North Korea...

[Skeptic]

Malachi, you haven't addressed a very simple point, North Korea is in the same situation as every country that's tried communism, it's bankrupt, the people are starving, and the government has devolved into a totalitarian state.

Don't expect him to. The way of life in in every single "marxist worker's paradice", without exception, is the ultimate proof of the stupidity and horror of communism. This well-known fact is, of course, the real reason that every single remaining communist (all 183 of them) lives in the "decadent imperlialistic west" (usually on some college campus. )

 

[hgc]

I'm not exactly sure where you get that from out of that text, but yes, I'm sure that they were, the communist movement was global. There were over a million of communists in the United States in 1919 as well.

This si no defense of North Korea, and I have no idea why people are trying to make it out to be one. The issue why have they reacted in the way that they have. What forces have shaped their civilization? The country has have a very hard time, it has sufferened many invasions and occupations.

Do you really think that if America were invaded and about 10% of the of women were tunred into sex slaves for the invaders, everyone was forced to speak a different language, everyone had to adopt foreign names, all history was rewirtten, about 20% of the able bodies men were forced into slavery, and tens of millions of people were killed and tortured and this went on for about 20 years, then after that and a giant world war the country that had helped to fight off our opponents allied with our opponents against us as soon as the war was over, and then divided our contry in half, and the only ally we had left then backed out on us and didn't support us either. Don't you think that the country just *might* get a little extreme and militant?

Obviously their current culture is abad one and a problematic one, the issue I am saying is that its a product of the abuse that they have taken.

As for South Korean, their history has not been so great either. They have really only done well just recently especially since the Olympics.

http://asiarecipe.com/korhistory.html



Now, really South Korean didn't start doing well until the late 80s politically, and didn't do well economically until just recently. South Korea's post WWII history is as bloody or bloodier than North Korea's. Right now yes, most certianly South Korea is much better off, but that has not always been the case. Dissent by the South Koreans has been what has led to progress, and unforunately there is very little dissent in North Korea due to the propaganda.

My point, the country has have a very hard time, and their curent state is a reaction to those hard times.

Here's the problem with your theory. N and S Korea suffered the same under Japan, but somehow they are very different today. Sure S Korea had political problems until quite recently, with coups and somewhat despotic rulers. But their prosperity didn't just pop up recently, it's the result of 50 years of building an industrial society that actually welcomes and thrives on trade and all other kinds of contact with the outside world. So, at what point do you stop blaming the Japanese, and start to examine what half a century of rule by this one man and his son has done to N Korea? Are you trying to claim that if you go back 20 years, N and S Korea look the same?

 

[jj]

Malachi, you haven't addressed a very simple point, North Korea is in the same situation as every country that's tried communism, it's bankrupt, the people are starving, and the government has devolved into a totalitarian state.

Don't expect him to. The way of life in in every single "marxist worker's paradice", without exception, is the ultimate proof of the stupidity and horror of communism. This well-known fact is, of course, the real reason that every single remaining communist (all 183 of them) lives in the "decadent imperlialistic west" (usually on some college campus. )

Maybe it's time for a "The single obvious question for Malachi" thread?

 

[Malachi151]

Malachi, you haven't addressed a very simple point, North Korea is in the same situation as every country that's tried communism, it's bankrupt, the people are starving, and the government has devolved into a totalitarian state.

I submit that those are the direct real-life outcomes of communist philosopy.

Why would you even think that this is a defense of communism? How many times do I have to say that I think communism could never work? Plus the issues in North Korea really have nothing to do with communism in an economic sense, they have everything to do with totalitarianism in the poltical sense.

Anyway, my points on communism have always been that the adoption of communism by a country is always done as a REACTION TO aggression.

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in a country is likeways a REACTION TO aggression.

I certinaly do not agree with either Stalist/Communist or Islamic Fundamentlaist ideology or any type of political system that is not open and democratic and which is abusive of its people, but I can certianly realize that these types of governments typically form as a reaction to outside pressure.

Korea has been shaped by its reaction to the Japanese invasion and American occupation and intervention. The people have supported these dictators out of fear caused by those occurances and out of the collapse of their civilization becuase of occupation.

The same can be said of China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicoragua, Honduras, and Nigeria.

In all of those places the counties had been significantly damaged by foreign invaders. As a reaction to this the people supported hard line nationalists who's aim was to throw out the foreigners. Communism was just an ideology that supported that mindset and catered to the real turth of these situations, which was that these counties were occupied for the purpose of monitary gain by the occupying power. That was true. Communism reinformced that and provided an ideological way out of that trap. The USSR supported countries in their efforts to become independant and the people supported the help of the USSR because they wanted to become independant.

Unfortunately the ideology was problematic, and the leaders that these people supported were often extremists. The reason that extremists were supported was because the conditions that these people faced were extreme in the first place.

It is definately a losing scenario, but it is one that is brought about because of oppression in the first place.

 

[jj]

Why would you even think that this is a defense of communism?

Straw man?

Malachi, your condemnation seems to imply that somehow the west is responsible for the problems in NK, but it ignores the actiions of the former USSR, the PRC, and the NK government itself.

The fact that the USSR helped NK shoot itself in the foot is not the fault of US agression, Malachi.

 

[jj]

Unfortunately the ideology was problematic, and the leaders that these people supported were often extremists. The reason that extremists were supported was because the conditions that these people faced were extreme in the first place.

And those problems came about in large due to the behavior of WW2 era Japan, the USSR, and the PRC's actions at the time.

Blaming the west for that is absurd.

 

[Cinorjer]

I lived in South Korea for a couple of years (military service) and came to love the country and people. It's a beautiful country and you'd never know it was trashed in a war only 50 or so years ago.

Korea has a rich and ancient history, that unfortunately includes repeated invasions and occupations by China and Japan over the last thousand years or so. It's almost like the two Asian superpowers took turns plundering the country. The Koreans have little love of Japan because of this.

The little country, both north and south, has little in the way of natural resources and barely enough land capable of growing crops to feed their own people in good years. The trouble in the north is, you can feed a huge army or you can feed your own people with what they have, but not both. Without an industrial base and international trade, that's just the way it is. By choosing to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, they're stuck in the dark ages where famine takes care of the food versus population equation.

 

[Mike B.]

Now, really South Korean didn't start doing well until the late 80s politically, and didn't do well economically until just recently. South Korea's post WWII history is as bloody or bloodier than North Korea's. Right now yes, most certianly South Korea is much better off, but that has not always been the case. Dissent by the South Koreans has been what has led to progress, and unforunately there is very little dissent in North Korea due to the propaganda.

My point, the country has have a very hard time, and their curent state is a reaction to those hard times.

Where the hell are you getting this crap?

Not to be rude...but this is absurd.

South Korea's economy started to improve in the 1960s under President Park. Yes it continued to do well into today. (including the 80s, except for one down year 1979-1980.)

The division that you blame on America is interesting, in that Soviet troops started pouring across the Yalu shortly after World War II and would probably have occupied the entire country.

BTW,
North Korea was the natural resource rich part of the country. South Korea was the traditional poorer agricultural area. It took communism to turn it into a starving sh-thole.

Also, is it fear that causes the North Koreans to dig tunnels under the DMZ? Tunnels that have NO defensive purpose. 4 tunnels have been found since the late 1970s. There may be as many as 20 more.

Yes of course you take Kim Il Sung at his word, right? He was only interested in re-unifying the country. The whole cult of personality was of course because the people really loved him. That is what people that are loved do... You know have people shot for not having pictures of him in their house...

Only a unbalanced idealouge would look at Korea over the past 50 years and come to your bizzare conclusions.
(Or you are purposely being absurd to be provacitvie? You know trolling?)

 

[WildCat]

I heard the story once that when N. Korean delegation visited Seoul, and images of the city were broadcast in the north, they were told that the city didn't really look like that, that the S. Koreans had built up a gigantic stage set of a city and shipped in millions of people -- all for propoganda purposes.

Actually, the N. Koreans do this themselves. The pic below is from the July 2003 National Geographic. It shows a S. Korean farmer in the DMZ (w/ an armed guard) and a N. Korean "city" in the background. The "city" is actually a facade, a desperate attempt to feign N. Korean prosperity. It's called "Propaganda Village".

Malachi:
You know, General MacArthur wanted to reunite the two Koreas also, and would have done so if not for the 1 million Chinese cannon fodder sent out to prevent that. So shouldn't you really be blaming China for the current mess?

 

[Malachi151]

Yes, Park did industrialize Korea, but he was also a military ruler who took countrol from thr democratic government through a coup and ruled with an iron fist and there was significant corruption under him.

A general who launched a military coup to end a brief period of democracy in South Korea, Park long admired the Japanese and served in the Japanese forces which occupied Manchuria in the 1930s.

He quickly instituted a similar pattern of development in South Korea, which was a backward agrarian economy in 1960, having failed to develop in the 1950s under Syngman Rhee.

Park nationalised all the Korean banks and reinforced the system of chaebol - a few specially selected large companies encouraged to tailor their growth and production targets to meet South Korean government objectives and dependent on those state-owned banks for the credit they needed to operate and grow.

Park instituted a severe autocracy and crushed any sign of unrest. But he also led from the front in his drive to industrialise South Korea, leading an austere lifestyle and discouraging conspicuous consumption by the business community. One of the first acts he passed was the 1961 Law for Dealing with Illicit Wealth Accumulation, under which he arrested a number of the country's leading businessmen. But what happened then was very revealing: Park exempted all of the businessmen from prison and confiscation of their property if they agreed to invest their wealth in the new industry sectors laid out by the government. Compulsory investment!

Having taken power as a general, Park Chung Hee covnerted himself into a civilian president in general elections held in 1963. He played the civilian politics ame throughout the 1960s but reverted to type when he felt the pressure: in 1972, Park Chung Hee declared martial law. From this point until 1979, Park ruled by presidential decree and criticism of him and his government was expressly illegal.

In international terms, Park Chung Hee was a pro-American stalwart at a time when policy planners stomped the corridors of the Pentagon foaming at the mouth about Vietnam and the domino theory in south-east Asia. Park sent over 300,000 South Korean soldiers to fight alongside the Americans in Vietnam (where they were paid by the U.S. government, by the way, in possibly the largest mercenary operation in modern times). At home, he created the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (the KCIA) which loomed large over Korean public life in the 1960s and the 1970s. From 3,000 staff at its creation in 1961, the KCIA grew to an incredible 370,000 just three years later.

Ironically, Park was shot dead by the head of the KCIA in October 1979 Kim Chae-Kyu amid a wave of strikes and student protests.

His death sparked a period of uncertainty and chaos - and eventually to the end of the military regime and the current civilian republic in 1988.

As you can imagine, feeling towards Park Chung Hee is mixed. He gave South Korea prosperity but at tremendous cost, and arguably the cosy structure of a few favoured huge corporations who effectively carry out government policy by proxy that he put in place is now what is under challange from the debts system.

http://www.oneworld.org/outthere/seasia/skorea/chaebol/park.htm

South Korea's nuclear program:

On becoming aware of it, the U.S. government pressured South Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme and threatened to halt civilian nuclear assistance if it did not. In early 1975 President Park withdrew from the French-Korean reprocessing deal and pledged to abandon the programme completely and permanently in exchange for the cancellation by the U.S. of further troop withdrawals from the Korean Peninsula. In a recent analysis, Mr. Kim Hakjoon argues that President Park initiated the South’s nuclear weapons programme as a bargaining chip against the U.S. withdrawal of its nuclear umbrella – the “defend us or else” nuclear blackmail, as well as U.S. criticism of his domestic dictatorial regime. Under pressure from the U.S., South Korea completed the ratification of its accession to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on April 23, 1975, thus solidifying the promise to halt its nuclear weapons programme. In the late 1970s reports surfaced that the South continued to pursue this programme clandestinely. An opposition lawmaker Kang Chang Sung stated that in 1978 President Park told him that the country’s nuclear weapons programme was approximately 95% complete. After President Park was assassinated in October 1979 and the new government of Chun Doo Hwan came to power, Kang was told to dismiss all researchers working on the nuclear bomb and end the nuclear weapons programme.

http://projects.sipri.se/nuclear/cnsc3kos.htm

Gee, sound familiar? You see, North Korea is just doing the same thing, or at least trying to. This is a strategy that the north has seen work in the past and they were going to try it as well, like I said, using the nuclear program as a barganing chip. However, Bush has essentially said no, and now the North Koreans don't know what to do. The intent all along has been to bargan, but if there is no barganing beng done then they don't know what to do, and the situaiton just get's worse.

 

[Ziggurat]

Anyway, my points on communism have always been that the adoption of communism by a country is always done as a REACTION TO aggression.

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in a country is likeways a REACTION TO aggression.

Oh, well then that makes it OK.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Plenty of countries have been victims of aggression and even imperialist occupation without resorting to reactionary violent ideologies. And I don't accept the premise that such ideologies are always reactionary responses to aggression either. Pinning the blame for Islamic fundamentalism or communism on foreign agression provides no real insight into its causes. It ignores the pivotal role individual leaders usually provide in such movements. And it provides no insight into why some countries choose paths of moderation instead, despite their hardships. In effect, it's just a "he started it" kind of argument that excuses the wrongs of violent radicals.

 

[Malachi151]

I lived in South Korea for a couple of years (military service) and came to love the country and people. It's a beautiful country and you'd never know it was trashed in a war only 50 or so years ago.

Korea has a rich and ancient history, that unfortunately includes repeated invasions and occupations by China and Japan over the last thousand years or so. It's almost like the two Asian superpowers took turns plundering the country. The Koreans have little love of Japan because of this.

The little country, both north and south, has little in the way of natural resources and barely enough land capable of growing crops to feed their own people in good years. The trouble in the north is, you can feed a huge army or you can feed your own people with what they have, but not both. Without an industrial base and international trade, that's just the way it is. By choosing to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, they're stuck in the dark ages where famine takes care of the food versus population equation.

Well exactly, thier economic situatio is the same as Cuba's its in horrible shape because they are a small territory that cannot provide for themselves without trade, nd yet they have cut off from trade. In their case because of their own actions, in Cuba's case against their will.

The country became isolationaist because of the fact that they had been invaded to many times. I mean its an understandable reaction. Unfortunately its not a productive reaction, but its no different than a person who is abused and then decides to lock themselves in their room and not come out.

Ultimately that does not provide a helpful solution, but it is an understandable reaction.

 

[Malachi151]

And I don't accept the premise that such ideologies are always reactionary responses to aggression either.

Name a single case where it is not.


Pinning the blame for Islamic fundamentalism or communism on foreign agression provides no real insight into its causes.

On teh contrary is provides excellent insite into its causes. The cause is foreign aggression!

It ignores the pivotal role individual leaders usually provide in such movements.

On the contrary. It does not ignore anything. Society is put under pressure and stress and they feel threatened. Because of this they support extremist nationalist leaders to expel the foreign threat. What is so hard to understand about this?

Think about it. What is America was invaded and occupied by China for 50 years, don't you think that an extremist oppostional movement would build among the people until thery overthrew the occupying force? Who do you think people would rally behind, some nice guy with rational ideas, or a militant guy that gives rally speaches and raises his fist and says "fight, fight, fight!". And then after its all over, who is left in power? The same leader in most cases in these countries. The same militant dude.

I guarentee you that if somehow China invaded and occupied America that this poppulation would become highly Christian Fundamentlaist, highly racist and anti-Asian, and highly militant. That's exactly what any country does when it gets oppressed by a foreign country.

The reason you don't see this type of behavior in the dominate countries in the world is beucase they ahve been the ones doing to invasions and doing the occupation. The countries that are now militant and "problematic" are the ones who have been victems of this behavior over the past 100 years.

Dude, map it out this is so obvious.

Every country that is doing well has been an imperialist counrty in the past 100 years, save Australia and Canada, and every country that is having major problems have been invaded and/or occupied by one fo the cdominate countries in the past 80 years. Without fail.

Why is that pattern so hard to people to understand?

And it provides no insight into why some countries choose paths of moderation instead, despite their hardships.

First of all, name a country that was occupied by an imperial force which then chose a path of moderation and expelled that occupying force? Can you name one? Virtually every messed up country in the world today is one that was occupied by an imperialist power within the past 100 years that IS my point.

Some of them have recovered and done better than others by essentially reengaging with the West and allowing a continued level of cooperation. The ones that don't want to interact with the West end up being punished to the point that they stay in constant hardship. The message is that you have to cooperate in terms of trade with the Western powers, or they will ruin you.

If you don't play by America's or Japan's or Australia's or Europe's rules, then you don't play at all. Essnetially you have to open your country up and let these powers have access to your resources or else you will be punished.

In effect, it's just a "he started it" kind of argument that excuses the wrongs of violent radicals.

No its not. Look around. Iran, Islamic Fundamentalist. They took control in a coup becuase of the oppressive and brutal regime of the Shah of Iran who was supported by the CIA for American interests. That's your cause right there.

 

[WildCat]

First of all, name a country that was occupied by an imperial force which then chose a path of moderation and expelled that occupying force? Can you name one? Virtually every messed up country in the world today is one that was occupied by an imperialist power within the past 100 years that IS my point.

Some of them have recovered and done better than others by essentially reengaging with the West and allowing a continued level of cooperation. The ones that don't want to interact with the West end up being punished to the point that they stay in constant hardship. The message is that you have to cooperate in terms of trade with the Western powers, or they will ruin you.

If you don't play by America's or Japan's or Australia's or Europe's rules, then you don't play at all. Essnetially you have to open your country up and let these powers have access to your resources or else you will be punished.

In effect, it's just a "he started it" kind of argument that excuses the wrongs of violent radicals.

No its not. Look around. Iran, Islamic Fundamentalist. They took control in a coup becuase of the oppressive and brutal regime of the Shah of Iran who was supported by the CIA for American interests. That's your cause right there.

But you only trace the history back until you find your favorite bogeyman - the US, Western European power, etc. That's when history ends for you. What you fail to acknoweledge is that there were acts of agression that drove these conquests also. Theoretically, you could trace all the world's problems back to the day the first hominid threw a tree branch at a rival to keep him away from his favorite fruit tree, so what?

Hey, the US only got involved in the Middle East after the Barbary Pirates attacked American shipping, so by your logic you shouldn't blame the US, after all we're just reacting to Arab aggression. Now, be a good Malachi and post about the vicious Arab aggression that started it all.

 

[headscratcher4]

South Korea's post WWII history is as bloody or bloodier than North Korea's.

Completely absurd...the S. Korean military dictatorship was brutal and repressive. For example, it shot thousands of students in the streets. It murdered and tortured. However, UN estimates that 2 to 3 million have died in the north from starvation alone in the last 10 years...are you honestly suggesting that South Korea murdered 2 to 3 million people in the last 40 years, little lone the last 5? Where is your proof for that assertion?

Here's the thing -- horrible as the Nazi regime was (and historically, there are few that could compare to its ugliness, its racism, its brutality etc.), even Nazism and its causing WWII has not resulted in as many deaths as putative Communists -- the history of the last century is littered with the bones of working men, women and children who died at the hands of the leadership of their various workers paradises.

Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, and on and on, are up to their necks in blood. They, in theory, were humanist, yet all they could provide the world was more efficient forms of state sponsored murder in the form of planned famines, purges, etc.

Given for a moment that everything you say about North Korea is true...that it is all the Fault of the US, that Stalin was a bit player and had no ambitions in Asia, etc. Given all of that, do you really think that if North Koreans had any idea what was happening in the world, even through the eyes of Chinese propganda, that they wouldn't en-mass seek to flee the country?

Any rational person, even in North Korea, free to explore the information on their own (rather than having history created for them by a party organ and force fed them 24/7) would, even understanding your points, reject North Korea and the system it has produced as being far more evil than any of the things that have confronted it.

 

[PogoPedant]

Every country that is doing well has been an imperialist counrty in the past 100 years, save Australia and Canada, and every country that is having major problems have been invaded and/or occupied by one fo the cdominate countries in the past 80 years. Without fail.

Maybe not fail, but a poor C-. Norway (yay!) was a swedish colony from 1814 to 1914 (having been a danish colony from about 13-something to 1814), so that's 89 years of freedom... you're cutting it close there Malachi.

Are you only counting large countries when talking about successful countries? Otherwise you missed out on Norway and New Zealand to name two, and New Zealand was a colony for the longest time. It's still is part of the Commonwealth...

Anyways, I shouldn't be too critical, I've grown up in a pseudo-socialist country, and we're doing great. Thank you oil and fish.

 

[Aoidoi]

First of all, name a country that was occupied by an imperial force which then chose a path of moderation and expelled that occupying force? Can you name one?

Japan, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, most of the eastern block...

I find myself mildly amazed that someone would try to justify the actions of North Korea. It's almost universally glossed over by anyone trying to defend communism or socialism. The easiest way to do this is to simply argue it's neither, that it's a ruthless dictatorship. But this argument that it's somehow the US's fault stretches the limits of credulity.

 

[Mike B.]

I am really curious to hear Malachi's views on how North Korea's actions are defensive.

For example, the fact that they have built numerous tunnels underneath the DMZ or the use of suicide submarine missions to infiltrate people into the ROK only to be killed.

 

[Malachi151]

Here is perhaps a better example of how I see it in terms of "blame".

Take for example Prohibition in the US.

During Prohibition crime went up and many violent crime gangs formed anda whole host of illegal activity sprang up.

Now, people often "blame" the US government for making alcohol illegal for creating the conditions for crime, however the US government wasn't the ones pulling the trigger or doing the crimes.

That's how I see the issue of these communist and fundamentlaist states. No, the developed nations didn't force these people to do what they did, but they created the environment in which that type of thing was likely to happen.

The blame for the spread fo communism falls as much on the imperialists as the rise of mafias in the 1920s was the fault of the Prohibition Act.

The Prohibition Act didn't go out and make people form crime organizations, but it created a situation where people were had motive to do it. Same in the case with communism and fundamentalism.

 

[Malachi151]

Maybe not fail, but a poor C-. Norway (yay!) was a swedish colony from 1814 to 1914 (having been a danish colony from about 13-something to 1814), so that's 89 years of freedom... you're cutting it close there Malachi.

Are you only counting large countries when talking about successful countries? Otherwise you missed out on Norway and New Zealand to name two, and New Zealand was a colony for the longest time. It's still is part of the Commonwealth...

Anyways, I shouldn't be too critical, I've grown up in a pseudo-socialist country, and we're doing great. Thank you oil and fish.

Notice that your examples are still of counties that were colonies or occupied by other countries of a similar/same culture.

Yes New Zealand, but they were really just European settlers that broke off, not a case of invasion of occupation by a foreign civilization, New Zealand was like America or Canada or Australia, break aways from empire, which is different from occupation by a foerign invader, such as are the cases that I'm talking about.

Norway is a similar thing, its was nothing like say the British settelment of South Africa, or the French occupation of Vietnam.