Welcome to North Korea

[Mooks]

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?

[Raz]

50 Minutes of video!?
I'd rather spend my bandwidth on music videos or something...
But I'll take a look into it... if it really is unbiased.

[CountArach]

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).

Must... buy... McDonalds...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Must... buy... McDonalds...

[InsaneApache]

Must... buy... McDonalds...

As long as you don't eat it, you'll be fine.

[HoreTore]

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).

Orwell, anyone? Read 1984, it's a very good recipe.

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...

[Fragony]

Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.

[KrooK]

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.
Next time think twice before wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara.

[Tribesman]

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.

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 .

[CountArach]

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.

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.

[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

[seireikhaan]

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.

But they're all for freedom, man!

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.

[Quirinus]

Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.

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.

[Fragony]

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.

That's the theory, North Korea is the outcome.

And Norway and Sweden are social-democratic country's, also a creepy ideoligy but not as evil as socialism.

[CountArach]

That's the theory, North Korea is the outcome.

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?

[Adrian II]

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.

That reminds me of the best scene in what is probably the best Western ever made, A Fistful of Dynamite (1971) by Sergio Leone. Here's Rod Steiger explaining the whole ******* thing in on minute. Brilliant text, brilliant acting, brilliant music. Nuff said.

Clickety

[Quirinus]

Ooh. Cool stuff..... didn't expect a lesson in political ideology from a Western. I'll definitely buy that movie if I see it. I believe what he's saying is a generalisation though.

Why can't poor people be well-read too, especially in these modern times?

[Viking]

Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

Norway isn't a leninist country, but it is definitely a socialist country.

Norwegian politics are leant to the left, but calling them socialism is hardly accurate.

[HoreTore]

Norwegian politics are leant to the left, but calling them socialism is hardly accurate.

Bah. Huge welfare state, nationalized companies, state monopolies on several fields, very powerful unions, womens rights, a very limited church/religion, the list goes on.

In the 73 years since 1935(first lasting labour government), we've had 7 non-socialist governments, for a total of 20 years, with only 3 of those governments actually serving a full term. I'd say it's pretty damn safe to say that we are a socialist country, even if you count newlab-wannabe Stoltenberg as an actual human being. He has, after all, showed at least some signs of sanity recently...

[Xiahou]

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

[HoreTore]

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

Pinochet? The zillion other US/western-backed dictators?

[seireikhaan]

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

Heh. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Batista(Cuba, the one Castro overthrew). All were in generally to the right economically, to varying degrees, but all proved themselves to be quite dictatorial too.

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.

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman here for a moment.

Hitler HATED Communism. He hated it almost as much as the US did in the Cold War. Its the whole reason he diverted over 1/3 of his troops on the Eastern front to take Leningrad, which was a strategically worthless city. Like I said earlier, Hitler was mild right economically, didn't stop him from being a monster.

[Fragony]

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

Authoritorian is necesarily oppressive but it's easy to become just that, call it soft tyranny. It will however always result in a huge intrusive government that sucks the life out of everything. I'll gladly sacrifice some, if not all social-security for a little bit of air. Soft tyrrany is the worst it a way, can't do anything about it because there is never the legitimacy to take up arms, and in the meantime it grows and grows and costs and costs.

[Viking]

Bah. Huge welfare state, nationalized companies, state monopolies on several fields, very powerful unions, womens rights, a very limited church/religion, the list goes on.

In the 73 years since 1935(first lasting labour government), we've had 7 non-socialist governments, for a total of 20 years, with only 3 of those governments actually serving a full term. I'd say it's pretty damn safe to say that we are a socialist country, even if you count newlab-wannabe Stoltenberg as an actual human being. He has, after all, showed at least some signs of sanity recently...

Ahem.

Yeah, I agree it is very leant to the left, but the only real socialist parties are The Socialistic Left and further out. DNA isn't fully socialistic.
Further more, do not forget that we do have private, albeit usually religiously themed, schools.

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

A free market requires a free market, whether the government has strict opinions on what the people should think and watch on television does not conflict with a free market. The government doesn't bother to maintain it's own TV-stations, it just censors the commercial ones; as the US gov willl do too in extreme cases.

A free market requires no governments and no countries .

Indeed.

Soft tyrrany is the worst it a way, can't do anything about it because there is never the legitimacy to take up arms, and in the meantime it grows and grows and costs and costs.

Well if so, I'd suggest to do something else than to take up arms.