Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU
A 50 or so minute documentary about North Korea. Seems pretty good, and fairly unbiased.
Kind of freaks me out though. I mean, imagine if the whole world over was under a totallitarian regime like NK, and institutionalized brainwashing was going on. How would we know? We would be trapped in a world of ignorance for all eternity (mindless rambling).
Thoughts?
50 Minutes of video!?
I'd rather spend my bandwidth on music videos or something... :grin:
But I'll take a look into it... if it really is unbiased.
Must... buy... McDonalds...Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
As long as you don't eat it, you'll be fine. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Orwell, anyone? Read 1984, it's a very good recipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
It's a shame the world forgets about north korea, and whines on about Iran and Saddam and other such wannabe despots. If there is ever a country in need of an invasion, it's North Korea. They are the darth vaders of the world, Ahmadinejad looks like a shy schoolgirl compared to them.
If only there was oil up there...
Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.
Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.
Next time think twice before wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara.
Ah that explains a lot , so your Polish nationalist nonsense and the Korean nationalist nonsense are both the results of having had communist takeovers in the past .Quote:
Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.
That isn't quite fair..... the government of North Korea is more Stalinist-Maoist than true Marxist. AFAIK Marx advocates "dictatorship of the proletariat", that is to say, 'dictatorship' by an entire class (i.e. the proletariat), rather than plutocracy or true dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
North Korea is not a Socialist country, nor was it ever. They consider themselves "Socialist", but you would be hard pressed to find any Socialist in the western world who agrees with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
I wonder which country called themselves socialist is socialist.
USSR, China, N Korea, Kuba or maybe Spain into 30ties before general Franco saved country?
Difference between socialism and communism is into theory. There is no socialist country which did not turned into communist.
And yes - we have bad communist/socialist experiences. And I dream about world without that flue.
BTW Happy Easter Guys
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
There is no socialist country which did not turned into communist.
Hahahaha! I love the idea of a Fascist saving a country...Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
But seriously - what part of any of those country's was Socialist? None of them had anything in common with modern Democratic Socialism.
Venezuela isn't communist. Sweden isn't communist. Norway isn't communist. Bolivia isn't communist.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Do you want me to continue?
That's the theory, North Korea is the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
And Norway and Sweden are social-democratic country's, also a creepy ideoligy but not as evil as socialism.
Ummm, what's the difference? Where did you think they got the name?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Social democrats wants to level the playfield so everyone gets the chance to reap the benefits of the free-market, socialism wants to control the market. And of course it's want to control you, your friends, your thoughts, everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
ABSOLUTE POWAR
Venezuela is becoming communist country. Chavez lost last election when he wanted change constitution and take absolute power but communisation is into progress. I have no info about Bolivia.Quote:
Venezuela isn't communist. Sweden isn't communist. Norway isn't communist. Bolivia isn't communist.
Sweden and Norway are not socialist coutries. They are social countries which is big difference - social welfare state is not socialism. Into Germany, Sweden and Norway you can have real private property and public sector is rather small.
Franco saved Spain from communist because he stopped Peoples Front.
What was peoples front - socialist and communist together whom promise people golden mountains, won election and started changing Spain into USSR (which was not their promise).
And what is interesting - that fascist finished war into Spain, didn't took part into WW2 while socialists (from name like from name but communist generally used name socialists - Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) started war as allies of III Reich. I prefer "fascists" like Franco or Mannerheim than "socialists" like Stalin, Mao and Chavez.
Is it so hard to spot vicious regimes on all sides of the political spectrum?
Lol @KrooK. As per usual.
NK doesn't claim to be socialist. Their official ideology is called "Juche", meaning "self-reliance" but wich amounts to an extreme form of stalinism.
Anyway, invasion is not an option. I understand that NK has hundreds of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul with the standing order of firing in the event that communications break down. For the deterrence factor it's a lot more effective than their nuclear program, wich I always figured was meant more for extorting SK and America into giving them more fossil fuel. I haven't been following the news regarding this for a long time, however.
Hey come on be fair , there wasn't a single reference to Polish superiority in that post so you can hardly call it the usual .Quote:
Lol @KrooK. As per usual.
Though I suppose you are right , it is a very funny rant .
Bah. I wonder exactly how much of Spain's decision not to join the Second World War had to do with ideology, and how much had to do with pragmatism. The official end of war in Spain hardly meant that peace and order was suddenly restored. There were outbreaks of guerilla warfare and savage reprisals way after the end of the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggresion pact. Which is not the same as a binding alliance. Lest you forget, out of all the combatants, the Soviet Union suffered the most casualties in the war, fighting --whoops! the Third Reich.
~:)
But they're all for freedom, man! :hippy:Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
On a more serious note, pretty much every country in the world right now has SOME socialist properties to it.
American Heritage Dictionary definition of Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Welfare? Socialist. US mail system? Socialist. Social security? Socialist. The BBC? Socialist. Some countries(even in the West) have state owned internet. It all depends on how much of the nation's industry and economy which becomes socialized.
Are you high? Do you even know what the difference between communism and socialism is? Anyway, I'll explain:Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Over a hundred years ago, there was this guy called Marx, who came up with a new idea of how to distribute wealth and power. He called his idea socialism, and the end state of his idea, or utopia, he called communism. Socialism was the strive towards the goal, communism was when the goal was achieved. 50 years later, there was this guy in Russia, called Lenin, who was a bit upset at his Tsar, so he decided to overthrow him and take power. Lenin was a socialist, and his revolution was a success. However, there were still a lot of people who disagreed with him, even though his revolution was the only successful one. Lenin was unhappy with that situation, as he wanted to spread his revolution to other countries. As a part of his propaganda, he changed the name of his party from the socialist party to the communist party, to "show the world" that he was no longer on the way to paradise(socialism), but was already there(communism). His followers around the world quickly did the same, and renamed themselves communists, while those who did not agree with them, retained the name socialist.
So, "communist" and "socialist" doesn't mean the same thing, a communist is a marxist-leninist, while a socialist is one who disagrees with Lenin, which means that they disagree with things like the dictatorship and the police state, and sometimes even the revolution itself, believing that the utopia is best achieved through steady reforms, not a quick revolution.
Saying that "socialism turns into communism", is really like saying that christians turn into mormons or something. Socialism is the whole, communism is just one brand of socialism, like mormonism is one brand of christianity.
As for Norway not being socialist, well, we've had a socialist prime minister for 75%(or so) of the time since the 30's, I'd say that makes us pretty socialist. Our brand of socialism isn't marxist-leninism, however, it's called "social democracy". And small state? What the hey? Our public sector is one of the biggest, if not the biggest in the western world.
All religions have an utopia, socialism is no different in that. Communism has been proven to be such a faillure that only an intellectual would try to ignore that, it's a vile ideoligy that has costed millions of people their lifes. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Sung, how much proof does one need.
http://xs125.xs.to/xs125/08120/2669785585.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nicely explained, bravo.
Lets start from lie
Typical half truth. Most of that pact was non-agresion pact and here I agree. Of course socialists into his history courses forget about secret protocol. According to it;Quote:
And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggresion pact. Which is not the same as a binding alliance. Lest you forget, out of all the combatants, the Soviet Union suffered the most casualties in the war, fighting --whoops! the Third Reich.
"Soviet Russia and Germany will attack Poland and divide it on 2 zones."
Maybe Russians got biggest casualties into ww2 (half because of killed civilians half because of Russian commander foolishness) but its THEIR OWN FAULT.
They supported Germans (selling them resources, allowing them to use their polygoons) while they were rebuilding their army - same time when Hitler proclamed nazi theory about arian race area into Europe. They help Germans destroy Poland - into 1939 they were breaking international law more than Germans. So if they were so stupid - its just their fault. For me dead Russians are punishment for Poles murdered by Russians or Germans with Russian support. You know Katyn (do not mix with Khatyn), I know GULAG (for me GULAGs at Kolyma were similar to Auschwitz) and Khazachstan steppes. To compare Russian and German behavior I can compare interesting fact - polish officer POWs were mostly murdered by Russians while most of polish POWs taken by Germans survived (Jews too). Thats why I think that Russians have no moral right to accuse Germans of killing their POWs - Russians started.
Attack on Poland and later on Finland was big social support into USSR. People of USSR did nothing to stop their rulers from massive killing Poles. So that when Germans/Balts started massive killing Russians - that was just a historical punishment IMO.
When we are talking about socialism there is big difference between social country and socialist country. Hore mentioned Norway - I don't know situation of this country well (I doubt Hore know Poland so I explain myself :D) but I'm sure that if you want establish new company in Norway, its possible. If you want start trade union its possible. Into socialist country 1st is almost impossible, 2nd is definitely impossible. Don't forget that into Europe socialist parties nowadays promote something that could be called liberalism even 30 years ago - like Labour Party and Tony Blair :)
Wow thats even funnier .
Well done Krook ,you surpass yourself .
I believe the Luna Megachipotera does reside at quite an altitude .Quote:
Are you high?
As for the original questions, what would the world be like? Well it would free traffic up for party member's Mercedes:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
North Korean government is double plus good!
As for socialism, I don't think anyone would think it evil if their extreme Maoist and Stalinist cousins didn't carry it out to such a horrible degree. If the PRC and USSR stuck by the idea of just making everyone *equally* prosperous without cutting political freedoms, the ability to migrate where one wants or the violent exportation of that ideology then I'm sure the rest of the world wouldn't think it bad.
1) socialism, as a concept and movement, existed before Marx wrote anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
2) the tzar abdicated under the pressure of the februari revolution, wich was carried out by liberals and various anti-monarchists as well. A provisional government was installed, but Lenin and his supporters decided that everything would be better if they ran the place. They carried out a coup d'etat wich was later dubbed "the october revolution".
3) the USSR only claimed to be socialist (it's in the name...), the communist party was named thus to reflect what they intended to achieve.