North Korea: Great Country, or Greatest Country?

[EUIX]

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-...th-korea-1-of-3

 

This is one of my favorite NK documentaries, I 've seen a lot of them. You don't see the camera man much in this but his balls must be made out of titanium sheathed diamond.

Edited August 29, 2009 by EUIX

[I want teh kotor 3]

Ok, now I actually have time to post a full statement (the other two were written in the span of ~15s each).

 

Communism has two fundamental problems: its totalitarian and socialist. Both are bad.

 

Totalitarianism represents the ultimate failing of government: an absolute failure to trust its citizens to be able to lead their own lives. Government controls everything; the official government line is the truth, and anything that remotely contradicts this propaganda is repressed. I mean, the Catholic Church made Gallileo repent for a great advancement to scientific though; imagine what would happen to more fundamental advances (read: particle physics) especially in a totalitarian society with a government-endorsed religion. In the same vein, education will almost inevitably consist largely of government propaganda so as to indoctrinate children early. Loom at Mao: kids were told ad nauseam that Mao was the ****, and that to go against the government was inherently wrong, because the government was inherently not. With all of these intellectual constraints, very little progress can be made, etc.

 

Socialism is just fundamentally stupid; it goes against basic human nature. No large group of people will ever agree to absolute economic equality, and for good reason: it cannot work. If you're automatically receiving the same government-issued paycheck as everyone else, why should you attempt to work? The lack of competition, especially when coupled with the intellectual stifling that accompanies totalitarianism, invariably breeds a lack of innovation, with therefore leads to economic downfall for the entire country.

 

So no, I'm not just trolling, I didn't have time to write out a full post.

[lord of flies]

Socialism is just fundamentally stupid; it goes against basic human nature. No large group of people will ever agree to absolute economic equality, and for good reason: it cannot work. If you're automatically receiving the same government-issued paycheck as everyone else, why should you attempt to work? The lack of competition, especially when coupled with the intellectual stifling that accompanies totalitarianism, invariably breeds a lack of innovation, with therefore leads to economic downfall for the entire country.

 

So no, I'm not just trolling, I didn't have time to write out a full post.

Firstly, the Frente Popular in Spain was a successful majority made up of far left elements. Secondly, this is wrong. Many first world countries have excellent workers rights and unemployment subsidies, yet the populace still works.

 

Thirdly, Socialism is about the workers' control of the means of production, and a radical policy of social egalitarianism. The fact that it is impossible to achieve perfect egalitarianism is irrelevant to the ideology's success or failure; it is impossible to achieve perfect democracy, since people can be manipulated into voting against their own interests, there can be voter fraud, there can be voter suppression, et cetera. Does that mean that democracy is stupid? No.

 

Further, one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the human mind is social behavior and charity, so treating others kindly without expectation is actually not going against "basic human nature."

[alanschu]

There is expectation. People don't blindly follow their social contract. It's called the social contract for a reason.

[lord of flies]

There is expectation. People don't blindly follow their social contract. It's called the social contract for a reason.

Well. Without explicit expectation. There would be similarly implicit expectation in any democratic socialist nation.

[alanschu]

Explicit expectation exists as well. While norms and mores tend to be of the implicit variety, those considered more strict/important by a society tend to be turned into laws, which is a proper codification of the expectations of society (i.e. explicit).

 

While not committing murder may be a pretty implicit expectation without a law, it still is an explicit expectation, as well as a variety of other laws. Some laws are neglected and compromised (something minor like speeding), which depending on your point of view could be a breakdown in the social contract through unclear expectations (Structural Functionalist), or a disagreement of the expectation placed upon citizens (Also functionalist, through Merton's extension of Anomie in his Strain Theory). Alternatively, resistance to a law could be explained through Social Conflict's perspective of class conflict where citizens refuse to adhere to speed limits as an demonstration of limiting the influence the power elite has on them.

 

 

 

EDIT: To those that say anarchy is the best form of government, I just wish to remind them that anarchy's definition is the absence of government, and hence cannot actually be considered a form of government.

 

This is a goal of Marx's communism, but unfortunately there is no "withering of the state" as he had naively hoped/expected.

Edited August 29, 2009 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

Practically though, anarchist groups do (almost all) believe in some form of government, much as almost all capitalists do believe in some form(s) of regulation despite a tight definition of capitalism predicating free markets.

 

I don't know anything about anarchy huh? I was in Somalia in 1993. I've seen anarchy first fu*****g hand and it is something you will never be able to wrap your narrow little mind around jack. Anarchy might work fine when it is practiced among a small group of civilized people, until a stronger group of uncivilized people comes along. Anarchy is might makes right and your life and liberty are subject to the whim of the first enemy you cannot defeat. There is a good reason the era of European History following the collapse of the Western Empire is called the Dark Ages. I thought you might be just a troll or even a provocateur looking to stir up interesting conversation but it is plain as day to me you do not know the first thing about how the world really works. I was wrong about you flies, it was the former not the latter.

Somalia is at least as much an indictment on Capitalism as on Anarchism, as is DRCongo and various other places. Both places are, after all, eminently capitalist too.

 

The CNT, which LoF was referring to is Anarcho-Syndicalist. Basically their belief is in local rather than national administration (as they don't really believe in nations) so far as possible and 'workers' running their own businesses as syndicates/ co-ops, organised people's militias as armed forces etc ie nothing like your definition of 'anarchy'. They sent politicians to Madrid and participated in national elections, participated fully in the struggle against Francoist fascism and found time to fight against the communists too. They actually have a lot in common with many small government states' rights US libertarians. Probably their only fault, if you can call it that, is that they didn't smash the communists when they had the chance- as technically they were on the same side and Uncle Joe was the only foreign leader (apart from Mexico, who couldn't do much) to actually get off his chuff and send the legitimately elected government supplies.

[Gorgon]

If we are using the American native (no pun intended) definition of socialism it includes things like the wellfare state established in england after WW2. That has nothing to do with controlling the means of production, rather the idea is mutually agreeing to a larger degree of redistribution. The nanny state takes care of you from the cradle to the grave.

 

It works just fine, it's not 'broken', or 'bound to fail' it's just a different way of life than you are used to.

[Walsingham]

Some robust snipping follows:

 

Communism has two fundamental problems: its totalitarian and socialist. Both are bad.

 

Totalitarianism represents the ultimate failing of government: an absolute failure to trust its citizens to be able to lead their own lives.

 

Socialism is just fundamentally stupid; it goes against basic human nature. No large group of people will ever agree to absolute economic equality, and for good reason

 

So no, I'm not just trolling, I didn't have time to write out a full post.

 

I like your angle on totalitarianism. I don't agree on your version of socialism. But you conflate socialism and communism, as Gorgon points out. The former, you point out, and as I pointed out earlier, requires totalitarianism to be sustained. If our trolltastic friend knew his Marx better he might be appalled by the realisation that this reduces all men to the status of slaves. Even Marx would have recognised that slavery was inferior to the corrupted freedom of wage worker.

 

When I think of socialism, or most of my compatriots think of socialism, we think of society. No man, as they say, is an island. Nature does not furnish every man with his just desserts for his efforts. I take no satisfaction from seeing a man without the means to feed himself because his occupation has been taken away by forces utterly beyond his control. Nor do I expect anything good to emerge from his starving. I take no satisfaction from seeing a man with more money than he can possibly spend on anything but artificially expensive toys. Nor do I epxect any good to emerge from his boredom and aggrandisement. I share your somewhat pessimistic view of the niceness of people, so I do not expect the latter to help the former on his own, although he has the means to do so.

 

Incidentally, I notice that no-one has yet contradicted my statement that LoF ignored sensible posts of mine in the past. I remind the members that I asked for people to chip up in his defence if they felt it justified.

[GreasyDogMeat]

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-...th-korea-1-of-3

 

This is one of my favorite NK documentaries, I 've seen a lot of them. You don't see the camera man much in this but his balls must be made out of titanium sheathed diamond.

 

Thank you for posting that.

 

Its such a shame their people have been brainwashed from birth.

[Gorgon]

Bizzare. He gets ferried around an industrial wasteland with no cars and few people and taken to 'see the sights' by the official handlers. At one point he plays ping pong and snooker with a giggling ginsing tea salesgirl at one of the venues, she hasen't seen a customer in months.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Bizzare. He gets ferried around an industrial wasteland with no cars and few people and taken to 'see the sights' by the official handlers. At one point he plays ping pong and snooker with a giggling ginsing tea salesgirl at one of the venues, she hasen't seen a customer in months.

Make sure to watch the entire thing as there are two parts after the initial one. A link should pop up after the video ends. Such a weird and interesting look at the country.

[Gorgon]

Watching from work, can't change the settings.

[EUIX]

You just need to scroll down a bit you can see the other two parts.