snilloctjc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 401
- Location
- El Paso, TX USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
These are not self-contained systems, that exist within given boundaries. Capitalism - and communism - are systems that require the universalization of the system in order to be able to operate. It is why capitalism spread so quickly across the globe in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is also why the Soviet Union collapsed. The unversalization of the system is built into the very foundation of the system itself; without it, it cannot survive.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.
How is this "Stalinism," exactly? Why is this attributed to Stalin? Why not any other of a couple dozen dictators?
Totalitarianism cannot exist outside of Orwell's novel and Lucas' film. It's physically impossible. I was pointing out the absurdity of calling the North Korean state totalitarian when it doesn't even apparently have electricity.
:dohNK is a communistic fascist regime.
:dohIf Kim Jong Il gives the throne to his son, it will be history's first communistic fascist dynastic regime.
Maybe because you keep talking about a global system when I am discussing the ability of a nation to control a system within its borders to so great a degree that they exercise control. For example, within the US if you wish to engage in commerce you must do so under the laws and regulations in place, same with any other country. In a demand economy system you are told what to produce and how.
Is it hard to understand?
No North Korea is not communist, its not socialist. Its far from that. Its a country who openly follows the ideas of "juche" which is failed. Juche kind almost even be called fascist....
How is this "Stalinism," exactly? Why is this attributed to Stalin? Why not any other of a couple dozen dictators?
Totalitarianism cannot exist outside of Orwell's novel and Lucas' film. It's physically impossible. I was pointing out the absurdity of calling the North Korean state totalitarian when it doesn't even apparently have electricity.
He was the first to do what I described. Many economists built on the theories of John Maynard Keynes while following his basic theory. They're still Keynesian, because he was the first in that school.
A totalitarian state need not control every single facet of its citizen's lives. Not even Big Brother could do this.
Totalitarian | Define Totalitarian at Dictionary.com
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn]
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Um, no he wasn't. There's centuries of history of rulers doing this...
Going to dictionary.com is a really stupid thing to do. It's here equating totalitarianism with authoritarianism, for example, which is idiotic.
Um, no he wasn't. There's centuries of history of rulers doing this...
Going to dictionary.com is a really stupid thing to do. It's here equating totalitarianism with authoritarianism, for example, which is idiotic.
Take a look at the definition of socialism. North Korea fits the definition of socialism. Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNo North Korea is not communist, its not socialist. Its far from that. Its a country who openly follows the ideas of "juche" which is failed. Juche kind almost even be called fascist....
Depends how you define Communist.
Marx explicitly wrote that a Communist country would be ruled by the worker. And since the only people left after a Communist revolution would be workers, it would be direct democracy (scary **** eh?). Due to there only be workers, there would be a classless society. North Korea fails those two criteria right off the bat.
Moreso, Marx wrote that a Communist nation does not trade with the West. North Korea at least matches this partially, but not by choice. For the same reason China and the Former USSR fail this test (and the earlier two, gang of 6 anyone, worker rule my ***?). And more importantly, Marx wrote against Capitalism and property rights. China and Russia have brought those back with some caveats, and North Korea has property rights for its elite class.
If we stick with the actual definition of Communism, North Korea fails pretty hard in almost all categories. The problem with defining Communism based on the actions of those in the past 50 years is that it renders Communism to mean whatever self proclaimed Communists have done. Which include strong property rights, a ruling elite with little to no voice by the people, export oriented economies focusing on the West and frameworks to encourage capitalism. The idiotic idea of defining Communism not by what Marx wrote but by what "communists" have done is that it renders most countries in the world at some point in their history Communist. Is that intelligent? No. Does that produce any thing of value? No. So why do some people use it? Probably because they first don't know what Communism actually is and don't realize they just classified Switzerland as Communist.
Ok yes, lets take a look at socialism.Take a look at the definition of socialism.
North Korea fits the definition of socialism. Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well its not socialist. Just because its name has something to do with socialism does not mean its socialist. Ever heard of a misnomer?Just because it is a hell hole does not make it less socialist.
This might blow your mind: "Red Fascism"It is not facist, because that requires a regulated market economy.
Actually Juche has a lot do with the economy. Sense its the ideology on how Norh Korea will become a self sufficient nation..Juche is not an independant economic system.
No i actually would of not at all.If North Korea was successful, then you would have applauded them for being a successful socialist state.
Well your the one asking the questions.How do we know?
Because socialists applauded China under Mao even though it was hardly successful and just as bad as North Korea.
Socialism is a theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. Basically the workers own the workplace and make decisions together.
NKorea is indeed a communistic state.
No state is "communist", it seems, because in the theory communism works, and all these states don't.
Thats a new one to me too.
DrunkenAsparagus said:I really have very little interest in debating terms with you that most of the English-speaking world already agrees upon the meaning of.
In the end the North Korean Communist Party will work to further and maintain its own power above all else
TheDemSocialist said:Well its not socialist.
This might blow your mind: "Red Fascism"
obvious child said:As I understand Marx, he railed against trade with the West as it empowered the Bourgeoisie and tied the economy of a country to the Capitalism of the West, furthering it from Communist Ideals.
I suggest you look into criticisms of totalitarianism theory. I also suggest you learn the history of totalitarianism theory, whose original purpose was to equate the USSR under Stalin with NAZI Germany under Hitler as a propaganda weapon in the Cold War.
Socialism got nothing with being successful. You are saying that if the interest of all is not acknowledged, then it is not socialism. Which means you have to be successful to be socialist. That is bull****! Also, you don't have to own the work place, that is only a variant of socialism.Socialism is a theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. Basically the workers own the workplace and make decisions together. Now tell me how in North Korea where the oligarchy (the select few in the gov), and the higher powers make decisions and the workers are merely slaves and pawns in their game and do as they are told. Tell me how that is anywhere close to socialism?
No its not. And im glad your knowledge of socialism and research on the topic is merely wikipedia! Good job!
Where did I use the name as an argument. I used a formal definition, and North Korea fits the definiton. Your rebutual is to make your own definition where you are requiring a country to be successful to be socialist, or at least noncorrupt. I can do the same, and then Pinochet's chile was not capitalist, because his system didn't maximize economic output.Well its not socialist. Just because its name has something to do with socialism does not mean its socialist. Ever heard of a misnomer?
Was the NAZI party socialist because it had something to do with socialism and workers in its name?
there is no such thing as red facism.This might blow your mind: "Red Fascism"
USSR was not successful, so your argument does not make sense. A successful state do not hold their own people as prisoners. If USSR was successful, you would have used them as an argument for socialism.No i actually would of not at all.
The USSR one could argue was successful and i do not applaud the USSR at all.
China is supposedly "socialist" because their name says so and i do not applaud them at all...
Well a lot of Mao's programs were succesfuly. But i do not look to Mao as a positive influence on this world and defiantly do not applaud the man.
Way to generalize about everything :doh
Also, you don't have to own the work place, that is only a variant of socialism.
USSR was not successful, so your argument does not make sense. A successful state do not hold their own people as prisoners. If USSR was successful, you would have used them as an argument for socialism.
First off, I was talking about owning their own workplace, not owning the means of production. In North Korea the people own the means of production, collectively.Actually, that's the crux of socialism. That was central to Marx's theory that the proletariat would own the means of production instead of the bourgeois.
I said they are not successfull overall. A country which hold their own people as prisoners in their own country is not successfull. They may have done well in olympics, but they are not successful because they can do well in olympics.The USSR was successful at certain things and unsuccessful at others. Any reasonable evaluation of their space exploration program would have to call it successful. They were also highly successful at aeronautics and with the creation of weaponry and scientific research. Their Olympic athletes were also highly successful. What they weren't successful at was in creating a good standard of living for their masses or in creating personal freedoms. They were totalitarian in their mentality. They had been so under monarchy and they continued that way under communism.
I suggest you look into criticisms of totalitarianism theory. I also suggest you learn the history of totalitarianism theory, whose original purpose was to equate the USSR under Stalin with NAZI Germany under Hitler as a propaganda weapon in the Cold War.
The Korean Communist Party hasn't existed since 1946; the ruling party is the Korean Workers' Party. And how do you know how much power the KWP has?
There has been speculation that the North Korean military leadership has significantly greater power than those in the KWP, and that Jung Il is actually overseen by the military leadership.
Certainly we can't corroborate this, but we also can't make assumptions either way regardless,as you and everyone else so very much love to do.
Its economic base in the sense that the economy is nationalized is socialist.
Yes there is such thing as Red Fascism. People who hijack the name of socialism such as Stalin and warp it into something entirley other. Such as Stalin, and this awful North Korean regime. Sense when is socialism you take direct orders from the state and the workers have no say and do not own the means of production? How is that socialism? How is "communism" having a cult of personality around one man who is "god"? How is "communism" have a giant government tell you how to live your life? How is that at all communism or socialism?There is no such thing as "Red Fascism". That's like saying "Capitalist Communism". It makes no sense whatsoever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?