Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Would you like to emmigrate to the DPRK?

POST REPLY

Would you like to emigrate to the DPRK?

Yes
13
16%
No
30
38%
Maybe
5
6%
I would prefer to emigrate to China, Cuba or another Socialist country
18
23%
No, I like it where I am.
13
16%
 
Total votes : 79
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 May 2013, 09:49
Quote:
There is only one Korean people and they deserve to remain Koreans and independant, and that's the North, not the South.

North Korea's survival depends on Chinese ( and international, a good part of it American ) aid, and Pyongyang still can't feed the population.

Quote:
There is only one working class and they deserve to live in a country that isn't a survival of fascist dictatorship.

South Korea, while not exactly a democracy, is still a hundred times more democratic than the DPRK.

Quote:
Money doesn't make virtue, only capitalists believe that.

Poverty isn't the only problem with North Korea that is to say the regime in Pyongyang.
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2013, 07:11
Pioneer
Post 25 May 2013, 06:06
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.! Please don't make me go.

Please everyone, no one-liners. Contribute meaningfully to the discussion so all may benefit and things aren't cluttered. This is Votes and Polls, it shouldn't be difficult to have to explain yourself. -Red Daughter
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 May 2013, 19:27
Quote:
No, but you can't eat independence

If some revolutionaries didn't dare say, "liberty or death", "rather death than slavery", many would still starve under the rule of aristocracy. Your are like those philistines saying "rather slavery than death" and finally receive both.

Quote:
North Korea's survival depends on Chinese ( and international, a good part of it American ) aid, and Pyongyang still can't feed the population.

Isolate South Korea from the allies on which it depends, and we will see which economy is the best. For years North Korea, without soviet aid, had a stronger growth.

Quote:
South Korea, while not exactly a democracy, is still a hundred times more democratic than the DPRK.

I don't see the working class in power in South Korea. North Korea is more democratic than the south, because the North korean government doesn't work for a bourgeoisie, but for the people itself. South Korea is led by warmongers and murderers. Look at what they did to their former progressive president, Roo Hoo-Myun.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 25 May 2013, 21:48
Quote:
If some revolutionaries didn't dare say, "liberty or death", "rather death than slavery", many would still starve under the rule of aristocracy. Your are like those philistines saying "rather slavery than death" and finally receive both.


And your principles are blinding you to the obvious: that North Korea is materially impoverished. What use is their independence when they can't even feed themselves and rely on handouts from China, the World Food Organisation and western NGOs? Hardly "independent" are they.

Quote:
Isolate South Korea from the allies on which it depends, and we will see which economy is the best. For years North Korea, without soviet aid, had a stronger growth.


The South's would still be stronger. It produces a huge amount of consumer goods which sell all over the world. And the North was always reliant on Soviet assistance when it initially had a better economy than the South's.

Quote:
I don't see the working class in power in South Korea. North Korea is more democratic than the south, because the North korean government doesn't work for a bourgeoisie, but for the people itself. South Korea is led by warmongers and murderers. Look at what they did to their former progressive president, Roo Hoo-Myun.


The bourgeoisie are in power in South Korea. A quasi aristocracy is in power in North Korea. It works for the preservation of the elite who run North Korea. These are the ones who live in nice houses in Pyongyang and where fancy clothes and eat and drink well. These are a far cry from the peasants who live in run-down shacks in the countryside, have sporadic access to electricity and have to wash their clothes in the river. I know, I've been there and seen them.

And you have no evidence that Roh Moo-Hyun's death was orchestrated by right-wing forces in South Korea or elsewhere.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 25 May 2013, 22:00
Quote:
I don't see the working class in power in South Korea. North Korea is more democratic than the south, because the North korean government doesn't work for a bourgeoisie, but for the people itself.

North Korean "citizens" have absolutely no rights at all, even serfs in the feudal times had more rights than them.
So how can that abomination of a state be called democratic?

Quote:
South Korea is led by warmongers and murderers.

The only reason people still talk about NK is because of their warmongering, and the Pyongyang satraps have a lot of blood on their hands.

Quote:
Isolate South Korea from the allies on which it depends, and we will see which economy is the best. For years North Korea, without soviet aid, had a stronger growth.

