Defense of North Korea

[NeonTrotski]

Is North Korea a socialist utopia or deformed workers state or state capitalism.

Shouldn't we as revolutionaries be opposed to Capitalist, Imperialist aggression against North Korea.

We either align ourselves with Imperialism or we call for the defense of North Korea.
We can call for North Korea to overthrow the Kims in favor of a workers democracy but no matter what shouldn't we defend it against capitalist restoration?

I guess this question does not apply to many anarchists since they oppose all states socialized or not. I expect lots of trolling from idealists.

[Ace High]

Here's the thing. Imperialism is terrible. But just because the Kims don't allow imperialist interests to mess with the DPRK doesn't mean they are automatically aligned with us.

My view is that the people of the DPRK need to take up arms against their government and create an....I don't know....ACTUAL socialist state where people aren't being rounded up into concentration camps for making the slightest complaint about this month's rations. How can any sane person defend the actions of the Kim dynasty? Opposing imperialism is great, but it's no excuse to commit human rights violations against the people you claim to help. Kim Jong Il was the world's number one buyer of Hennessy. He owned one of the biggest collections of Western films. He literally contributed to capitalism. Just as his grotesque son is doing now.

[Zutroy]

The DPRK is in rather bad shape, and the Kims are rather unsavory---I doubt any of them were ever sincerely Marxist. As well, it would be preferable if they became an actual socialist state, as opposed to their current wierdness. However, they stand opposite the imperialist camp. This may be because they are sincerely anti-imperialist, or because of circumstance (supposedly, Kim Il Sung wanted to negotiate for the US to be the DPRK's main sponsor after the USSR collapse). Nevertheless, they are anti-imperialist, and they help other anti-imperialists. Again, this may be due to convictions or their search for profit, but it's true nonetheless.

Furthermore, although conditions in the DPRK are surely unpleasant, I rather think they've been exaggerated by defectors and bourgeois activists, both of whom aren't 100% credible and tend to present information out of context to accentuate their point. As a point of fact, the DPRK is nowhere near the worst place in the world to live. I'd estimate it's at least more comfortable than the very least developed countries in the world, and probably more comfortable than half of Sub-Saharan Africa---an indicator that even the DPRK's flawed socialist economy runs marginally better than the laissez-faire poverty traps in Chad, Niger, or the DRC, with all the resources the latter countries have. Some people here may recall that the DPRK actually had a higher GDP/capita than South Korea up until the late 1970s. In fact, I would argue that the DPRK has a level of material productivity approaching that of a middle-income country---productivity that, due to its martial nature, wouldn't show up on satellite images at night or indicators of per capita wealth.

None of this, of course, excuses the more unsavory aspects of the DPRK. However, it highlights the fact one should be wary of criticism that comes from the West, and also consider why such criticism is so out of proportion with the problems the DPRK experiences. Further, an endorsement of their struggle against imperialism isn't in any way an endorsement of "Songun" or the lifestyle of their leaders. It's simply an acknowledgement of the fact that they stand outside of, and in opposition to, Western hegemony---and that their existence is preferable to that of a bourgeois state in their place.

[NeonTrotski]

Shouldn't we oppose all imperialism even against Iran or Iraq. Not because we endorse these leaders or systems but because all imperialism hurts the working class.
Is the US invading the DPRK going to be good for the workers of the west?
Is it going to be good for the workers of the DPRK ?
Who is the criminal here some tiny despot or the foremost imperialist power in the world?

[NeonTrotski]

It seems to me your (the few who will respond to this thread) are debating the merits of North Korea and whether they qualify for invasion.

[TheCat'sHat]

It's simply an acknowledgement of the fact that they stand outside of, and in opposition to, Western hegemony---and that their existence is preferable to that of a bourgeois state in their place.


I doubt it's preferable for the people actually living in North Korea.

[JAC0BIN]

DPRK is neither capitalist or socialist. Its more like a monarchy at this point. A little isolated kingdom, sad but true. And capitalist restoration should be opposed. It would be a step back, technically.

[adipocere]

Personally, I feel sympathetic to North Korea. And and because North Korea always requires a disclaimer, I want express a few things about why I support NK - Kims and all.

1. NK does not exist in a vacuum. It is did not develop from a rogue strain of primordial civilization - profound external forces have helped shape it (literally and ideologically) and it would be fair to say that NK is something of a reverse client-state of the West. It's isolation and relative poverty is due as much (I would argue more) to "us" as to "them".

2. A repressive dictatorship can not maintain and sustain the level of law, order and resilience that NK has shown through repression, brutality and personality cults alone. NK has a gigantic standing army that could easily overthrow the Kim Dynasty - this has not happened. The US has overtly and covertly overthrown practically every govt in the world at some point. The US's inability to even infiltrate NK speaks more loudly to me then any notion of Kim Dynasty's iron fist. South Korea is practically as giant US military base - NK is either being maintained by the US as international whipping boy or it has a threshold for pain we could learn something from. The day N. Koreans start demanding "democracy" in English to CNN is the day I will believe they may be genuinely oppressed and be ready for regime change - I will never believe that their lives would be better if the country was "opened up" - in fact, I will grieve the day we start getting tweets from Pyongyang.

3. Like every other country that has willfully defied the West, it has been viciously demonized. NK has turned into a Western pinata of political talking points - (I personally think Washington orgasms quite powerfully when Pyongyang so much as utters the n-word, going back to the idea that NK has possibly been maintained and encouraged by Western policy) - NK will always be a villain the Capitalist system can dredge up when it's public starts to criticize it's own decadent, corrupt and repressive governments.

Anyway, to avoid going on a rant...I believe that it is more important that we be worrying more about our own overdue revolutions, and of those in places that need change far more desperately - like India and most of Africa - where real atrocities are happening in real time - then a revolution that clearly isn't happening in North Korea.

[Zutroy]

I doubt it's preferable for the people actually living in North Korea.

I would expect that kind of remark from an anarchist.

[Nevsky]

DPRK is neither capitalist or socialist. Its more like a monarchy at this point. A little isolated kingdom, sad but true. And capitalist restoration should be opposed. It would be a step back, technically.

Capitalism is more progressive than monarchy.

[Per Levy]

DPRK is neither capitalist or socialist. Its more like a monarchy at this point.


Capitalism is more progressive than monarchy.

i think the both of you mean feudalism instead of monarchy, cause a monarchy can be very capitalist.

[Per Levy]

Is North Korea a socialist utopia or deformed workers state or state capitalism.

its a capitalist dictatorship, it never was "socialist". and the trot favourite term of "degenerate worker state" has no meaning whatsoever.


Shouldn't we as revolutionaries be opposed to Capitalist, Imperialist aggression against North Korea.

We either align ourselves with Imperialism or we call for the defense of North Korea.

again, north korea is capitalist, so you allign with capitalism one way or another.


We can call for North Korea to overthrow the Kims in favor of a workers democracy but no matter what shouldn't we defend it against capitalist restoration?

that restoration has allready happend long ago, the special economic zones should tell you that.


I guess this question does not apply to many anarchists since they oppose all states socialized or not. I expect lots of trolling from idealists.

well its quite idealist to think that "revolutionarys" like you can actually oppose any kind of agression against north korea.


Shouldn't we oppose all imperialism even against Iran or Iraq. Not because we endorse these leaders or systems but because all imperialism hurts the working class.

now that is actually a sound statement for once. still the call is not for defending certain capitalist states just because they are target by other capitalists states.


Who is the criminal here some tiny despot or the foremost imperialist power in the world?

depends on how you define criminal, from the bourgeois standpoint it wouldnt be a criminal act to invade north korea. to me though both are criminal one bigger the other smaller.

[KurtFF8]

3. Like every other country that has willfully defied the West, it has been viciously demonized. NK has turned into a Western pinata of political talking points - (I personally think Washington orgasms quite powerfully when Pyongyang so much as utters the n-word, going back to the idea that NK has possibly been maintained and encouraged by Western policy) - NK will always be a villain the Capitalist system can dredge up when it's public starts to criticize it's own decadent, corrupt and repressive governments.

I think this is one of the more important points. I think that the Left should sometimes self reflect where it gets some of these notions from. For example even here on RevLeft people often talk about it as if it is a feudal country, but what is that claim based off of?

I don't think we should be complete skeptics and reject every piece of information we see in bourgeois media (that would lead to some absurdities, as we get plenty, if not most of our world news from it). But we do need to read between the lines a little better with the DPRK. That doesn't mean support the DPRK just because the bourgeois media opposes it, but perhaps be conscious of how their narrative somehow seeps into our own conceptions.

[NeonTrotski]

well its quite idealist to think that "revolutionarys" like you can actually oppose any kind of agression against north korea.

Oh If I was a revolutionary like you I could oppose imperialist aggression. I see, so since people like me cant oppose things I might as well support US aggression? Wtf "revolutionarys" like me? Idealist? Where is this idealism? I didn't suggest we pray for them.
People like me are concerned with the struggle of the working class and social justice and don't support imperialism in any form whether it's against North Korea or Iraq or Afghanistan. People like you (assholes that dont know what oppose means) align yourself with US imperialism.

[
it wouldnt be a criminal act to invade north korea. to me though both are criminal one bigger the other smaller.

By this logic you didnt OPPOSE (look it up, it means disapprove or work against) the invasion of Iraq.
People like me oppose people like you. Apologists for imperialism. Or maybe just stupid troll that doesn't have a dictionary.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The DPRK is a hellhole with a despotic bastard capitalist leader (don't give me this feudalist shit. While they aren't large, most of N Korea's economy runs through export labour and shipping to third-party enterprises in Russia, China and, through them, the rest of the world), but you have to remember that shit will get even worse if the US or South Korea invades the country.

I hope I'm not the only person who's heard US and South Korean neolib dogs cheering on how 'the country would have to stay segregated from the South for economic reasons' and that 'the people there are used to low living wages and conditions, creating venerable opportunities for cheap labour'. This would very much make Northern korea even more of a labourer's nightmare because of it's economic conditions. It'd become another Bangladesh at best.

In short, the DPRK is a repulsive hellhole, but an invasion by the US or S. Korea would prove disastrous. Please don't be like the many 'anti-imperialists' on this issue and kiss Kim Jong ass with an Obama cult passion. You should vouch for the workers and oppressed of Korea, not their hermit rightist theocracy.

[Sam_b]

Shouldn't we oppose all imperialism even against Iran or Iraq

What do you mean by even Iraq? I think most posters were quite clear on the point during this time that this was US/British imperialism at play, and will be the same in other countries that these authorities wish to stamp their power on.

As per the question, one does not need to support a state to condemn attacks on it under the guise of 'regime change'. Real change comes from a mass movement of the working class. It's not a contradiction, for instance, to oppose attacks on Iran but at the same time support the likes of independent trade unions, mass strikes and worker uprisings in Iran itself.

[NeonTrotski]

I never said support.I said be opposed to aggression.
I think many users on this forum would not oppose war with NK.
But yet probably did oppose the invasion of Iraq.
I agree some posts are saying this but alot of threads about NK have endless rants condemning NK.
My point is how is US aggression vs NK any different from the iraq invasion.
Some users have made this point.

[Luís Henrique]

So let's suppose that the United States decides to invade, for instance, New Zealand. What should communists do?

Do we discuss whether New Zealand is socialist, State capitalist, feudal, or whatever, before we decide whether we oppose such invasion? Or do we simply oppose the invasion, regardless of the fact that New Zealand is a capitalist country like any other?

Do we oppose the invasion, or do we cheer for the extremely unlikely victory of the New Zealander regular Army over the US Army?

What is the strategic place to oppose the invasion, in New Zealand or in the United States?

Luís Henrique

[Zutroy]

Really, people. This stuff about the DPRK being a hellhole (relatively speaking) is overwrought. I'm not arguing that the DPRK is actually socialist, but the notion that they have full-blown capitalist relations strains credulity as well.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I think taking a properly internationalist class line would mean opposing both imperialism vis-a-vis the DPRK, and supporting oppositional class politics within the DPRK. Realistically, since getting in touch with the latter is probably more-or-less impossible, focusing on the former is practical.

[Ace High]

I don't think a single person here would support any war or invasion of the DPRK. But if you don't think it's a hellhole then you are a conspiracy theorist. Not every piece of negative information about North Korea is "bourgeois propaganda" you know. It amazes me how you are so sympathetic to them.

Oh and guess what? I ran across pro-fascists on the internet (I sometimes silently spy on pro-fascist forums to see what we're up against) PRAISING the DPRK. They think Pyongyang is doing a fantastic job with their racist immigration policies and their embracing of their heritage. You people need to get your heads out of your asses and quit acting like the DPRK is so great. It is a complete hellhole, if you disagree, why don't you go visit it. People drop dead in the streets due to starvation. So it is DISGUSTING that you people praise them. You're no better than fascists if you praise the Kim regime.

[Zutroy]

You're off the mark here, Ace High. I think it needs to be made clear that the bad conditions there are exaggerated, not that the DPRK is in good shape. I never "praised" them, and comparing me to racialists who coincidentally praise the DPRK because of its racial and ethnic homogenity is idiotic. Really, that's verging on an ad hitlerum argument.

Not all information about the DPRK is bourgeois exaggerating, but that doesn't mean none of it is. My point is that people foam at the mouth at any mention of the DPRK---far out of proportion with the actual level of misery there. Until I see fellow users here get in an equal lather about the horrific governments in Niger, Chad, Somalia, the DRC, and elsewhere, then I've got to assume the DPRK's opponents have unduly influenced public perceptions---there's a certain degree of "uncoolness" in trying to put the DPRK into proper perspective, and it seems to me that many people will avoid it for this reason. There's nothing disgusting or conspiratorial about pointing this out.

[Ace High]

You're off the mark here, Ace High. I think it needs to be made clear that the bad conditions there are exaggerated, not that the DPRK is in good shape. I never "praised" them, and comparing me to racialists who coincidentally praise the DPRK because of its racial and ethnic homogenity is idiotic. Really, that's verging on an ad hitlerum argument.

Not all information about the DPRK is bourgeois exaggerating, but that doesn't mean none of it is. My point is that people foam at the mouth at any mention of the DPRK---far out of proportion with the actual level of misery there. Until I see fellow users here get in an equal lather about the horrific governments in Niger, Chad, Somalia, the DRC, and elsewhere, then I've got to assume the DPRK's opponents have unduly influenced public perceptions---there's a certain degree of "uncoolness" in trying to put the DPRK into proper perspective, and it seems to me that many people will avoid it for this reason. There's nothing disgusting or conspiratorial about pointing this out.

My comment wasn't even really directed towards you the most, to be honest. And I was never comparing people who praised them to racialists, as I know nobody here is a racialist, but I figured they simply were unaware of the fact.

By the way, I would rather live in the DPRK than many of those places in Africa you mentioned. But people aren't calling those places in Africa a workers' paradise. Some people on here are calling NK one, or something at least close to it. That is why I am verbally attacking the regime. If people on here were saying "Hey it's not so bad in Niger and Chad, the media makes it look so much worse, the leaders there are trying", then I would criticize those governments too.

[Zutroy]

My comment wasn't even really directed towards you the most, to be honest. And I was never comparing people who praised them to racialists, as I know nobody here is a racialist, but I figured they simply were unaware of the fact.

By the way, I would rather live in the DPRK than many of those places in Africa you mentioned. But people aren't calling those places in Africa a workers' paradise. Some people on here are calling NK one, or something at least close to it. That is why I am verbally attacking the regime. If people on here were saying "Hey it's not so bad in Niger and Chad, the media makes it look so much worse, the leaders there are trying", then I would criticize those governments too.

OK, then. If you mean the crackpots inside the KFA who actually think the DPRK is a paradise, you're right. Those people are disgusting conspiracy theorists. However, I don't believe any of them are present here. I'm merely defending myself and OP for posing the question.

All things considered, I don't think the DPRK's misery is that bad in the larger picture of things---certainly not so bad that they shouldn't be credited as anti-imperialist.

[Ace High]

OK, then. If you mean the crackpots inside the KFA who actually think the DPRK is a paradise, you're right. Those people are disgusting conspiracy theorists. However, I don't believe any of them are present here. I'm merely defending myself and OP for posing the question.

All things considered, I don't think the DPRK's misery is that bad in the larger picture of things---certainly not so bad that they shouldn't be credited as anti-imperialist.

Ehh, well, I might have reacted a bit too harshly, as nobody on this particular thread is saying the DPRK is a paradise, but I have seen certain users on here (especially on the thread titled "what is the class nature of the north korean regime") making the claim that the Kims are doing nothing wrong and that it is a worker's state.

But I do think they should be credited as anti-imperialist. But that doesn't mean much to the suffering people living there.

[NeonTrotski]

Would you support or condemn US drone strikes?
If Obama said. We are going to drone the Kims.
If your against droning the Kims you probably agree with my stance of defending NK
Its not support of the Kims its defense of NK

[Ace High]

Would you support or condemn US drone strikes?
If Obama said. We are going to drone the Kims.
If your against droning the Kims you probably agree with my stance of defending NK
Its not support of the Kims its defense of NK

Hmm, ok fair point, yes I would be against droning the Kims. I'm against any nation interfering with another. Ok, I see your point. But I mainly went on my rant because of the label "defense of North Korea". But you're right, there should never be foreign intervention.

[NeonTrotski]

Ok here is a harder question.
Does that mean you defend North Koreas right to defend itself?
And how does a nation defend itself from a nuclear power?
Would you condemn drone strikes on missile bases?

[Ace High]

Ok here is a harder question.
Does that mean you defend North Koreas right to defend itself?
And how does a nation defend itself from a nuclear power?

I think you're asking whether they are justified to have a nuclear program right? xD

My answer is yes, in the context of the world. However, I hate nuclear weapons. But if the US is allowed to have them, then every other country should as well. It's unfortunate though, and I am a huge advocate of nuclear disarmament.

[d3crypt]

I think you're asking whether they are justified to have a nuclear program right? xD

My answer is yes, in the context of the world. However, I hate nuclear weapons. But if the US is allowed to have them, then every other country should as well. It's unfortunate though, and I am a huge advocate of nuclear disarmament.

Its sad that nukes were ever even invented. But i don't think the DPRK should have nukes. Kim Jong Un seems kinda crazy and i feel like he would be crazy enough to fire them.

[KurtFF8]

Kim Jong Un seems kinda crazy and i feel like he would be crazy enough to fire them.

Yes, nukes should remain in responsible country's hands like the United States and Israel...

[Ace High]

Its sad that nukes were ever even invented. But i don't think the DPRK should have nukes. Kim Jong Un seems kinda crazy and i feel like he would be crazy enough to fire them.

See, I agree that I don't want that crazy shit having nukes. BUT on the logical side, if the US can have them, what argument can be put forth against anyone else having them? That's my only reasoning. I really don't want them to have them, but in the sake of fairness, they must be allowed.

[Igor]

Its sad that nukes were ever even invented. But i don't think the DPRK should have nukes. Kim Jong Un seems kinda crazy and i feel like he would be crazy enough to fire them.

as generally most enemies of the usa, dprk is run by mentally unstable crazy persons who wouldn't think twice at launching nuclear weapons with no particular reason at all

dprk is fucked up all but please don't buy into this whol "kims are deranged and no one will know what they'll do! we must stop them!" narrative drummed by us media

[Zutroy]

Its sad that nukes were ever even invented. But i don't think the DPRK should have nukes. Kim Jong Un seems kinda crazy and i feel like he would be crazy enough to fire them.

That's a rather shallow, immature rationale.

[DudeImNeo]

People seem to think promptin tha US to "save" North Korea is gonna do something. What happens everytime US gets involved with foreign affairs ? Besides taking and adding laws to tax tha fk out their resources, they leave tha countries in shambles ! Yeah, Sadam hussein ws a force to be reckoned with-but wha happened after he ws taken out of power ? Did we really help them ? You would be surprised how many people in North Korea would die-with pride-for their country and leader. Call it brainwashing or call it patriotism however u look at it-but rly, who in this world HASNT been brainwashed ? If US rly wanna do something for NorthKorea, give em some new buildings and sum NON-ancient materials..see if tha Crazy Kim Jr. would be down for a brand new TGIKims restaurant for tha people-js promise it'll be all about him. Send bill clinton over one more time (RIP KimJungVeryVeryIll) and have sum tea with China-OR no, better yet, JUST LET NORTH KOREA BE-wait till sum REAL heavy shit hits tha fan-like their final attack/attempt to take over tha South-N THEN RESPOND. If that results with tha leader DEAD, conjoin tha NORTh n SOUTH under one govt n we'll have one big korea again. Of course there will probably be renegades who refuse (because once again, there is a large majority of North Koreans who LOVE their leader, there are even Kim fans in tha South-probably cuhs they never been there ha) but let them fight-there are always casualties in change, and they'll die a prideful death. I mean, we alrdy got military in tha south rite ? Where DONT we have military, that's a better question. We even got military in Canada n Canadians aint never wana get involved with nothing ! Instead of looking for another country to invade, US should deal with their OWN problems-Ridiculous Obesity, Passionate Ignorance, and Impossible Dreams for many

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Would you support or condemn US drone strikes?
If Obama said. We are going to drone the Kims.
If your against droning the Kims you probably agree with my stance of defending NK
Its not support of the Kims its defense of NK

I strongly disagree. That's up there with, "If you don't defend the AFN you're in favour of Settler-Colonialism." One can oppose drone strikes without supporting their targets. It's a matter of important nuance, though I don't think it's particularly complicated. Case in point, I oppose Stephen Harper (resolutely!), but would I support American drone strikes against 24 Sussex? Of course not! Of course, the likelihood of such a thing is small given Harper's character as a loyal American lapdog. Similarly, the American stance vis-a-vis the DPRK (hostile, but not directly violent), speaks to the relationship of the DPRK to the whole of international capital. America realistically has more interest in the continued police assassination of black youth than it does in military action against DPRK politco-military elites.

For this reason (among others) I think it's ridiculous to grant that North Korea is "anti-imperialist": anti-imperialists should of course confront and reject all imperialist military maneuvers, but this doesn't say anything about the character of their victims. The DPRK's economic relationships the PRC and Republic of Korea should make it clear that they are part of the international imperialist order; not outside of or against it.

I mean, unless one wants to put forward that the PRC in 2013 is anti-imperialist. :lol:

-

An aside re: "The Kims is fucking batshit, we can't let them have nukes!"
The U$A is the only country in world history ever to have used nuclear weapons against civilian populations.
That said, nobody should have nukes, and the DPRKs move toward being nuclear armed simply represents the terrifying global march toward an atomic capitalism that places a potential limit on communist transformation in terms of the total destruction of the biosphere. Nuclear weapons presuppose nuclear power, uranium extraction, and a whole host of other capitalist activity with social control as its ugly corollary.

[NeonTrotski]

I strongly disagree. That's up there with, "If you don't defend the AFN you're in favour of Settler-Colonialism." One can oppose drone strikes without supporting their targets. It's a matter of important nuance, though I don't think it's particularly complicated. Case in point, I oppose Stephen Harper (resolutely!), but would I support American drone strikes against 24 Sussex? Of course not! Of course, the likelihood of such a thing is small given Harper's character as a loyal American lapdog. Similarly, the American stance vis-a-vis the DPRK (hostile, but not directly violent), speaks to the relationship of the DPRK to the whole of international capital. America realistically has more interest in the continued police assassination of black youth than it does in military action against DPRK politco-military elites.

For this reason (among others) I think it's ridiculous to grant that North Korea is "anti-imperialist": anti-imperialists should of course confront and reject all imperialist military maneuvers, but this doesn't say anything about the character of their victims. The DPRK's economic relationships the PRC and Republic of Korea should make it clear that they are part of the international imperialist order; not outside of or against it.

I mean, unless one wants to put forward that the PRC in 2013 is anti-imperialist. :lol:

Can you read? I said you don't have to support the kims to defend NK
Its not about whether they are anti imperialist
Do you defend NK
But I guess since you strongly disagree you don't
So do you call for drone strikes then just not on steven harper whoever that is

[adipocere]

Its sad that nukes were ever even invented. But i don't think the DPRK should have nukes. Kim Jong Un seems kinda crazy and i feel like he would be crazy enough to fire them.

The US alone holds the distinction of actually being crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. I think the folks in Japan would agree with me. Not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and probably other places.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Can you read? I said you don't have to support the kims to defend NKis

Sorry, I did misread you - my bad.


Its not about whether they are anti imperialist
Do you defend NK
But I guess since you strongly disagree you don't
So do you call for drone strikes then just not on steven harper whoever that

Similarly, no offense intended, but plausibly the nuance of my post was lost in your reading?

For the record, Stephen Harper is (the uber reactionary) Prime Minister of the frozen wasteland immediately North of the state where you reside.

[NeonTrotski]

It doesn't really matter you still disagree that NK has the right to defend itself.
Am I correct?

[d3crypt]

Yes, nukes should remain in responsible country's hands like the United States and Israel...

I don't support any country having nukes. But the chances of the US giving them up are none.

[d3crypt]

The US alone holds the distinction of actually being crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. I think the folks in Japan would agree with me. Not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and probably other places.

Absolutely, I agree.

[The real Fabians]

North Korea is not a communist success story, I have read ideas and reports (though from the western media) that North Korea is no longer a communist country, but something darker, actually a nationalist socialist country where the people are force fed propaganda not just saying that their country is superior to all others, but the people are the superior race just like the Nazis said of the Aryan Germans.

Though this maybe huge exaggeration and misunderstanding of propaganda deliberately said by the western media to alienate ore people against the North Koreans even further and want an military intervention. Maybe the reason behind a lack of US military intervention is because of a lack of public support?

Whatever is the case, the problem is that the Kims are not behaving in a Leftist manner with statues of themselves been built depicting them as sort of Gods, individuals above all others. If the treatment of the populous is horrific then I would personally offer them no admiration or support because the primary purpose of all leftist thinking is to bring equality for all.

But to remove them with the intention of creating another capitalist lapdog of America? Not the lesser of two evils, the best situation is that the people of North Korea themselves rise up and remove the Kims, perhaps with military support

Obviously Americas reaction to this would give a clear indication of their true intentions an feelings for the people of North Korea.

[Zutroy]

the best situation is that the people of North Korea themselves rise up and remove the Kims, perhaps with military support

From whom?

And what possible answer could there be that doesn't advocate imperialism?

[The real Fabians]

From whom?

And what possible answer could there be that doesn't advocate imperialism?

I meant from within North Korea, the huge military almost certainly has a huge influence and could easily kick out the Kims.

Though like i said America's behavior towards this would indicate what they truly want out of North Korea, in terms of actually caring about its people, or just wanting to kick the communist ideology even further and not supporting this military coup.

Though China itself would possibly support it as it would be good argumentative points in the UN.

[Zutroy]

I meant from within North Korea, the huge military almost certainly has a huge influence and could easily kick out the Kims.

Though like i said America's behavior towards this would indicate what they truly want out of North Korea, in terms of actually caring about its people, or just wanting to kick the communist ideology even further and not supporting this military coup.

Though China itself would possibly support it as it would be good argumentative points in the UN.

Fair enough. Military support usually means foreign intervention in this coontext, so I wasn't sure what you were advocating.

[Ace High]

There actually was a conspiracy to assassinate Kim Jong Un back in.... I think February. Although I believe it was based on anger over the demotion of a high-ranking general so.... Not exactly some kind of "peoples' uprising" among the military unfortunately. More of an internal struggle among the elite of NK.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Absolutely, I agree.

If you agree, then please use the thanks button, as per the rules. Consider this a verbal warning for spam.

[DOOM]

Here's the thing. Imperialism is terrible. But just because the Kims don't allow imperialist interests to mess with the DPRK doesn't mean they are automatically aligned with us.

My view is that the people of the DPRK need to take up arms against their government and create an....I don't know....ACTUAL socialist state where people aren't being rounded up into concentration camps for making the slightest complaint about this month's rations. How can any sane person defend the actions of the Kim dynasty? Opposing imperialism is great, but it's no excuse to commit human rights violations against the people you claim to help. Kim Jong Il was the world's number one buyer of Hennessy. He owned one of the biggest collections of Western films. He literally contributed to capitalism. Just as his grotesque son is doing now.

Absolutely, I don't get it when people defend the DPRK with the argument "uh you know they're against imperialism n stuff".
The DPRK is a really bad place to live and the people need to stand against Kimmie.

[La Guaneña]

Absolutely, I don't get it when people defend the DPRK with the argument "uh you know they're against imperialism n stuff".
The DPRK is a really bad place to live and the people need to stand against Kimmie.

And you do realise that there is a difference between the people standing up against the Kims, and the USA doing it though embargo, threats or actual military intervention, right?

[the debater]

This is something that puzzles me greatly: :confused:
According to a Wikipedia article, North Korea was awarded the 14th most patents in 2011, ahead of countries like New Zealand and South Africa. Perhaps Dennis Rodman wasn't joking when he said good things about the country. :rolleyes:

[synthesis]

If you agree, then please use the thanks button, as per the rules. Consider this a verbal warning for spam.

In context, he was saying he agreed with something that appeared to contradict a previous post of his, so I think the post was warranted.

That said...


Its sad that nukes were ever even invented.

At the risk of going off-topic, I have come to somewhat disagree with this recently. In the last fifty years, only countries without nuclear weapons have entered into total war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war), mostly on the receiving end of it.

No country with nukes has ever been invaded, unless they practice nuclear ambiguity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity).

It seems to me that in practice, nuclear weapons, as the pinnacle of physical warfare, make all other forms of physical war obsolete as long as both sides have them, as the threat of mutually-assured destruction appears to force antagonists into finding other ways to resolve their problems.

[the debater]

It seems to me that in practice, nuclear weapons, as the pinnacle of physical warfare, make all other forms of physical war obsolete as long as both sides have them, as the threat of mutually-assured destruction appears to force antagonists into finding other ways to resolve their problems.

It's kindof like how both ordinary citizens and their government should have acess to firearms.