desire to spend huge sums of money on military spending, thus limiting its spending in key areas... however, its existence forces it to.

I mention this because it leads me to my actual questions, which are: 1. Had North Korea never strived to be a communist nation would its life expectancy today be higher? 2. Would a USSR-style collapse of the North Korean state be beneficial to its populace?

[scarletghoul]

There is a lot to say on the DPRK, but here I'll just answer your two questions
1. Had North Korea never strived to be a communist nation would its life expectancy today be higher? 2. Would a USSR-style collapse of the North Korean state be beneficial to its populace?
1. The life expectancy would certainly be lower, because without the revolutionary socialist movement in east Asia at the time (of which Korea was an important part) the region would continue to be dominated by American imperialism. North Korea was actually ahead of the South in terms of development for a long time. And anyway a big factor in the development of the US client states in the region (Japan, S Korea, Taiwan) was the need to build strong counters to the communist influence (the same reason america put so much into building western europe) . So yeah without the Korean revolution it would be a shitty third world puppet state.

2. No, it would not. Just look at how beneficial the collapse of the USSR was to its populace..

[∞]

The only rationale decision we can make is to realize that we may not know for sure what would happen if North Korea would be invaded by an imperialist nation. If you actualize the consequences of each action, then in an ideal situation I would support a covert action to assassinate every member of the North Korean elite. There may be some kind of backlash but it would be best if also there would be any means to arm the people most ill-stricken by North Korean central planning. i.e. the peasantry or lack thereof. It is obvious that the most malnourished and demolished people in North Korea are the people in rural areas. After Kim Jong Il is assassinated, humanitarian relief efforts will not only feed these people, but arm them if need be. Of course I doubt any humanitarian relief effort would arm them but maybe some outside assistance will get the job done. That is, if its necessary. That is all I can really get myself to support. Either that or the USA trades with NK. In that situation he'd still be a tyrant but less human lives will be at risk. Too bad both Washington and Pyongyang have no real concern for some of the most oppressed people on this planet.

EDIT: In no way will NK ever reach socialism much less communism. This autocratic regime emphasizes supremacy and monochratic forms of governing.

[∞]

2. No, it would not. Just look at how beneficial the collapse of the USSR was to its populace..

Comparing every Centrally Planned economy to the USSR should be a fallacy. The USSR was actually able to produce since 70% of it's budget wasn't military. The USSR also had more transparency than North Korea, allowing it to have some intimate level of production in comparison to North Korea. North Korea is the complete failure of a worker's state. In fact it's hierarchy is worse than that of the bourgeoise.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Juche thought will lead the way in revolution and funk.

Love live the God amongst men, Kim Jong-Ill.

[flobdob]

My assumption is that, ultimately, our rationale for being communists is the betterment of humanity as a whole. Now, if we were to be proven wrong (which I'm doubtful of) we would abandon our beliefs. Thus, if the actualization of communism were to have negative effects on humanity, why would we support it? Regardless of whether or not North Korea is a communist/socialist state, its attempts to create one has only brought misery to its citizens. Sure it doesn't ask for blockades and embargoes - nor does it desire to spend huge sums of money on military spending, thus limiting its spending in key areas... however, its existence forces it to.

I mention this because it leads me to my actual questions, which are: 1. Had North Korea never strived to be a communist nation would its life expectancy today be higher? 2. Would a USSR-style collapse of the North Korean state be beneficial to its populace?

Excuse me? This is amongst the most reactionary trash I've read on this website - and that's saying something.

Firstly, the building of socialism in the DPRK has brought massive gains to the lives of the Korean people. Indeed, in life expectancy, where you want to hit it the most, it's brought an impressive level; according to CIA world factbook estimates for 2007, the DPRK had a life expectancy of 72.2 years. That's around 6 years more than the global average, and far higher than that of other underdeveloped capitalist nations like Bangladesh. It's not far off that of the ROK either. Prior to liberation the average life expectancy was 38. That's a phenomenal development, and one achieved under largely unfavourable conditions - conditions the ROK never faced. Indeed the development in life expectancy in the ROK has to be figured in terms of the substantial income inequality there - a GINI coefficient of .32 in 2008 - which contribute to an unequal distribution of these. The DPRK doesn't have this problem.

Simply saying people in the ROK have a higher per capita income is pretty meaningless; people in the DPRK have a suprisingly high standard of living, although certainly have been affected deeply by sanctions, US/ROK aggression and the collapse of the socialist bloc. The healthcare system has greatly developed, to a situation where there is, on low estimates, 1 doctor for every 650 patients - even in imperialist Britain it is 1 per 440 patients, and for other countries like Tanzania it can reach 1 per 50000 people. Infant mortality has plummetted. These hospitals are often near workplaces for easy access by workers - many people across the world (even in the US!) have to travel for miles to reach a doctor, and then foot a substantial bill. Illiteracy has been eradicated, and education has been a priority since liberation - compare this to Japanese colonialism, where education in Korean was effectively outlawed, and very few Koreans could read or write. Housing is affordable, set at .3% of a worker's monthly salary in urban areas (where more than 60% of the population live), and heat and electricity bills are at 3% of salary. Compare this to imperialist Britain, where people lose their homes to foreclosures, and the elderly freeze to death in the winter. Standard of living is relatively good, with 52.4 TVs to every 1000 households - that's as much as 7/8 times that of other countries with comparable GDPs.

That this has been achieved in the context of a) structural underdevelopment caused by Japanese colonialism, b) an artificial division of Korea into 2 separate countries, c) the wholesale destruction of the Korean War, d) an intense blockade of the DPRK, e) the collapse of the socialist bloc and the loss of 71.4% of trade and almost all it's oil, f) a series of destructive natural disasters and g) constant military aggression from the US and ROK is a testament to the will of the Korean people and the effectiveness of their struggle. It's disgusting - though not unsuprising - that so called "leftists" will spend more time attacking the DPRK (and even potentially calling for it's destruction!) than perhaps even the imperialist media does itself.

Living in an imperialist country, you have no right to attack the DPRK in such a ludicrous way. Your fight is against your own imperialism - US, UK, French, German, whatever - not against the struggle of the Korean people.

[Sir Comradical]

My assumption is that, ultimately, our rationale for being communists is the betterment of humanity as a whole. Now, if we were to be proven wrong (which I'm doubtful of) we would abandon our beliefs. Thus, if the actualization of communism were to have negative effects on humanity, why would we support it? Regardless of whether or not North Korea is a communist/socialist state, its attempts to create one has only brought misery to its citizens. Sure it doesn't ask for blockades and embargoes - nor does it desire to spend huge sums of money on military spending, thus limiting its spending in key areas... however, its existence forces it to.

I mention this because it leads me to my actual questions, which are: 1. Had North Korea never strived to be a communist nation would its life expectancy today be higher? 2. Would a USSR-style collapse of the North Korean state be beneficial to its populace?

1. Between 1960 and 1987, the DPRK had a slightly higher life expectancy than the ROK.
2. If the overthrow of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc states are anything to go by then no.

[Omsk]

To hell with you and you liberational ideas,that's how Yugoslavia was "Liberated" and how was "Democracy" introduced. A country was destroyed,its nationalities plunged into a war,its economy ravaged,and almost all of the republics weakened.
To hell with your liberation and 'benefits'.
You bunch of reactionaries!

[Apoi_Viitor]

Simply saying people in the ROK have a higher per capita income is pretty meaningless; people in the DPRK have a suprisingly high standard of living, although certainly have been affected deeply by sanctions, US/ROK aggression and the collapse of the socialist bloc.

My point is this - I don't expect that the embargo on North Korea will end any time soon. As you pointed out, I shouldn't be blaming the North Korean citizens for this, and I'm sorry if I came off that way, but I just consider economic imperialism an essential part of capitalism. To quote Marx, "islands of socialism cannot exist in a sea of capitalism". And basically, so long as the rest of the world is capitalist, North Korea will be on their own.

Now, this was not a problem prior to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, but they have obviously run into difficulties in the last two decades. It's apparent that North Korea lacks the land and resources required to maintain its population. Now, while the restoration of capitalism in former communist countries has definitely negatively affected their populace, none of these countries (correct me if I'm wrong) suffered a significant famine.

[bailey_187]

It could be argued that the level of development in South Korea was provided by US investment to build up wealthy states that were capitalist and allies on the DPRK's boarder. But then even if the DPRK wasnt around, they probably would have done the same thing on China's boarder, so i dno, i dont really know much about East Asia tbh