North Korea was more developed than SK to start with. And the growth they had doesn't mean anything, because it all went to shit the moment the Soviets closed off the pipelines.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 May 2013, 22:17
Quote:
And you have no evidence that Roh Moo-Hyun's death was orchestrated by right-wing forces in South Korea or elsewhere.

Ahah, everyone knows that a campaign of slanders forced Roo to commit suicide, if he wasn't "suicided" by someone. But I'm not surprised anymore to see you defending the bourgeoisie. It has become a habit. So, after the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Best Korea?


Quote:
The South's would still be stronger. It produces a huge amount of consumer goods which sell all over the world. And the North was always reliant on Soviet assistance when it initially had a better economy than the South's.

You confuse assistance and trade.

Quote:
The bourgeoisie are in power in South Korea. A quasi aristocracy is in power in North Korea. It works for the preservation of the elite who run North Korea. These are the ones who live in nice houses in Pyongyang and where fancy clothes and eat and drink well. These are a far cry from the peasants who live in run-down shacks in the countryside, have sporadic access to electricity and have to wash their clothes in the river. I know, I've been there and seen them.

Yes of course, you have been there... In Afghanistan also?

Quote:
The South's would still be stronger. It produces a huge amount of consumer goods which sell all over the world.

You have a problem with logics? I said isolate South Korea from its allies, yet you reply that they "would still be stronger" because they "sell all over the world"? And to whom?? Your determination to defend imperialism is pathetic.

Quote:
North Korean "citizens" have absolutely no rights at all, even serfs in the feudal times had more rights than them.

They have the right to struggle against their enemy. This is the greatest of all rights and the epitome of honor.

Quote:
North Korea was more developed than SK to start with. And the growth they had doesn't mean anything, because it all went to shit the moment the Soviets closed off the pipelines.

One more lie, the development was the same, and the population was also the same. But the South introduced fascist policies, then attacked North Korea.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 25 May 2013, 23:24
Quote:
They have the right to struggle against their enemy.

North Korea is struggling with itself.

Quote:
One more lie, the development was the same

No it wasn't, the Japanese concentrated most of the industry in the North.

Quote:
But the South introduced fascist policies, then attacked North Korea.

No, it was the North that attacked the South, not the other way around.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 May 2013, 00:10
To be fair, there had been skirmishes and border squabbles prior to the invasion. Who attacked first might be immaterial, given that fighting was inevitable.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 May 2013, 00:40
Quote:
Ahah, everyone knows that a campaign of slanders forced Roo to commit suicide, if he wasn't "suicided" by someone.


"Everyone knows" is not evidence; it's a conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up. Why would they want to kill Roh anyway? He'd already retired from office.

Quote:
But I'm not surprised anymore to see you defending the bourgeoisie. It has become a habit. So, after the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Best Korea?


Never said I support an invasion. I support what's best for the people of North Korea which is not what they currently have.

Quote:
You confuse assistance and trade.


No, you do. You seem to think that the wealth and success of the South Korean economy is mainly down to US and Japanese help, not legitimate global trade in commodities.

Quote:
You have a problem with logics? I said isolate South Korea from its allies, yet you reply that they "would still be stronger" because they "sell all over the world"? And to whom?? Your determination to defend imperialism is pathetic.


They sell to all sorts of countries! My phone is a Samsung, people drive Hyundai and Daewoo cars, LG does a huge business in selling electronics etc. What does North Korea sell? You're basically saying that if you destroy the South Korean economy and remove all its trading partners, the North Korean economy would be better. Well no shit Sherlock! However, in the real world, the South's economy is much stronger than the North's and beats it hands down. South Korea trades way more with China than North Korea does and China is hardly an ally of South Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_th ... s_of_China

Quote:
They have the right to struggle against their enemy. This is the greatest of all rights and the epitome of honor.


Rights and honour are metaphysical.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 May 2013, 01:57
Quote:
Never said I support an invasion. I support what's best for the people of North Korea which is not what they currently have.

Yes that's what I say. You support imperialism since you believe imperialism is better.

Quote:
"Everyone knows" is not evidence; it's a conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up. Why would they want to kill Roh anyway? He'd already retired from office.

