• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea names Kims successor

Is there some reason I should not expect you to troll or tell me I'm wrong if I respond to this question?
:rofl

Something you may wanna know about this soviet. When you say something he cant make an intelligent comeback to or something that doesnt suit him, apparently your "trolling". Pathetic.
 
1. And you're the authority on the subject because...
2. The DPRK doesn't even consider themself "Communist". They have no Communist Party, and adhere to the neo-Confucian ideology of Juche, not Marxism-Leninism.

Oh my, you people do make me laugh when you attempt to defend the failure of an ideology that is so corrupt and naive.

I don't care what you ATTEMPT to claim; North Korea's regime is the epitomy of typical Communist ideals and nations who claim adherence to Marxist Principles. The outcome is the SAME regardless of how you attempt to avoid it or call it something else; total control of the society by a SINGLE party, total control of the economy and total control over the people with NO freedom of speech or ability to LEAVE the country.

Does it ever cause any wonder to the Socialist Defenders why nations who have such policies have to create policies that prevent their citizens from leaving?

What we have here is a Stalinist Communist inventing his own word to describe his desire to control every aspect of North Korean society to the detriment and starvation of his own people.

According to Kim Jong-il's On the Juche Idea, the application of Juche in state policy entails the following: I had to :rofl reading some of this crapola.

The people must have independence (chajusong) in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.

Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.

Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.

The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

The Juche outlook also requires absolute loyalty to the party and leader. In North Korea, these are the Workers' Party of Korea and Kim Jong-il, respectively.

In official North Korean histories, one of the first purported applications of Juche was the Five-Year Plan of 1956-1961, also known as the Chollima Movement, which led to the Chongsan-ri Method and the Taean Work System. The Five-Year Plan involved rapid economic development of North Korea, with a focus on heavy industry, to ensure political independence from both the Soviet Union and the Mao Zedong regime in China. The Chollima Movement, however, applied the same method of centralized state planning that began with the Soviet First Five-Year Plan in 1928. The campaign also coincided with and was partially based on Mao's First Five-Year Plan and the Great Leap Forward. North Korea was apparently able to avoid the catastrophes of the Great Leap Forward.

Despite its aspirations to self-sufficiency, North Korea has continually relied on economic assistance from other countries. Historically, North Korea received most of its assistance from the USSR until its collapse in 1991. In the period after the Korean War, North Korea relied on economic assistance and loans from "fraternal" countries from 1953-1963 and also depended considerably on Soviet industrial aid from 1953-1976. Following the fall of the USSR, the North Korean economy went into a crisis, with consequent infrastructural failures leading to the mass famine of the mid-1990s. After several years of starvation, the People's Republic of China agreed to be a substitute for the Soviet Union as a major aid provider, supplying over 400 million dollars per year in humanitarian assistance.[2] Since 2007, North Korea also received large supplies of heavy fuel oil and technical assistance as scheduled in the six-party talks framework.[3] North Korea was the second largest recipient of international food aid in 2005, and continues to suffer chronic food shortages.
 
I already rebutted a long collection of rambling about socialism that you posted the other day...shouldn't you be getting around to responding to that? ;)
 
North Korea was supported by the USSR and it's government set up on the USSR image. It was not setup according to a Chinese version of communism.
 
I already rebutted a long collection of rambling about socialism that you posted the other day...shouldn't you be getting around to responding to that? ;)

I thought I had responded but you kept insisting on ignoring what I was saying and entering into a never ending circle of futility by running off to the next unsubstantiated assertion; in other words, I let you have the last word in an endeavor that was futile when you don't even comprehend the other side’s arguments and facts.

Here, let's try this again; start a new thread in the partisan political forum were you first define what YOU think Socialism means and what YOUR version of what Capitalism means; then;

Where has a Socialist economic model ever worked better than a Capitalist economic model?

Please post economic data that supports your assertions from credible sources.

I will be more than happy to respond there. I don't want to de-rail this thread with your desperate assertions about what constitutes Socialism.
 
I thought I had responded but you kept insisting on ignoring what I was saying and entering into a never ending circle of futility by running off to the next unsubstantiated assertion; in other words, I let you have the last word in an endeavor that was futile when you don't even comprehend the other side’s arguments and facts.

Here, let's try this again; start a new thread in the partisan political forum were you first define what YOU think Socialism means and what YOUR version of what Capitalism means; then;

Where has a Socialist economic model ever worked better than a Capitalist economic model?

Please post economic data that supports your assertions from credible sources.

I will be more than happy to respond there. I don't want to de-rail this thread with your desperate assertions about what constitutes Socialism.

Actually, why don't you do that, since you seem to enjoy setting parameters? I would have had you in a True Debate a while ago...:cool:
 
Actually, why don't you do that, since you seem to enjoy setting parameters? I would have had you in a True Debate a while ago...:cool:

I am not the one desperately trying to defend the OBVIOUS failures of Communist and Socialist philosophies in every thread, why should I start a thread defending a philosophy I know is a failure?

:roll:
 
I am not the one desperately trying to defend the OBVIOUS failures of Communist and Socialist philosophies in every thread, why should I start a thread defending a philosophy I know is a failure?

:roll:

You're the one nitpicking about parameters, which I care not the slightest bit about. I also don't need to go out of my way to engage someone who lacks an understanding of socialist political economy and merely refers to state capitalism...unless you have something more interesting to provide?
 
You're the one nitpicking about parameters, which I care not the slightest bit about. I also don't need to go out of my way to engage someone who lacks an understanding of socialist political economy and merely refers to state capitalism...unless you have something more interesting to provide?

Well apparently your comments are in conflict with your assertions. You definitely appear to be desperately trying to engage me in my lack of understanding of Socialist Political Economy and I gave you the chance to ENGAGE and EDUCATE me. If not, why do you continually bring it up?

If you have nothing but empty whiney blather, just say so; I am the one who knows it is so obvious, you're the one in denial.

OR, perhaps you truly are uninterested in a substantive coherent debate and merely wanting to troll here and merely wish to insult me personally?

:2wave:
 
Is there some reason I should not expect you to troll or tell me I'm wrong if I respond to this question?


If you can't answer the question just say so, pre-emptivley accusing me of trolling because you don't want to answer the question is rather ironic, no? :lol:
 
Well apparently your comments are in conflict with your assertions. You definitely appear to be desperately trying to engage me in my lack of understanding of Socialist Political Economy and I gave you the chance to ENGAGE and EDUCATE me. If not, why do you continually bring it up?

If you have nothing but empty whiney blather, just say so; I am the one who knows it is so obvious, you're the one in denial.

OR, perhaps you truly are uninterested in a substantive coherent debate and merely wanting to troll here and merely wish to insult me personally?

:2wave:

Don't flatter yourself. I merely objected to your repetition of standard rightist talking points that had generally all been destroyed in the last thread that you inaccurately referred to state capitalism in. It seemed incumbent upon you to respond to the first rebuttals of your comments before merely repeating them.

:2wave:
 
Don't flatter yourself. I merely objected to your repetition of standard rightist talking points that had generally all been destroyed in the last thread that you inaccurately referred to state capitalism in. It seemed incumbent upon you to respond to the first rebuttals of your comments before merely repeating them.

:2wave:

As opposed to your repetition of your farcical "leftist" talking points which have all but been destroyed by the historic FACTS?

Carry on. :2wave:
 
As opposed to your repetition of your farcical "leftist" talking points which have all but been destroyed by the historic FACTS?

Carry on. :2wave:

I can only hope you're being sarcastic. There's certainly no other anarchists here that I'm aware of, and I've never encountered another anarchist with a strong interest in labor economics, so I have no "talking points" to repeat.

:2wave:
 
Where has a Socialist economic model ever worked better than a Capitalist economic model? .

OK yets use Latin America as a microcosm. The closest we get to an example of a "socialist economic model" there is Cuba and Venuzuela. Now compare there possitions on the human development index [available on wikipedia] to Columbia, Peru and Brazil. They come off alot better despite both being led by meglomanaics
 
I can only hope you're being sarcastic. There's certainly no other anarchists here that I'm aware of, and I've never encountered another anarchist with a strong interest in labor economics, so I have no "talking points" to repeat.

:2wave:

You have no evidence to suggest a communist economic structure works better than a capitalist one. What large, powerful communist economy could you possibly use as an example, past or present, that has surpassed the power and economic abilities of a large, powerful capitalist economy like the US for example? Isnt that a sign in itself that Karl Marx was obviously stoned when he invented the pathetic idea of an economic structure that is purely "efficient".
 
lol@defense for the other communist monarchy. Power to the proletariat indeed.

lol@more trolling.

Something you may wanna know about this soviet. When you say something he cant make an intelligent comeback to or something that doesnt suit him, apparently your "trolling". Pathetic.

lol@more trolling.

I don't care what you ATTEMPT to claim; North Korea's regime is the epitomy of typical Communist ideals and nations who claim adherence to Marxist Principles. The outcome is the SAME regardless of how you attempt to avoid it or call it something else; total control of the society by a SINGLE party, total control of the economy and total control over the people with NO freedom of speech or ability to LEAVE the country.

Does it ever cause any wonder to the Socialist Defenders why nations who have such policies have to create policies that prevent their citizens from leaving?

Sure, it's true because you say so, right.

What we have here is a Stalinist Communist inventing his own word to describe his desire to control every aspect of North Korean society to the detriment and starvation of his own people.

It's not simply the invention of a word. What an absolutely absurd and pitiful argument.

North Korea was supported by the USSR and it's government set up on the USSR image.

Exactly.

If you can't answer the question just say so, pre-emptivley accusing me of trolling because you don't want to answer the question is rather ironic, no?

I wasn't pre-emptively accusing you of trolling; I was inquiring whether you actually were interested in how they were different or was just interested in responding to my response with the typical trolling that is pretty evident in this thread, and what usually happens when discussing North Korea.
 
Last edited:
pfft Juche is a reaction to de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union, Juche=Stalinism.

Juche was developed long before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

EDIT: My mistake, I now realize that you were talking about the Khruschev era and not the collapse of the USSR. It is true that Juche developed as a reaction to the Khruschev reforms, but Juche is not actually a continuation of Marxism-Leninism, even as Stalinists define it.
 
Last edited:
You have no evidence to suggest a communist economic structure works better than a capitalist one. What large, powerful communist economy could you possibly use as an example, past or present, that has surpassed the power and economic abilities of a large, powerful capitalist economy like the US for example? Isnt that a sign in itself that Karl Marx was obviously stoned when he invented the pathetic idea of an economic structure that is purely "efficient".

You have no knowledge of socialist political economy to even comprehend my examples, nor a willingness to accurately understand them. For instance, you're unaware of the fact that very little of Marx's focus was on communism so much as it was on a critique of capitalism. You continue to inaccurately believe that a centralized command economy constitutes socialism despite so much evidence to the contrary. And you've utterly ignored every mention I've made of the successful implementation of libertarian socialism in years past.
 
Back
Top Bottom