Just a thought...

Some defenders of Kim Il-Sung, North Korea's first "communist" leader, say that while their was "some" oppressive features in Sung's society their was more good with things like land reform and the successful extraction of the Japanese and their collaborators from that society that happened even faster or didn't occur in the south. They claim while we don't have to support North Korea, we can at least sympathize with the success of the regime. While I may agree to an analysis like that for a country like Cuba, China, or the Soviet Union (where you don't support them, but you are sympathetic to them and understand that the new society, while not socialist, was better than the one the proceeded it) I think that analysis only works for a society that breaks apart the old society and inserts a society that's good qualities outweigh it's bad ones. For example, while I don't support the Castro regime and it's suppression of dissent, I am sympathetic to the society because it is much better than the society the butcher Batista had in place before Castro. I do not feel at all the same way about Kim Il-Sung or North Korea. While they may have done some slight good, the majority they have done has been awful! It would be like arguing that we should be sympathetic to Hitler's regime because he decreased inflation and unemployment! It is utterly ridiculous! What are your thoughts?

Kim Il Sung's government was clearly much better than the Japanese colonial administration which preceded it, and up until the 1980's the DPRK had a better economy than its southern counterpart. It was after his death that the government pretty much abandoned any pretenses towards Marxism (which weren't strong to begin with) and completely replaced Marxism-Leninism with Juche and then Kim Jong Il's "Songun" views. The 1990's also saw a huge shift in favor of xenophobia and quasi-racialist "theories" on the Korean "race," etc.

I'd certainly rather live in the 1980's DPRK than 1980's Romania, for example.

Here's a nice read on the present-day DPRK and the West's attitude towards it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...42&postcount=4

Kim Il Sung's government was clearly much better than the Japanese colonial administration which preceded it, and up until the 1980's the DPRK had a better economy than its southern counterpart. It was after his death that the government pretty much abandoned any pretenses towards Marxism (which weren't strong to begin with) and completely replaced Marxism-Leninism with Juche and then Kim Jong Il's "Songun" views. The 1990's also saw a huge shift in favor of xenophobia and quasi-racialist "theories" on the Korean "race," etc.

I'd certainly rather live in the 1980's DPRK than 1980's Romania, for example.

Here's a nice read on the present-day DPRK and the West's attitude towards it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...42&postcount=4

What are your sources for this information? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just am wondering where you got this information from. Please, no Revleft link either. If this sounds confrontational, it was not meant to be, I am just wondering about your information, thats all. Thanks.

I actually read books and academic articles when I can, so don't worry about spurious sources.

For the 1940's-80's economy of the DPRK the article "The North Korean Enigma" by Jon Halliday is good. Korea's Place in the Sun by Bruce Cumings is a good bourgeois history which discusses the DPRK in a rational manner.

I actually read books and academic articles when I can, so don't worry about spurious sources.

For the 1940's-80's economy of the DPRK the article "The North Korean Enigma" by Jon Halliday is good. Korea's Place in the Sun by Bruce Cumings is a good bourgeois history which discusses the DPRK in a rational manner.

Thanks , I'll look into those.