Indeed, that's a conspiracy. He was a progressive and was killed for the Sunshine policy.

Quote:
No, you do. You seem to think that the wealth and success of the South Korean economy is mainly down to US and Japanese help, not legitimate global trade in commodities.

I don't see wealth and success in South Korea, only the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie, and very few rights for the working class, and political repression for trade unions and those who support peace with the North. A few years ago a priest was sentenced to 5 years because he visited the North to defend peace and reunification. And of course, US help was important for the Korean economy, as it was for Japan.


Quote:
They sell to all sorts of countries! My phone is a Samsung, people drive Hyundai and Daewoo cars, LG does a huge business in selling electronics etc. What does North Korea sell? You're basically saying that if you destroy the South Korean economy and remove all its trading partners, the North Korean economy would be better.

That's exactly what I say, as history has proven: until the fall of the USSR, North Korea had a better economy. So without gobal market, the South would soon fall in chaos.

Quote:
Rights and honour are metaphysical.

Then you know nothing about philosophy. Right and honor are concepts used to describe a reality, as much as "communist". If I say that you are not a communist, this isn't metaphysical. If I say that you have no honor, this isn't metaphysical. Someone who didn't stood firm to his principles has no honor, someone who has no right has no right.

Quote:
North Korea is struggling with itself.

As much as I do.

Quote:
No it wasn't, the Japanese concentrated most of the industry in the North.

And the amount of destructions?

Quote:
No, it was the North that attacked the South, not the other way around.

Maybe according to CNN or the BBC.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 May 2013, 11:02
Quote:
Yes that's what I say. You support imperialism since you believe imperialism is better.


Better than what? Feudalism? Yes. Genuine socialism? No. North Korea needs to do what China is doing at the moment in order to build its economy and improve the lives of its people. They live in abject poverty at the moment.

Quote:
Indeed, that's a conspiracy. He was a progressive and was killed for the Sunshine policy.


So you still can't provide me with any evidence.

And why would they kill him after he left office? If they hated him so much they would never have allowed him to come to power in the first place.

Quote:
I don't see wealth and success in South Korea, only the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie, and very few rights for the working class, and political repression for trade unions and those who support peace with the North.


It's a hell of a lot worse in North Korea. Everyone has to extol the virtues of the Kim dynasty and elections are merely a formality. South Korea has a multiparty democracy and the rule of law. Yes the National Security Law is harsh and repressive and South Korea is not as liberal as some western democracies but it beats North Korea hands down.

And while you see the bourgeoisie exploiting the working class in South Korea (duh, it's capitalist), In North Korea the working class is epxloited by the aristocracy.

Quote:
And of course, US help was important for the Korean economy, as it was for Japan.


Just as the USSR and China were/are important for North Korea's economy.

Quote:
That's exactly what I say, as history has proven: until the fall of the USSR, North Korea had a better economy. So without gobal market, the South would soon fall in chaos.


So South Korea selling its own commodities on the world market is cheating in some way? That's how economies work! You do realise North Korea does this as well, right? Also, North Korea's economy was overtaken by the South's in the 1970s.

Quote:
Then you know nothing about philosophy. Right and honor are concepts used to describe a reality, as much as "communist". If I say that you are not a communist, this isn't metaphysical. If I say that you have no honor, this isn't metaphysical. Someone who didn't stood firm to his principles has no honor, someone who has no right has no right.


Principles go against dialectics. Rights and honour are purely a subjective determination of morals and principles. And like "independence", the North Korea people can't eat "honour" so what good is it to them? The South Koreans could easily say that they are more honourable because they ar not dependent on China and the World Food Program for handouts.

Quote:
someone who has no right has no right.


Lol a load of crap. So all the bourgeoisie need to do is say 'the proletariat have no right to overthrow capitalism' and you would abide by that?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 May 2013, 15:37
Quote:
And the amount of destructions?

Almost the whole of Korean peninsula was a battlefield. NK was probably stronger hit though.

Quote:
Maybe according to CNN or the BBC.

No, according to known facts. Kim the First actually talked to Stalin in person and told him that he was going to attack the South. But Stalin was cautious about getting directly involved so he told Kim to turn to Mao instead.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 May 2013, 18:35
Quote:
Principles go against dialectics. Rights and honour are purely a subjective determination of morals and principles. And like "independence", the North Korea people can't eat "honour" so what good is it to them? The South Koreans could easily say that they are more honourable because they ar not dependent on China and the World Food Program for handouts.

You need more than food to live. Those who died on the battlefield had something else in mind than getting feed. But this seems quite unknown to you.

Quote:
Lol a load of crap. So all the bourgeoisie need to do is say 'the proletariat have no right to overthrow capitalism' and you would abide by that?

I must teach you philosophy. There is formal rights and real rights. If someone has no formal rights, he has no formal rights. If someone has no real rights, he has no real rights. This doesn't depend on your own judgment. On this board for example, you have no formal right to make one line posts, but since there is a relative tolerance, you have a real right, but limited, to make one line posts. That you agree or not with those limitations of freedom, and decide or not to abide by that, has nothing to do with the existence of such rights.

Quote:
And while you see the bourgeoisie exploiting the working class in South Korea (duh, it's capitalist), In North Korea the working class is epxloited by the aristocracy.

There is no aristocracy in North Korea, only in your delirium. An aristocracy in North Korea? And why not an aristocracy in the UK? Ah, yes, there is one...


Quote:
South Korea has a multiparty democracy and the rule of law.

Nazi Germany had also the rule of law, the USSR had the rule of law, and North Korea has also the rule of law. Those are strong states in which the laws are respected. North Korea is also a multiparty democracy, but a better democracy for there is no bourgeois parties unlike in the South. How could a country which allows bourgeois party becalled a "democracy"? In such a democracy, bourgeois parties represent the power of the bourgeoisie, not of the people.

Quote:
No, according to known facts. Kim the First actually talked to Stalin in person and told him that he was going to attack the South. But Stalin was cautious about getting directly involved so he told Kim to turn to Mao instead.

Serious historians would say that the South most probably attacked first, then the North counter-attacked. The fascist South successfully blamed the North for the attack, but there is no "know facts" saying that the North attacked first. That the North was willing to attack is true, but as you said yourself, Stalin was reluctant and I don't think the Koreans would have attacked without clear support from the USSR. They were certainly expecting a provocation, and that's what happened.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1004
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 26 May 2013, 19:44
OP-Bagration wrote:
North Korea is also a multiparty democracy, but a better democracy for there is no bourgeois parties unlike in the South. How could a country which allows bourgeois party becalled a "democracy"? In such a democracy, bourgeois parties represent the power of the bourgeoisie, not of the people.

Your philosophising has led you to the abbyss. According to your statement above (which exactly contradicts what you've written about philosophical rights) all a certain political system (state) has to do to create real democracy is to label competing political parties as "burgeoise" and lo-and-behold they can be outlawed so the real democracy can come reign. What a load of bull.
Second, your "system" of calling parties burgeoise is bulletproof because those parties *are* burgeoise even if they themselves claim they have got nothing to do with *whatever you define as burgeoise*. On the other hand, what is wrong with having an opposition? Or, better, please define democracy because we seem to have a difference of opinion on the very term.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 26 May 2013, 21:43
No. The South surpassed them in the 80s and is superior economically and politically. The only good thing is that they have nukes and they should modernise their country to keep the Yanks.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 May 2013, 23:03
Quote:
Your philosophising has led you to the abbyss. According to your statement above (which exactly contradicts what you've written about philosophical rights) all a certain political system (state) has to do to create real democracy is to label competing political parties as "burgeoise" and lo-and-behold they can be outlawed so the real democracy can come reign. What a load of bull.

That's not a certain political state, but a socialist state, ruled by the whole people, leaded by the Communist Party.

Quote:
Second, your "system" of calling parties burgeoise is bulletproof because those parties *are* burgeoise even if they themselves claim they have got nothing to do with *whatever you define as burgeoise*.

Yes, that's why we must ban bourgeois parties. A bourgeois party never says it is bourgeois.

Quote:
On the other hand, what is wrong with having an opposition?

What need for an opposition if there is no more bourgeois parties? In a true democracy you don't need opposition but discussion.

Quote:
Or, better, please define democracy because we seem to have a difference of opinion on the very term.

