View Poll Results: Is North Korea communistic?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 50.00%
  • No

    10 33.33%
  • Unsure

    5 16.67%
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 107

Thread: Is North Korea a communistic State?

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Last Seen
    12-16-11 @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    71

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    depends on your definition of communist.

    There are also some who argue that the current North Korean regime is also somewhat fascist in nature.

    Reality isn't black and white, and it sure as hell shouldn't be based on a google search. I searched "boobs are gross" and got 26 million results...doesn't make it true.
    Very apt post, I think. I was going to say myself that a lot of North Korea's tendencies are more fascist in nature, but the bit about the Google search was quite good. :P

  2. #92
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon
    In North Korea the people own the means of production, collectively.
    No, the state does.

    Secondly, marxism is not the same as socialism. Marx is not the founder of socialism, the ideas came from France. Marxism is only a variant of socialism, North Korea do not follow marxism.
    Juche is not a socialist ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenasparagus
    I suggest you stop bitching about the common usage of a term. And I would compare the two regimes with North Korea, as both states tried to exert massive control over their citizens, like few other regimes before or since.
    That's the entire reason why I'm disagreeing with your usage of the term. Totalitarianism theory implicitly waters down historical analysis by overplaying the similarities between states. The reality of the situation is much different. One cannot compare NAZI Germany with the USSR under Stalin on the grounds of their "oppressiveness" because that oppression took on completely different forms, was realized in completely different ways, and had completely different outcomes. It's absurd to be so historically simplistic, and yes this is what totalitarianism theory was created to do.

    I stand corrected; I fail to see how this affects my point.
    My point was that you have absolutely no idea how much power the KWP has. The KWP could be completely subordinate to the military hierarchy, including Kim Jung Il. You just don't know.

    I'm simply using totalitarianism as it is defined in the dictionary
    Dictionaries don't teach political science.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist
    Well if you mean that the government owns it and the workers take direct orders from the government that is not much of socialism. How do the workers have a say in what is going on? How do the workers own the means of production?
    That is not socialism.
    The nationalization of the means of production is a socialist economic base. The fact that the North Korean citizens don't control the state is what makes it not socialist. The DPRK is what Trotsky referred to as a "deformed workers' state".

    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.
    Fascism has a very specific meaning. It is a corporatist variant of capitalism. Anyone that uses the term "Red Fascism" is a moron because they're implying "Communist Capitalism". It's even more absurd than state capitalism theory.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  3. #93
    Professor
    NGNM85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Well, then I think you missed completly. I do not base myself on a wikipedia article. I use Wikipedia for definitions for controversial topics. That is not the same as using wikipedia for everything.
    I was speaking in terms of the subject at hand, anything else you do in life is immaterial.

    The problem with this is Wikipedia is only useful for getting a rough idea of something, if you want to truly understand something, it's the wrong tool for the job. I don't object to Wikipedia, it serves a vital purpose, but people accord it an authority that it doesn't deserve. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, it is not the arbiter of truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Secondly, I don't read far right propaganda. Compared to the US I'm in the middle.
    I said 'Right-Wing', I didn't say 'Far Right.'

    It's virtually impossible to avoid propaganda. In fact, the United States, along with the rest of the Western, democratic nations, to a lesser extent, has/have the most complex and sophisticated propaganda systems in the world. In fact, this article of faith that you are citing, this common wisdom, is a result of a convergencebetween propaganda systems. The propagandists of the Soviet Union, while, comparatively speaking, less sophisticated, within it's own sphere, claimed the mantle as the standard-bearer of Socialism, while systematically destroying it. The western propagandists sang the same refrain, to tar Socialism with the brutality of the Soviet state and it's antecedents. So, it's little wonder that this idea has so permeated the collective consciousness.

    It's somewhat difficult to make definitive asessments about the political spectrum in the United States, however, doubtless, it is far greater, and more complex and varied than the false dichotomy of Democrats/Republicans, the two faces of the Business Party. Also, what's 'called 'centrist', isn't, and has, infact, moved further and further to the right, especially in the last few years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    You are supposedly a libertarian, that is far right.
    That's largely incorrect. This is what I'm talking about. I'm starting to think I should put a disclaimer in my sig. The word 'Libertarian' was first coined in the 1800's. It was first used to describe a political tendency ( or, 'school of thought') in the mid-to-late 1800's. Specifically, Libertarianism referred to a vast spectrum of Socialist thought, the overwhelming majority, which was a democratic; anti-state Socialism. This included the Marxist thinkers, which were devided into several sub-categories, as well as the Anarchists. Abroad, it is still used in this context, and has been, for over a century. Now, in the mid 1900's, in North America, a group of a far-right thinkers, mostly influenced by Ayn Rand, but also other thinkers like Hayek and von Mises, inexplicably started calling themselves 'Libertarians.' This is the context most Americans hear it; in a non-literal sense, that is unique to North America, and has only existed for about 50 years. That's very nearly the polar opposite of the literal definition. Now, you're hardly to blame for the epidemic abuse of language that permeates our culture, but the fact that it's fairly plain that you are completely unaware of these realities speaks to your qualifications. These nuances are important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    You are wrong about socialism,
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    because you are basing socialism on a few types of socialism. Socialism is a bigger term, that's why all official sources define it that way.
    All official sources? Also, what are the sufficient conditions of an 'official source'? More to follow...

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Those socialists were condemned by some, applauded by others. That's because there are different kinds of socialism.
    There are different schools of Socialist thought. (For example; Anarchism and Marxism.) That's about the only thing I completely agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Your completely off the mark, and is just insulting. For me it seems like you take your preconceived notions, and everyone that disagrees with you are stupid.
    My responses are not meant to be hostile or denigrating, and should not be interpreted as such. At least, not yet. If I decide to be hostile, I'll be much less pleasent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Is Oxford dictionary stupid as well? They agree with wikipedia, and they do not require democratic workplaces.
    Oxford Dictionary is a step up from Wikipedia. However, still, one can only glean so much understanding, especially of complex ideas, from a paragraph or two. Just because dictionaries usually provide definitions for socialism, etc., merely having read them does not mean one understands them, or is qualified to speak authoritatively about them. To think that anyone can truly 'understand' Existentialism, for example, on the basis of three sentences, is absurd. These are gross generalizations meant to impart only the most fundamental and basic concepts. If we define Socialism by the bulk of the canon of Socialist literature, what I said was true. Again, the Soviet-style police state was roundly criticized by the leading Socialist intellectuals of the day, which was merely true to form. I cited Pannekoek, Korsch, Luxemburg, Goldman, Berkman, etc., etc. Most of this stuff is freely availible on the web. See, again, no offense, but I don't think it's that you have a different interpretation, it seems like you aren't familar with this. I'm not saying you need a PhD., but there's a certain prerequisite familiarity with it. If you want to understand Socialism, my best advice is to talk to one, which you're already doing. That's a start. I, for one, am, usually, fairly amenable to clarifying any gray areas, or expounding on something, in-depth. I'd also recommend checking out some Socialist literature, much of which is availible for free on the web, and I can make some recommendations. While I am not qualified to speak for Socialists as a whole, I imagine many, myself included, are rather tired of being told what Socialism is.
    Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    The problem with this is Wikipedia is only useful for getting a rough idea of something, if you want to truly understand something, it's the wrong tool for the job. I don't object to Wikipedia, it serves a vital purpose, but people accord it an authority that it doesn't deserve. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, it is not the arbiter of truth.

    If you want to understand Socialism, my best advice is to talk to one,
    But we are trying to get a rough picture of it. We are trying to decide the definition of socialism.

    I disagree with that statement. I think socialists do not understand socialism very well. They tend to define socialism after their own ideology and put something in the definition, which makes it impossible to be socialist and not be successful. Socialists, tend to make the worst definitions. That's why I never use them as a source of knowledge.

    That's largely incorrect. This is what I'm talking about. I'm starting to think I should put a disclaimer in my sig. The word 'Libertarian' was first coined in the 1800's. It was first used to describe a political tendency ( or, 'school of thought') in the mid-to-late 1800's. Specifically, Libertarianism referred to a vast spectrum of Socialist thought, the overwhelming majority, which was a democratic; anti-state Socialism.
    I know that, but it is confusing. Please change it.

    My responses are not meant to be hostile or denigrating, and should not be interpreted as such. At least, not yet. If I decide to be hostile, I'll be much less pleasent.
    Ok, if you are planning to be hostile, then I'm getting out. I'm not interested in a flame war with you.

  5. #95
    Professor
    NGNM85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    But we are trying to get a rough picture of it. We are trying to decide the definition of socialism.
    I am not trying to decide. I am totally comfortable with my present understanding of Socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I disagree with that statement. I think socialists do not understand socialism very well. They tend to define socialism after their own ideology and put something in the definition, which makes it impossible to be socialist and not be successful. Socialists, tend to make the worst definitions. That's why I never use them as a source of knowledge.
    Socialist literature, the physical record of Socialist thought, is the only relevent barometer by which to determine what Socialism, infact, is. Anything else is as immaterial as the average rainfall in Tibet, or the market price of tangerines. Socialists may not be impartial, but that does not change this essential fact.

    I'm unaware of how you define 'success.' However, from what I presume you mean, I can say this is not a relevent sufficient condition of Socialism. Moreover, I can't think of any legitimate definition of 'success' that would include the Khmer Rouge, or North Korea, except, perhaps, at acheiving, arguably, the least ideal circumstances for human beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I know that, but it is confusing. Please change it.
    If you know that, then there's nothing to be confused about. I'm a Libertarian. That's what Libertarian means. That's the literal definition. I'm not responsible for other people's deficiencies. I didn't make them deficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Ok, if you are planning to be hostile, then I'm getting out. I'm not interested in a flame war with you.
    You should calm down. The operative word was; 'If.'
    Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Ok.
    ok.
    I'm sorry, but I can't find your statement at wikipedia. Did you fail?

    Im not using a "homemade definiton". Im using a definition which socialist's, political scientists, and academics agree upon what socialism is.
    So political scientists and academics are not making Oxfords definition?

    Actually it would seem that they agree with me...
    Mine is jut worded different...

    Well saying ours are about basically the exact same thing then i guess they agree "with my homemade definition".
    What "my homemade defininon says":Socialism: (n.) 1. 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.
    What Oxford says: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
    Pretty ****ing similar.
    Here you are wrong. Your definition includes parts which requires a country to be successful. You include that it has to be the interest of all. Oxford doesn't. You require the means of production to be owned by the community, Oxford only requires regulated or ownership. Thirdly, you said that all socialist societies have to have workplace democracies. Neither definition requires that.

    Oxford dictionary agrees with Wikipedia. If you agree with the Oxford definition, then you agree with Wikipedia definition.





    Im not making up a definition for like the 6th time.
    Yes you are. You have not provided any sources for you definition, and you are changing it all the time.





    Well saying in Cuba all workers whether members of a union or not, have the right to participate in monthly worker assemblies, discussions and in the shaping of their workplace’s collective bargaining agreement. In Cuba no matter what you have a say in the workplace. You meet monthly to vote on how you believe the workplace should be ran. I must agree that Cuba does have quite the bureaucratic problem, the bureaucratic runs deep and slows the process down but they are a socialist country to an extent.
    Doesn't matter. You are not a socialist country if you have a private sector who takes up a third of the economy. You may have a say in the workplace, but you are not socialist.


    I would say they are getting their way there. So i would say yes they are becoming a true socialistic state.
    You should visit venezuela, and see them for yourself. I have been there. The huge income inequality is very visible. The private sector takes 2/3 of the economy. In fact the private sector in Venezuela is bigger than the US. Of course they have a lot of wage controls, but you know nothing about Venezuela if you call it socialist or even close to socialism.

    It's like calling China communist.

    Now this is were i call you just an utter idiot.
    Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Peru.
    Bolivia Evo Morales has been elected and re elected. "Morales has nationalised natural resources and, with Bolivia's economic growth in the last four years higher than at any time in the last 30 years, Morales has used this to initiate social programmes for the poor, including free medical care, social security for new mothers and the elderly and a massive programme for literacy that includes payments to low-income families to make sure their children can attend school." Under Morales many factories have been turned over to the workers to literally run the factor themselves.
    You are the one here who has no knowledge about the topic. Sure social democratic leaders get elected all the time. However, they are not implementing socialism or even approaching it. If they are in fact approaching socialism, it should be very visible in economic freedom. But the decline is only visible in Venezuela, and Argentina slightly. Just because they nationalize an industry, does not mean they are turning socialist.



    Really the "gutter"?
    This report would defiantly like to beg to differ
    http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...la-2009-02.pdf
    Your report is not including 2008-2010. Right now the economy is doing really badly compared to the neighbors. Also, to improve from the 1990s is not impressive, Conditions are still really bad.

    He was elected in 1999. The economy back then was doing terrible after mismanagement from social democrats. Especially since Venezuela is an oil country and oil prices have been going up, it should be really easy to get the highest growth in South America. This is growth rates for south America in Chavez period.

