• 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

No, it wouldn't, inasmuch as you perceive my approach as permitting aggression.

Or theres a little kid you got your eyes on you rather tap with the law on your side. Who knows, communists types are all weird ;)
 
My focus is primarily on economic efficiency, and the beneficial effects that libertarian socialism would have on such.

Americas entire economic and international power was moulded by the foundations and uniqueness of its free market. Im not gonna buy for a sec that communism is so much "better" of efficient to the extent it can elevate itself above the economic advantages of capitalism.
 
Americas entire economic and international power was moulded by the foundations and uniqueness of its free market. Im not gonna buy for a sec that communism is so much "better" of efficient to the extent it can elevate itself above the economic advantages of capitalism.

No, it wasn't. The "free market" enjoys no historical record of existence. Moreover, America's international power was molded by its use of strategically protectionist trade policy to protect the appropriate development of infant industries and other similarly precarious resources. I'd recommend having a look at Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder. As noted therein:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the “official historians” of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

But you unfortunately seem to subscribe to very primitive economic fallacies, so I wouldn't expect you to pick up much from that. :2wave:
 
No, it wasn't. The "free market" enjoys no historical record of existence. Moreover, America's international power was molded by its use of strategically protectionist trade policy to protect the appropriate development of infant industries


So now your ignoring the main reason for Americas economic superiority: its free market and the success it has enjoyed from it, and pinning its economic success soley on protectionist policies? I suppose communism in infinetly more successful "historically".
 
My focus is primarily on economic efficiency, and the beneficial effects that libertarian socialism would have on such.

Ah, but economic efficiency is political efficiency. You really can't separate the two. Any way you slice it, it's about how power and influence get divvied up.

Any set of rules is a set of rules, particularly if there's a penalty involved for not following them.
 
So now your ignoring the main reason for Americas economic superiority: its free market and the success it has enjoyed from it, and pinning its economic success soley on protectionist policies?

As has just been noted, this is a utopian fantasy. You'll want to consult the historical record to discover the majestic reality of the free market's lack of existence.

I suppose communism in infinetly more successful "historically".

Hmmm...in some respects, I suppose. I typically refer to the horizontal federations of anarchist collectives established during the Spanish Revolution to illustrate the superiority of libertarian communism. As noted by Gaston Leval:

In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity.

Is that an acceptable source? :cool:
 
Ah, but economic efficiency is political efficiency. You really can't separate the two. Any way you slice it, it's about how power and influence get divvied up.

As a consistent socialist, I of course agree, but others seem not to, so I found it necessary to clarify.
 
Always get a kick out of the Communists denying Communist nations are Communist.

Reality of the ideology on Earth doesn't tend to fly amongst Free Peoples. So its advocates have to deny what they are advocating.

//

Anyway enough of the wannabe's..

This replacement for Kim has been suspected as likely for a few years now. Its become necessary now to validate by the North Koreans because of Kim's health. He almost died from what info came out..without a party designated leader.

Kim Jong-un will be as big a SOB as his grandfather and father. Don't even have to wonder that. .

Another potential alarming possibility to this announcement is Kim is going to take actions that require a named replacement. IOW attack South Korea
 
Always get a kick out of the Communists denying Communist nations are Communist.

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.
 
Always get a kick out of the Communists denying Communist nations are Communist.

That represents your own misapplication of political economy on several levels. Firstly, even the state capitalists who falsely claim that the nation-states that adopted their ideology are socialist in nature would not claim that they were "communist," because such individuals are usually self-professed Marxists of some variety and thus adopt the doctrine of the transitional worker's state, thereby causing them to acknowledge only a moneyless, marketless, stateless society as "communist" in nature. Secondly, the state capitalist USSR and similarly authoritarian states did not muster socialism because socialism necessitates the collective ownership and management of the means of production. The state of affairs present in the Soviet Union involved elite party control and management of the means of production, not any element of legitimate public "ownership." This was a reality acknowledged by legitimate socialists in the Soviet Union, such as the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin.

Reality of the ideology on Earth doesn't tend to fly amongst Free Peoples. So its advocates have to deny what they are advocating.

That's laughably fallacious. The participatory elements of socialism in general ensure legitimate self-governance through the extension of democracy into the economic realm. As an anarcho-communist, I'm especially able to represent this reality. For instance, consider this statement by the aforementioned Kropotkin.

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

Conversely, capitalism involves the establishment of authoritarian social relationships in the workplace and wider society as a result of elite private control of the means of production, a state of affairs that would be accurately acknowledged as dictatorial in nature if manifested through the vessel of a state.
 
Who cares what economic system NK uses? NK has nuclear weapons, a chip on its shoulder, and its about to have a transfer of power from a cult of personality dictator. I doubt the thousands of dead South Koreans would care what economic system was used to build the artillery that killed them.

The primary goals to are ensure a smooth transfer of power to avoid a war spilling over the border, as well as preventing WMDs from getting into the wrong hands.
 
North Korea is just another example of a modern version of imperial rule, with a monarch and his successors. China is this way and so is Vietnam. You have large "Communist" parties but their central leaders are always elected through inner political processes, or succession. They claim to be abolishing old ways of rule, but really they are just replacing them with themselves. It's interesting, in a way.

Always get a kick out of the Communists denying Communist nations are Communist.

The only nation that remotely resembles Communism on this Earth is Cuba. The Asian "Communists" are a fry cry from it. China is more capitalist than even the United States now, due to its increasingly free market and lack of regulation against corruption.

North Korea is closer to a cleptocracy because most of the resources entering the country (mostly China) are usurped for the head regime and are not distributed evenly to the people, which would be a key marker of a Communist state.
 
Make it real simple for the communist wannabe's and 70's era soviet propaganda speakers..
I know/have known many people who have lived under former and existing Communist states.
You guys can quote trotsky, lenin, stalin,thaelmann, mao, some twit who wants to be Marx..whoever.

My own life experiences with Communism in the real world coupled with the real life experiences of people who have actually lived under categorically and completely trumps you all.

Easy being a "32 flavors basement communist" or whatever we are today while residing in and having obvious no intention of giving up the freedoms and lifestyles you enjoy.

So set on a a scale
Real life experience with communism... not as a damn tourist
VS
Idealized classroom/booklore based experience

Yeah..really..whatever...


/////////////////


The W.P.K. (Workers Party of Korea) aka the current party running North Korea and heade dby Kim Il-jung. IS the Communist Party.

North Korean propaganda had played up the Juche ("Self Reliance") routine in order to pretend it is a homegrown ideology as well as part of an idolatry campaign initiated by Kim Il-Sung and since continued by his son Kim Il-Jung.

I find it pretty bad that is being used to deny North Korea is a Communist states...thats honestly about as bad as declaring East Germany was a Democratic state because it was called 'The German Democratic Republic' :doh
 
Last edited:
Make it real simple.
I know/have known many people who have lived under former and existing Communist states.
You guys can quote trotsky, lenin, stalin,thaelmann, mao, some twit who wants to be Marx..whoever.

My own life experiences with Communism in the real world coupled with the real life experiences of people who have actually lived under categorically and completely trumps you all.

Easy being a "32 flavors basement communist" or whatever we are today while residing in and having obvious no intention of giving up the freedoms and lifestyles you enjoy.

So set on a a scale
Real life experience with communism... not as a damn tourist
VS
Idealized classroom/booklore based experience

Yeah..really..whatever...

Yeah, that's great. Unfortunately, all the ranting in the world doesn't constitute an argument and doesn't affect the reality that no semblance of "socialism" was present in the USSR, let alone "communism," for reasons explained above. :2wave:
 
Yeah, that's great. Unfortunately, all the ranting in the world doesn't constitute an argument and doesn't affect the reality that no semblance of "socialism" was present in the USSR, let alone "communism," for reasons explained above. :2wave:

Go live under a communism then? True what Triad said. Your no communist, go China, live under it, your nothing if you formulated all of this from some SAT book.

A market should be competitive and there should be effective monopolies and oligopolies in these markets. Communism just creates whatever the government gives the hands up to, and then tells them how much to create. A free market is far more effective at achieving economic growth and providing consumers with abundant goods in the market and good competitive prices. This is evident in Vietnam, and in Eastern Europe. Communism has a history of economic flaws and problems.

Much rather live under freedom and democracy anyway. Can we get back onto the topic by any chance?
 
Go live under a communism then? True what Triad said. Your no communist, go China, live under it, your nothing if you formulated all of this from some SAT book.

No one that I know of describes China as a communist country. It would be a stretch even to describe them as a technocratic market socialist country, IMO. China remains state capitalist at its core, and though market development is certainly a component of recent overall economic development, said markets are ultimately ruled over by state bureaucrats rather than the public.

A market should be competitive and there should be effective monopolies and oligopolies in these markets.