Democracy = power of the people. Thus a country ruled by the bourgeoisie, or another ruling class, against the working class, against those who represent the biggest part of the population, can't be called a democracy. It's an oligarchy or a plutocracy, or what we usually call "bourgeois democracy", i.e. democracy for the bourgeoisie.

This is the real, not formal definition.

According to Montesquieu, democracy = toss ; election = aristocracy. Indeed, in old Greece, in Athens, toss was the rule. Election was used in Sparta, where the representatives were elected by shouting.

Those two definitions, the Marxist one, and the old one, looked at the result: who is ruling? Is it an indefinite part of the people, as in Athens, or the best ones, as in Sparta ? If toss is used, there can be no political parties. If you choose the best ones, there is also no political parties.

According to Rousseau, there is democracy when the Sovereign rules for the common interest. The Sovereign is the people itself, and political parties are an illness that shouldn't exist, because there is only one common interest. The principle of democracy is virtue.


So, both the Marxists and the old philosophers define democracy as something above the parties and above the classes.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 27 May 2013, 03:32
Quote:
Nazi Germany had also the rule of law, the USSR had the rule of law, and North Korea has also the rule of law.

No it didn't, as any book on the Third Reich will tell you. Even the Nazi ministers of justice complained about SA and the SS consistently breaking the already criminal laws of that country.
As for the USSR under Stalin it existed only on paper, despite the 1936 Constitution that was "the most democratic one in the world".

Quote:
North Korea is also a multiparty democracy, but a better democracy for there is no bourgeois parties unlike in the South. How could a country which allows bourgeois party be called a "democracy"? In such a democracy, bourgeois parties represent the power of the bourgeoisie, not of the people.

That's just demagoguery. Besides the KWP is more fascistic in its methods of suppressing class struggle or any kind of independent communist and Marxist though than the bourgeois parties in the South.

Quote:
The fascist South successfully blamed the North for the attack, but there is no "know facts" saying that the North attacked first.

So how come the South was completely unprepared for war with a small army without any heavy weaponry. How come they almost lost the war before the UN intervened?

Quote:
They were certainly expecting a provocation, and that's what happened.

North Korea has staged dozens of provocations in the last 20 years. Of course you're going to have provocations in such situations, but that doesn't change the facts.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 27 May 2013, 12:23
Quote:
You need more than food to live. Those who died on the battlefield had something else in mind than getting feed. But this seems quite unknown to you.


The soldiers of South Korea had something else in mind as well: a superior material existence than the socialist countries. South Korea is today a much better society to live in than North Korea.

Quote:
There is formal rights and real rights. If someone has no formal rights, he has no formal rights. If someone has no real rights, he has no real rights. This doesn't depend on your own judgment. On this board for example, you have no formal right to make one line posts, but since there is a relative tolerance, you have a real right, but limited, to make one line posts. That you agree or not with those limitations of freedom, and decide or not to abide by that, has nothing to do with the existence of such rights.


Rights are bullshit because they are just one group of humans telling another group of humans what they can and cannot do. So according to your logic, let's rephrase your example above.

"This doesn't depend on your own judgment. In society for example, you have no formal right to overthrow capitalism, but since there is a relative tolerance, you have a real right, but limited, to protest against it. That you agree or not with those limitations of freedom, and decide or not to abide by that, has nothing to do with the existence of such rights."

So according to you and your metaphysical "rights", the proletariat are stuck with capitalism forever because the bourgeoisie (who are always the dispenser of rights) will never grant them the right to overthrow it.

Quote:
There is no aristocracy in North Korea, only in your delirium. An aristocracy in North Korea? And why not an aristocracy in the UK? Ah, yes, there is one...


Songbun

Of course, it isn't an official aristocracy; neither is it orthodox. However, there is clearly a caste in place in North Korea which dominates society and is significantly richer and better fed than most of the population. The people who live in Pyongyang are some of the highest memebrs of this elite, hence they are allowed to live in Pyongyang. And of course, this quasi aristocracy is dominated by the Kim dynasty who are absolutist despots.

As for the British aristocracy, they have been defeated by the British bourgeoisie. Their titles still exist but they no-longer grant them special priviledges. In fact there are many aristocrats living under tremendous financial strain in Britain because they can no-longer afford to maintain the upkeep of their grand old family homes. Sure the Royal family exists and they are rich but they don't have any political power. The bourgeoisie has neutralised them in that respect since the Glorious Revolution.

Quote:
Nazi Germany had also the rule of law, the USSR had the rule of law, and North Korea has also the rule of law. Those are strong states in which the laws are respected.


Just because it has laws doesn't mean that all rules are followed and memners of the elite aren't able to circumvent them. Officially North Koreans aren't allowed to cross into China illegally, but the government lets them do it because they bring money back into the country and there are so many of them doing it.

Quote:
North Korea is also a multiparty democracy, but a better democracy for there is no bourgeois parties unlike in the South.


No it isn't. The Korean Social Democratic Party and the Chondoist Chongu Party are not opposition parties and do not confront the ruling Korean Workers' Party. They are stooges and nothing more. There is no debate in North Korea as everything is decided by a tiny elite who are elected through sham elections which always come out with a 100% approval for whoever has been put forward as a candidate.

Quote:
How could a country which allows bourgeois party becalled a "democracy"? In such a democracy, bourgeois parties represent the power of the bourgeoisie, not of the people.


So an absolutist monarchy is a democracy?

No-one is saying that South Korea is a genuine democracy (same with any other capitalist country). But it is a lot better society than North Korea. Just because North Korea claims to be a government working in the interests of the workers and peasants doesn't mean it is.

Quote:
Serious historians would say that the South most probably attacked first, then the North counter-attacked. The fascist South successfully blamed the North for the attack, but there is no "know facts" saying that the North attacked first. That the North was willing to attack is true, but as you said yourself, Stalin was reluctant and I don't think the Koreans would have attacked without clear support from the USSR. They were certainly expecting a provocation, and that's what happened.


Serious historians would cite the evidence found in the Soviet archives which show the North attacked first.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 27 May 2013, 17:48
Quote:
The soldiers of South Korea had something else in mind as well: a superior material existence than the socialist countries. South Korea is today a much better society to live in than North Korea.

That's not possible because during the war DPRK's economy was stronger, and there was less inequalities, so more resources for the biggest part of the population.

Quote:
So according to you and your metaphysical "rights", the proletariat are stuck with capitalism forever because the bourgeoisie (who are always the dispenser of rights) will never grant them the right to overthrow it.

You have a big problem with logics. Where did I say something like that? Right is concrete, that's what I said.

Quote:
Of course, it isn't an official aristocracy; neither is it orthodox. However, there is clearly a caste in place in North Korea which dominates society and is significantly richer and better fed than most of the population.

A caste isn't an aristocracy, and moreover a caste is related to blood. This "songbun" thing is defined like that, according to a US propagandist who worker in the South for the US army:

People are socially categorized based on social class relations. Each person is heavily influenced in his or her class ideology through his or her ideological background. Each is socially classified based on origin, occupation and lifestyle, which provides an understanding of one’s class ideology. A person’s songbun is not completely static; it can change with life’s environment and conditions.


Quote:
Just because it has laws doesn't mean that all rules are followed and memners of the elite aren't able to circumvent them. Officially North Koreans aren't allowed to cross into China illegally, but the government lets them do it because they bring money back into the country and there are so many of them doing it.

Let's be serious, every country does that. How many Americans going to Cuba? How many immigrants not arested even though the government knows. That's a matter of realism.

Quote:
No it isn't. The Korean Social Democratic Party and the Chondoist Chongu Party are not opposition parties and do not confront the ruling Korean Workers' Party. They are stooges and nothing more. There is no debate in North Korea as everything is decided by a tiny elite who are elected through sham elections which always come out with a 100% approval for whoever has been put forward as a candidate.

Yes of course, because a bourgeois party opposing another bourgeois party, like the US two official parties, is more democratic than two popular parties discussing about their differences? How do you know there is no debates in North Korea? You read too much anti-Korean propaganda.

Quote:
So an absolutist monarchy is a democracy?

??

Quote:
No-one is saying that South Korea is a genuine democracy (same with any other capitalist country). But it is a lot better society than North Korea. Just because North Korea claims to be a government working in the interests of the workers and peasants doesn't mean it is.

As a Korean I would prefer to live in the North, because the North isn't a puppet state. Since you are pro-capitalism and pro-imperialism, you believe religiously that a society ruled by gold (auri sacra fames), gold for the bourgeoisie, is better than a society ruled by honor (timarchy), and especially communist honor, but that's pure ideology, bourgeois ideology.

Quote:
Serious historians would cite the evidence found in the Soviet archives which show the North attacked first.

Then cite it, and we will se.

Quote:
North Korea has staged dozens of provocations in the last 20 years. Of course you're going to have provocations in such situations, but that doesn't change the facts.

OMG, you are worst than Gred! What provocations? You think this missile crisis is a provocation? A provocation is what the US and their puppet are doing, making military exercices, sending more warships and even strategic bombers


Quote:
So how come the South was completely unprepared for war with a small army without any heavy weaponry. How come they almost lost the war before the UN intervened?

They attacked because the North was becoming more and more popular in the South, because of the fascist repression. Thanks to this attack, the fascist regime managed to survive as a dictatorship until the 1980's.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 27 May 2013, 19:14
Quote:
That's not possible because during the war DPRK's economy was stronger, and there was less inequalities, so more resources for the biggest part of the population.


I'm talking about the long-term track record that developed capitalist economies have over socialist economies. The US economy was always better than that of the USSR just like West Germany's was better than East Germany's. Consequently their standards of living were better. Although there was a point where the North Korean economy was better than the South's, that period has long passed and the economic race has long been won by South Korea. The North Korean economy is nothing by comparison.

And this brings me to another question for you. If the South's economic success is founded mainly on the US, how come it took until the 1970s for it to surpass the DPRK? Why didn't the Americans "build" the South Korean economy in the 1950s?

Quote:
You have a big problem with logics. Where did I say something like that? Right is concrete, that's what I said.


You didn't say it, I just extended your logic to that particular issue. By your logic, the proletariat have no right to revolt (and therefore shouldn't).

Quote:
A caste isn't an aristocracy, and moreover a caste is related to blood. This "songbun" thing is defined like that, according to a US propagandist who worker in the South for the US army:


As I said, it's not an orthodox aristocracy. And Songbun does involve blood as who your parents were/are often depends the limits you can reach in DPRK society. Read up more on Songbun. It makes for some very uncomfortable reading for defenders of North Korea.

Quote:
Yes of course, because a bourgeois party opposing another bourgeois party, like the US two official parties, is more democratic than two popular parties discussing about their differences? How do you know there is no debates in North Korea? You read too much anti-Korean propaganda.


North Korean parties don't have differences. They are just vehicles for implementing the wishes of the tiny unelected elite who rule the country. I'm sure there are debates up at the very highest levels of this elite but the ordinary people have no part in them. The fact that everyone always gets elected with a 100% approval rating should be setting off alarm bells. If this is the case then there is clearly no debate otherwise some people would vote against them.

Quote:
??


An absolutist monarchy has no bourgeois parties and is therefore (under your logic) a democracy.

Quote:
As a Korean I would prefer to live in the North, because the North isn't a puppet state.


Really? Its just had its wrist slapped by China and is reliant on food handouts from bourgeois international organisations. And South Korea clearly benefits from its relations with the US and other countries (including China) as is shown by its vastly superior living standards compared with North Korea.

Quote:
Since you are pro-capitalism and pro-imperialism, you believe religiously that a society ruled by gold (auri sacra fames), gold for the bourgeoisie, is better than a society ruled by honor (timarchy), and especially communist honor, but that's pure ideology, bourgeois ideology.


Whereas you seem to be pro-poverty. So long as people have "honour." Who gives a frag about honour when you're hungry, poor and don't have access to medicines? The whole point of socialism is it supposed to lead to improved material conditions for the working class. If South Korea's working class living under capitalism have a far superior standard of living than socialist North Korea, we can only assume that the socialism in North Korea isn't working. Since it isn't actually socialism but a weird type of quas-feudalism, this is hardly surprising.

Quote:
Then cite it, and we will se.


http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002 ... 00354.html

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/defau ... 5_p4_0.pdf
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron