Originally posted by
[email protected] 25 2006, 07:03 AM
Why the fuck hasn't anyone stated the obvious yet?
Namely that Cuba and North Korea are not communist in any conception.
They don't even describe themselves as communist.
I don't think anyone has claimed them to be communist. So what's your point? "lolz theyre not perfect communist utopias so fuck them lolz see i used 'fuck' im so witty"?
Mesijs: you are a clown. What I am about to quote here is not meant for you, but for people who are actually interested in learning something, just so they don't think that your post makes sense in any way.
1.) Threat imposed by the United States. Meaning the DPRK has to devote energies to maintaining its standing army to deter/off-set a terrorist attack and terrorist invasion of the country by the US - energies which would otherwise be devoted to economic development.
2.) Sanctions. Has difficulty importing fuel for energy production, and food on commercial terms.
3.) Loss of socialist market relations following the collapse of global communism.
4.) Lack of arable land; much of it that is available has been damaged, and has therefore been rendered useless, by a series of natural disasters.
Here is some information on the standard of living:
"Infant mortality: Myanmar had 79 deaths per 1,000 live births; North Korea had 23 per 1,000, South Korea was lower with 10 per 1,000.
"Percentage of income spent on housing: Myanmar ranked 87th at 10%, South Korea 140th at 4.1%, North Korea 164th at .8%.
"Percentage of income spent on health care: The U.S. ranked first at 17%, South Korea 35th at 5%, Myanmar 92nd at 2.4%. North Korea was not listed. Health care there is free.
"Hospital beds: North Korea was third highest at 135 per 10,000 population; the U.S. was 85th at 41 per 10,000, South Korea was 95th at 34 per 10,000, and Myanmar was 200th at 6 per 10,000.
"Population per physician: Myanmar's ratio is 3,485 people to 1 doctor, South Korea is 784:1, North Korea is better at 370:1, and the rich U.S. is practically the same: 365:1.
"Life expectancy in both North and South Korea was the same: 69 years. The U.S. wasn't much higher--72 years, while Myanmar was 58 years.
"Of the three Asian countries, North Korea had the lowest death rate--5.3 per 1,000, while in Myanmar it was 9.9 and in South Korea 6.4.
"North Korea did fantastically well on literacy: 95%. The U.S. had 95.5% and South Korea 98%. Myanmar was 83%.
"Population with access to safe drinking water (1994-95): North Korea is listed with 38 other countries at 100%. Only 90% of people in the U.S. have access to safe drinking water, according to these figures. In South Korea, the number is 89%, and in Myanmar, only 39%."
Source: Illustrated Book of World Rankings 2001, 5th edition, for South Korea, North Korea, and a few for the United States, as well as for Myanmar (Burma)
(posted on another forum some time ago)
Hell, I'll even elaborate for a bit on those first 4 points.
1: do you know what happened to Cuba, which is by no means as "bad"(for a liberal :rolleyes: ) as North Korea? It got invaded, terrorist strikes against it were committed, saboteurs were funded, and schemes were routinely made to assassinate leaders like Fidel Castro, Raul Castro and Che Guevara. The DPRK's army is not just there to show off, nor are its nukes. They need that shit to survive into the 21st century. And I can only laugh at the ignorance of those who say: "If they didn't spend so much on weapons, they could feed their people!" The fact of the matter is that they're already doing the best they can to farm every bit of land that is available to them(not much, it is a very mountainous country after all, much more than the south). And with sanctions against them, they can't just magically turn weapons or money into food. So please tell me what more you would like them to do to feed themselves.
2: Addressed above. There are sanctions. You've got to be a very arrogant fuckface to accuse the government of "starving its own people" while your own government may very well be taking part in a program to starve the country into submission.
3: In other words, no more USSR, GDR, Poland, Bulgaria, etc., etc. for trade, aid and solidarity. 60% of the DPRK's trade was with the USSR. That's a big blow.
4: Addressed in point 1. They just don't have all that much good land. It's a very mountainous country, much more so than the south, which, of course, can always rely on a lot of trading partners if anything should ever go wrong.
Add to that the natural disasters that happened lately(and the ones in the mid-90s that contributed to the famine in the first place), and it is no wonder that the DPRK has these kinds of problems. The disasters, to be precise, were a flood, a year of drought, and then a 26-foot-high tidal wave, all this from 1994-1997. Imagine if the Netherlands were diplomatically isolated, constantly risking a war with Belgium, and only received very limited trade and aid from the UK and France. And then suddenly a disaster like the Watersnoodramp of 1953, followed by a year-long drought and a tidal wave were to happen. We'd be fucked, and Holland doesn't even have mountains!
Opponents of the DPRK gloat over their starving children. For me, such events only increase my solidarity for these people. As for "inefficient bureaucracy", umm, what? They are trying to work on every inch of arable land, and workers from the cities and soldiers are actually being sent into the countryside to help in the harvest. Again, I ask: what else can they do?