    Peru: 45%
    Uruguay; 35%
    Ecuador: 33%
    Argentina: 30%
    Chile: 27%
    Brazil: 26%
    Bolivia: 15%
    Venezuela: 10.5%


    No. Were you?
    I have been to China, but not in 1980. However, my parents were and my father was a socialist. He has told me how it was in China back then and how he got suprised when he went to China. I have been to Venezuela as well, and you can easily see that Venezuela is not working. In fact Peru is a much more functioning country than Venezuela is. I have been to most South American countries, have you been to any?


    Under the cultural revolution and under the great leap forward under "peoples communes" democracy was widely accepted for workers to have meeting and make democratic decisions on what should be done and if they should accept the decision made by the communist party.
    I think you need to read up on democracy in China. You seriously think you were allowed to reject the decision of the communist party in China. Do you know anything about Chinese culture? Of course you don't. You have just read some books about how China supposedly was.

    Well would you like to talk about China and Venezuela or how North Korea is supposedly communist which this is what the thread is about..
    I think I shown it pretty well. You think Cuba and Mao's China was socialist, but North Korea wasn't. It sums up my argument pretty well, you seem to define socialism after success and not after characteristics.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Socialist literature, the physical record of Socialist thought, is the only relevent barometer by which to determine what Socialism, infact, is. Anything else is as immaterial as the average rainfall in Tibet, or the market price of tangerines. Socialists may not be impartial, but that does not change this essential fact.

    I'm unaware of how you define 'success.' However, from what I presume you mean, I can say this is not a relevent sufficient condition of Socialism. Moreover, I can't think of any legitimate definition of 'success' that would include the Khmer Rouge, or North Korea, except, perhaps, at acheiving, arguably, the least ideal circumstances for human beings.
    Well, you do need to read and understand socialist ideologies to be able to provide a proper definition. Very few socialists can do that, because they only know their own ideology and maybe a few more. I think academics are the best source of definitions.

    North Korea is actually better than Mao's China and some countries today. But back then we lived in a different time, and the countries we compared China with was pretty bad as well. This made China better and they started using China as a model.

    The problem is that a lot of socialists tend to define socialism after success. TheDemSocialist defined Venezuela to be near ideal socialism. Venezuela is really far away from socialism. Even Cuba is not a socialist country. The private sector is way too big. Why would he define countries that are far away from socialism as socialist, but not North Korea. Because he's not looking for who got the biggest involvement of the state. He's looking at who can provide best conditions for the people. If I did the same, then I could define Pinochet's Chile to not be capitalist, because he didn't maximize economic output.

    I mean he even said Mao's China was socialist, but conditions back then was worse than conditions in North Korea today. Other than that, I can't see very much difference. He hasn't explained how China was so different from North Korea at all.

  8. #98
    Professor
    NGNM85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Well, you do need to read and understand socialist ideologies to be able to provide a proper definition. Very few socialists can do that, because they only know their own ideology and maybe a few more. I think academics are the best source of definitions.
    How many Socialists do you actually know? Is this assessment really representative?

    It depends on the academic. Again; I could make a few suggestions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    The problem is that a lot of socialists tend to define socialism after success.
    I'm still not entirely sure what 'success' means.

    Unfortunately; there are very few examples of large-scale Socialism in action. However, this is in no small part due to a concerted effort by the United States to stamp out any attempt at 'successful defiance', and of the Communist Bloc, which proclaimed itself the standard bearer for Socialism, while brutally crushing it. The best examples I can think of would be the Anarchist-dominated areas of revolutionary Spain, lionized in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, or the Israeli Kibbutzim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    TheDemSocialist defined Venezuela to be near ideal socialism. Venezuela is really far away from socialism.
    I wouldn't describe it as 'near ideal', however, there are a number of striking characteristics. The Venezuelan government enjoys overwhelming popularity, with few equals I can think of. Also, faith in democracy among Venezuelans is similarly impressive, especially in Latin America, where a series of US-backed coups and pet dictatorships have made the populations, extremely pessimistic, and justifiably so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Even Cuba is not a socialist country. The private sector is way too big.
    ...among other things. No, Cuba is not Socialist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Why would he define countries that are far away from socialism as socialist, but not North Korea. Because he's not looking for who got the biggest involvement of the state. He's looking at who can provide best conditions for the people.

    I mean he even said Mao's China was socialist, but conditions back then was worse than conditions in North Korea today. Other than that, I can't see very much difference. He hasn't explained how China was so different from North Korea at all.
    I'm not going to attempt to psychoanalyze other members. I am not his, or anyone else's designated representative. If you want to know something about another member, ask them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    If I did the same, then I could define Pinochet's Chile to not be capitalist, because he didn't maximize economic output.
    Actually, Pinochet's Chile, at least for a time, was essentially pure Capitalism. It was also a disaster, which should be no surprise. This is significantly different from the United States, which would, perhaps, most accurately, be described as 'Corporate-Mercantilist.'

    To get back to the bigger issue; here's the problem as I see it: You seem to be defining Socialism strictly in economic terms. If industry is publicly owned, even if it's controlled by a brutal police state, run by bureaucrats who live like kings while the people starve; that's 'Socialism.' However, Socialism, real Socialism, is more than simply an economic model. It encompasses political, philosophical, and ethical concepts, which are equally fundamental.
    Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky

  9. #99
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I'm sorry, but I can't find your statement at wikipedia. Did you fail?
    Didnt really even try because for one i dont know how to and two it sounds like a waste of time and i have no interest to.


    So political scientists and academics are not making Oxfords definition?
    They do not seem to be making definitions sense they are political scientists, and political theory academics not English language academics...


    Here you are wrong. Your definition includes parts which requires a country to be successful.
    How does my definition anywhere say a "country has to be successful"? Where do you get "you have to be succesful" out of this "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."? Where? It merely states what socialism is in a nutshell...

    You include that it has to be the interest of all.
    Yea its called democracy...

    Oxford doesn't. You require the means of production to be owned by the community, Oxford only requires regulated or ownership.
    Well saying when the people (the masses) own or regulate the means of production it still includes that the people have a say and own the means of productions as a whole.

    Thirdly, you said that all socialist societies have to have workplace democracies. Neither definition requires that.
    I never said that in my "homemade definition".

    Oxford dictionary agrees with Wikipedia. If you agree with the Oxford definition, then you agree with Wikipedia definition.






    Yes you are. You have not provided any sources for you definition, and you are changing it all the time.
    I have not once changed my "definition" nor have i merely made it up.

    If you want to find out what socialism is maybe you should ask political scientists who are socialists or study socialism, economists who are socialists or study socialists, political theorists, or maybe socialists themselves. I have a long list of them if you would like to ask them..






    Doesn't matter. You are not a socialist country if you have a private sector who takes up a third of the economy. You may have a say in the workplace, but you are not socialist.
    No country has ever been purely socialist or communist or even capitalist for that matter if you wanna play that game...



    You should visit venezuela, and see them for yourself. I have been there.
    Right... Believe the guy on the internet...

    The huge income inequality is very visible.
    I know it is visible. They are on the road to many great reforms however.
    I still recommend you read this report by the CEPR.
    http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...la-2009-02.pdf

    The private sector takes 2/3 of the economy.
    I agree the private sector is still much larger than the public sector...

    In fact the private sector in Venezuela is bigger than the US.
    This just is not true at all.

    Of course they have a lot of wage controls, but you know nothing about Venezuela if you call it socialist or even close to socialism.
    Well i never called them socialist i said they are on the road to becoming socialistic... They have many many socialistic characteristics but they are not truly socialist. I said they are on the road to becoming socialist.. .

    It's like calling China communist.
    ehh kinda.


    You are the one here who has no knowledge about the topic.
    Well you think North Korea is socialist...

    Sure social democratic leaders get elected all the time.
    I will agree some of these are social democratic leaders but they are all taking a huge left turn.

    However, they are not implementing socialism or even approaching it. If they are in fact approaching socialism,
    All of these leaders however are implementing socialist ideas and ideologies to their countries.

    it should be very visible in economic freedom.
    Oh right... "Economic freedom"....
    So now do you wanna talk about "economic freedom"? The "free market"? Or "free enterprise"?

    But the decline is only visible in Venezuela, and Argentina slightly.


    Just because they nationalize an industry, does not mean they are turning socialist.
    Never stated that is what socialism is...
    You and some of the right on here should get together and make a anti socialist group...




    Your report is not including 2008-2010. [/QUOTE]
    It includes 2008.
    But yes Venezuela is in a recession right now. But in 2011 the economy has started to grow and recover already. According to the president of the Venezuelan Central Bank, Nelson Merentes the economy of the country will grow well above the estimated 2% of the Gross Domestic Product.

    He was elected in 1999. The economy back then was doing terrible after mismanagement from social democrats.
    From a capitalist, right wing party?

    Especially since Venezuela is an oil country and oil prices have been going up, it should be really easy to get the highest growth in South America. This is growth rates for south America in Chavez period.

    Peru: 45%
    Uruguay; 35%
    Ecuador: 33%
    Argentina: 30%
    Chile: 27%
    Brazil: 26%
    Bolivia: 15%
    Venezuela: 10.5%
    Is this the GDP growth?
    A source link would be swell.


    I have been to China, but not in 1980. However, my parents were and my father was a socialist. He has told me how it was in China back then and how he got suprised when he went to China. I have been to Venezuela as well, and you can easily see that Venezuela is not working. In fact Peru is a much more functioning country than Venezuela is. I have been to most South American countries, have you been to any?
    No i have not been to either.
    But why the hell should i believe i guy on the internet?
    I know people who have been to China, and i know people who have been to Chile, Venezuela, and Brazil...



    I think you need to read up on democracy in China. You seriously think you were allowed to reject the decision of the communist party in China. Do you know anything about Chinese culture? Of course you don't. You have just read some books about how China supposedly was.
    And you read books on how "China was supposedly was" as well im guessing...



    I think I shown it pretty well. You think Cuba and Mao's China was socialist,
    Never said it was socialist just saying it had socialistic means...

    but North Korea wasn't.
    Its not socialist at all. But you wouldnt know that because you have no idea what socialism is.

    It sums up my argument pretty well, you seem to define socialism after success and not after characteristics.
    No i do not define it as "success".


  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Is North Korea a communistic State?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Didnt really even try because for one i dont know how to and two it sounds like a waste of time and i have no interest to.
    It's funny that you don't even know how to change wikipedia articles, but you still think you can evaluate if Wikipedia can be trusted or not. If you tried, you would first get it changed back in a half hour. If you tried again, you would be banned from Wikipedia. Vandalism is not a major issue at Wikipedia and will not affect the definition of socialism.

    They do not seem to be making definitions sense they are political scientists, and political theory academics not English language academics...
    So you are discrediting Oxford dictionary. Tell me, why should I use your definition and not Oxford's definition. You haven't even visited China, Cuba or Venezuela. You still think that you have a lot of knowledge about the conditions in those countries.


    How does my definition anywhere say a "country has to be successful"? Where do you get "you have to be succesful" out of this "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."? Where? It merely states what socialism is in a nutshell...
    Hint "interest of all". If a system should acknowledge interest of all, then it has to be successful. You could even argue that the American system is not in the interest of all.

    No country has ever been purely socialist or communist or even capitalist for that matter if you wanna play that game...
    But it's kind of ridiculous when you think North Korea is not socialist, but Cuba with a private sector that takes 1/3 of the economy is.


    This just is not true at all.
    It is, you just lack knowledge about the topic, because the only thing you know about Venezuela is what other socialists have told you.
    Public sector US: 38.9% of GDP
    Public sector Venezuela: 34% of GDP

    Oh right... "Economic freedom"....
    So now do you wanna talk about "economic freedom"? The "free market"? Or "free enterprise"?
    If they are really turning socialist, then it should be visible in their economic freedom, because socialist policies reduce your economic freedom. It is not visible, and they are really far away from socialism. You have never been to South America. I have, and I have talked to people. Apart from Venezuela. They don't believe in socialism. Some people want better security, but they don't support socialism.


    But yes Venezuela is in a recession right now. But in 2011 the economy has started to grow and recover already. According to the president of the Venezuelan Central Bank, Nelson Merentes the economy of the country will grow well above the estimated 2% of the Gross Domestic Product.
    It is estimated to grow with 4%, but we have to include population growth it will drop to 2%. Here is a list of projected growth rates of some countries in South America.

    Argentina: 6.5%
    Chile: 6%
    Peru: 5%
    Uruguay: 4.5%
    Colombia: 4%
    Brazil: 3.5%
    Ecuador: 3.5%
    Venezuela: 2%

    Is that impressive?

    Is this the GDP growth?
    A source link would be swell.
    Yes it is. I calculated the numbers, but I can tell you how to calculate them. Use indexmundi to find GDP at current value. Venezuela GDP - per capita (PPP) - Economy Then use a inflation calculator to find USD inflation from the year you are interested in, and then you have GDP per capita growth.


    No i have not been to either.
    But why the hell should i believe i guy on the internet?
    I know people who have been to China, and i know people who have been to Chile, Venezuela, and Brazil...
    But unlike me, you have never been to the countries. You have only read some books and heard some propaganda. You don't even know how Venezuela is doing compared to the rest of South America, but you still think Venezuela is doing awesome, because you read it in a report somewhere.

    There is a reason I don't trust your homemade definitions and use official definitions instead.
    Last edited by Camlon; 07-02-11 at 04:57 PM.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •