Log in

View Full Version : North Korea - What ideaology are they going for?



Dr. Rosenpenis
9th December 2002, 03:18
I'd like to know more and feel that I should as a Commuinist, know what the hell thay are doing and what ideology they are trying to enstate, in North Korea that is.

ComradeJunichi
9th December 2002, 03:30
They claim to be socialist, and they follow the teachings of the "Great Leader". Which I always thought was Stalin, but they call Kim Il Sung that too. His main idea was "Juche".

I personally think it's a branch of fascism. But I have been in contact with a delegate of DPRK's state, and he's trying to explain to me why North Korea is socialist.

BasementAddix
9th December 2002, 10:29
north korea only calls itself a socialist because its more acceptable....but its not...more facist is how i see it....

Man of the Cause
9th December 2002, 16:57
Did you know, that they made a 20-meter tall statue of Kim-Il Jung from bronze, while the people are starving. Personally, I think I'ts a little bit of Fasism, a little bit of Militarism and a little bit of Monarchy.

Geddan
9th December 2002, 20:39
I think that ol' Kim is one of the few beings alive who deserves a shotgun down his throat. Calling oneself communist but treat the elite different from the people is fascism to me.

new democracy
9th December 2002, 20:45
i think this website will help you: http://www.cnet-ta.ne.jp/juche/defaulte.htm .

Feinian
11th December 2002, 16:09
Absolutly Fascist just like Stalins Russia. Hes bloody starving them to death and building a big arsenal. Just look at thier leader he looks insane.

ComradeJunichi
11th December 2002, 20:15
Yeah, he's insane because he looks insane? Some serial killers look very normal, but they are the sickest mother fuckers you'll ever see. Looks have nothing to do with it.

I'm wondering how many of you actually know anything about North Korea. Don't get me wrong, I don't support it. Have you read anything on the situation in North Korea, or how it was founded? Or the history?

The Soviet Union wasn't fascist.

Please don't tell me you're judging the country based on Channel 1 propaganda.

KickMcCann
12th December 2002, 06:32
There's a new book out, I can't remember the title, plus it's in Russian. Anyway, it was written by a Russian liason to Kim Jung Il when he took his train ride from N. Korea to Russia. The book is his memoirs of the trip on which he lived with the "great leader". In it, he describes the decadance and snobbery that are so prevalent in his personality. He is a fine conisour of champagne and fine alcohol, of lobster, caviar and other fine delicacies. He has a troup of private entertainers, such as dancers and musicians. He is extremely rude and disrespectful to people you would consider working-class proletariat. The author said that his rule is just a continuation of the absolute monarchy that has ruled Korea for centuries. Only this king hides behind Communism. If anyone knows about this book I would highly recommend it, and I would like to know if there is a english translation.

Comrade Daniel
21st December 2002, 16:14
The things I read in the replies make me think it's fascist, great statues of bronze are made while the people are starving is not good. That's not what I would call socialism. :(

Xvall
21st December 2002, 17:59
We do know some about North Korea, Juni. I don't think they're socialist in the least bit. Maybe socialistic, but their ritualistic monarchistic actions strike me as 'counter-productive'. Socialism is a system of public property. North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, even Vietnam. These all instituted systems of state ownership, not public ownership.

Anonymous
1st January 2003, 05:42
Yes fascist is the word for north korea, fascistsin red, pseudo-socialists, there are hungrydeseperated peasents trying to escape there, atrocitys commited in north korea, people eating rocks (and this is true, they were boiling rocks andthen eatingthem!!!!!) justtotry to fool hunger.....

Socialist Pig
1st January 2003, 08:41
Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 5:59 pm on Dec. 21, 2002
We do know some about North Korea, Juni. I don't think they're socialist in the least bit. Maybe socialistic, but their ritualistic monarchistic actions strike me as 'counter-productive'. Socialism is a system of public property. North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, even Vietnam. These all instituted systems of state ownership, not public ownership.


I totaly agree. The state should be the people, the people are the state. Thats what socialism is. The rule of the people by the people not a small group of elites.

Man of the Cause
1st January 2003, 16:05
Quote: from the anarchist on 3:42 am on Jan. 1, 2003
Yes fascist is the word for north korea, fascistsin red, pseudo-socialists, there are hungrydeseperated peasents trying to escape there, atrocitys commited in north korea, people eating rocks (and this is true, they were boiling rocks andthen eatingthem!!!!!) justtotry to fool hunger.....


And when they ran out of rocks, they started to eat each other.

Anonymous
1st January 2003, 20:25
lol

that is all recorded,itis true, what the north korean gov did was push all the hunger people to the interior andletthem rot there... not socialist....

Iepilei
1st January 2003, 21:34
well state-ownership is fine as long as the state rests in the hands of the people.

the few remaining communist nations do not seem to have that going for them though. I think the reason many have resorted to such means is to prevent capitalist intervention from a complete takeover. Which makes sense, however, it still doesn't uphold what socialism means.

chamo
1st January 2003, 21:51
North Korea is nowhere near socialist. State property is not socialism, public ownership is. A dictatorship or monarchy is definetly not socialist, it is meant to be rule be the people. Indeed building large bronze statues of leaders while people starve is fascist.

As with Kim Il Sun, whose personality cult surpassed that of Hitler or Stalin, Kim Jung Il does have a huge support, a majority of 90% approval rating I think, correct me if I am wrong. But this may be the same as the case of Saddam Hussein, the recent vote he got 99% or even 100% majority though you will know that many people would not vote for him if not under the threat of death. Indeed he was the only candidate on the voting paper. "Do you want to vote for Saddam, or do you want to die horribly."