You do realize that this is self-contradictory, don't you? The presence of monopolies and oligopolies itself inhibits market concentration, which is why the legitimate market advocate will oppose unrestrained capitalism and take steps to reduce wealth and market concentration. Perhaps you should engage in more thorough study of these terms before using them. :2wave:

Communism just creates whatever the government gives the hands up to, and then tells them how much to create. A free market is far more effective at achieving economic growth and providing consumers with abundant goods in the market and good competitive prices. This is evident in Vietnam, and in Eastern Europe. Communism has a history of economic flaws and problems.

You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you? Several arguments have just been presented to the effect that authoritarian state capitalism does not legitimately constitute even socialism (let alone communism!), and that free markets did not have a role in American economic development; rather, protectionism did. If you wish to maintain these positions, it is incumbent upon you to respond to the arguments against them rather than repeat them without consideration of opposition.

Much rather live under freedom and democracy anyway.

Then you should strongly oppose capitalism, as it spawns thoroughly authoritarian and anti-democratic social orders and hierarchies.

Can we get back onto the topic by any chance?

Inappropriate conflation of state capitalism and socialism is highly relevant to the topic of North Korean internal politics.
 
No one that I know of describes China as a communist country. It would be a stretch even to describe them as a technocratic market socialist country, IMO. China remains state capitalist at its core, and though market development is certainly a component of recent overall economic development, said markets are ultimately ruled over by state bureaucrats rather than the public.



You do realize that this is self-contradictory, don't you? The presence of monopolies and oligopolies itself inhibits market concentration, which is why the legitimate market advocate will oppose unrestrained capitalism and take steps to reduce wealth and market concentration. Perhaps you should engage in more thorough study of these terms before using them. :2wave:



You wouldn't happen to be a bot, would you? Several arguments have just been presented to the effect that authoritarian state capitalism does not legitimately constitute even socialism (let alone communism!), and that free markets did not have a role in American economic development; rather, protectionism did. If you wish to maintain these positions, it is incumbent upon you to respond to the arguments against them rather than repeat them without consideration of opposition.



Then you should strongly oppose capitalism, as it spawns thoroughly authoritarian and anti-democratic social orders and hierarchies.

Get back on topic or shut up, thanks. Im not going to bother arguing economics with a communist, because naturally i wont get anywhere if i do.


Inappropriate conflation of state capitalism and socialism is highly relevant to the topic of North Korean internal politics.

We are talking about Kims successor not the economic or social structure of NK's economy or any other internal political discussion but Kims successor.
 
Get back on topic or shut up, thanks. Im not going to bother arguing economics with a communist, because naturally i wont get anywhere if i do.

You certainly won't. In fact, you've practically gone backwards already.

We are talking about Kims successor not the economic or social structure of NK's economy or any other internal political discussion but Kims successor.

This seems far less a derailment than your comment of "[t]hat would explain your barbaric view on policy reform for age restrictions on sex." :2wave:
 
Make it real simple for the communist wannabe's and 70's era soviet propaganda speakers..
I know/have known many people who have lived under former and existing Communist states.
You guys can quote trotsky, lenin, stalin,thaelmann, mao, some twit who wants to be Marx..whoever.

My own life experiences with Communism in the real world coupled with the real life experiences of people who have actually lived under categorically and completely trumps you all.

Easy being a "32 flavors basement communist" or whatever we are today while residing in and having obvious no intention of giving up the freedoms and lifestyles you enjoy.

So set on a a scale
Real life experience with communism... not as a damn tourist
VS
Idealized classroom/booklore based experience

Yeah..really..whatever...

A state controlled by a party that calls itself communist doesn't really mean anything, by the way. Sort of like the "Congo Free State," which obviously wasn't that free.

The W.P.K. (Workers Party of Korea) aka the current party running North Korea and heade dby Kim Il-jung. IS the Communist Party.

Actually no it is not; they do not call themselves such nor do they act as such.

North Korean propaganda had played up the Juche ("Self Reliance") routine in order to pretend it is a homegrown ideology as well as part of an idolatry campaign initiated by Kim Il-Sung and since continued by his son Kim Il-Jung.

Exactly. Juche is a neo-Confucian ideology developed by Il Sung from Marxism-Leninism, but is a clear and decisive break with Marxism-Leninism. This is why they consider themselves Jucheists and not Marxist-Leninists, and why they have removed all references to Marxism-Leninism from their governmental policies and documents.

You've just put another nail into your own coffin.

Yeah, that's great. Unfortunately, all the ranting in the world doesn't constitute an argument and doesn't affect the reality that no semblance of "socialism" was present in the USSR, let alone "communism," for reasons explained above.

:applaud

Go live under a communism then? True what Triad said. Your no communist, go China, live under it, your nothing if you formulated all of this from some SAT book.

Let me quote an older post of mine from here demolishing the idea that China is anything but capitalist:

China is for all intents and purposes capitalist; the only thing communist about it is that the ruling party has the word in their name, and that the country is still named a "people's republic". Capitalist property relations were restored by Xiaoping and his supporters in the 70's, and ever since those floodgates were opened the private sector has been growing at a record rate.

The share of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and state-invested enterprises (SIEs) in the national industrial value-added, which was as high as 72 per cent in 1998, came down to 47.8 per cent in 2003 and further to 45 per cent in 2005. The share of pure private domestic and foreign enterprises (not including collectively-owned ones) was about 50 per cent in 2003. In the marketplaces, the controlled economy now accounts for only 3 per cent of the retail market, down from about 98 per cent in 1978.
-Bhaumik, T.K. Old China's New Economy: The Conquest By A Billion Paupers, p.117

Keep in mind that these numbers stop at 2005; since then there has been even further privatisation.

It should also be noted that the SOEs are mostly located in the primary sector, and in particular industries that are crucial to the country (natural resources is a big one, for example). The primary sector has also recently been steadily declining since the 80's (in terms of % share of GDP), with the tertiary sector increasing at pretty much the same rate. This is, of course, due to the massive inflow of foreign capital and the transformation of China into "the world's workshop".

SOEs are also run basically in the same way as private enterprises, with the only real difference being their source of capital investment. I unfortunately do not currently have much information on this right now, though, but this is unnecessary, as it is a secondary point. I think the claim that "China's economy is all state run" has been completely disproven.

There is absolutely no evidence that the National Bureau of statistics is fabricating their GDP. In fact, what has been reported since the reform of the Xiaoping era actually supports the fact that these numbers are accurate. For example, it would make no sense for them to report the massive fluctuations in GDP that were reported from about 1985 to 1992, and would have made much more sense for them to report steadier numbers. This alone tells me that they are on the whole accurate.

Economies don't have "virtues." Moreover, the fact that you see these issues in "third world" countries that are capitalist (China included, as proven above) disproves your claim.

A market should be competitive and there should be effective monopolies and oligopolies in these markets.

Why is that? Because you say so?

A free market is far more effective at achieving economic growth and providing consumers with abundant goods in the market and good competitive prices.

This is definitely debatable. Numerous controlled economies have achieved profound success, one example being that of the Soviet economy during the Stalin era. These command economies, however, have historically developed to such a point where they begin to stagnate, but that is mostly due to political and bureaucratic issues than any fundamental problem with the economy itself.

No one that I know of describes China as a communist country. It would be a stretch even to describe them as a technocratic market socialist country, IMO.

There are organizations, unfortunately, that consider China to still be socialist; however, they are obviously on the extreme fringe. Freedom Road Socialist Organization (frso.org) is one that I can think of off the top of my head.

The CWI (who I am aligned with, but wouldn't join because of their pettiness) also considers China to be "not yet capitalist," whatever that means. But that's just because the International Secretariat is full of a bunch of old farts that abhor change, which kind of flies in the face of their belief in dialectics.:lol:
 
Actually the country is ruled by the Workers' Party of Korea, not a Communist Party, and its guiding ideology is Juche, not Marxism-Leninism.




Same sht, new pile.



[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche]Juche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

See relationship to communism.
 
Same sht, new pile.



Juche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Juche Juche

See relationship to communism.

"Exactly. Juche is a neo-Confucian ideology developed by Il Sung from Marxism-Leninism, but is a clear and decisive break with Marxism-Leninism. This is why they consider themselves Jucheists and not Marxist-Leninists, and why they have removed all references to Marxism-Leninism from their governmental policies and documents.

You've just put another nail into your own coffin."
 
"Exactly. Juche is a neo-Confucian ideology developed by Il Sung from Marxism-Leninism, but is a clear and decisive break with Marxism-Leninism. This is why they consider themselves Jucheists and not Marxist-Leninists, and why they have removed all references to Marxism-Leninism from their governmental policies and documents.

You've just put another nail into your own coffin."




So what are the fundemental differences?
 
So what are the fundemental differences?

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


As to the OP:

Some analysts have urged caution, noting that in the absence of much verifiable information coming out of North Korea, there is a wealth of speculation and rumour.

"We had rumours in September, October that it will be Chang Song-taek, Kim Jong-il's brother-in-law, then briefly there were rumours about his second son, then stories about his third son," Andrei Lankov of the Australian National University in Seoul told our correspondent.

"Every few months we have a new wave of rumours."

BBC

There's absolutely no basis for this rumor, and this thread should be moved from breaking news, as it is not news but completely unsubstantiated speculation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom