Welcome to North Korea

[Husar]

So he's a socialist because you ignore the rest of the arguments?
He could at least read, nananana...

[Fragony]

In the strictest, most basic sense, that's exactly what socialism is.

You can talk about different methodologies, variants and so forth, but all socialism hinges on state control of the means of production.

^-

sooooooocialist-t-t-t

[HoreTore]

Workers of the world unite! The Pope is socialist!



The revolutionary Pope Benedict XIV!

The vatican economy is completely controlled by the vatican state, there is no private business. And people are not even allowed to own land there! Truly, he a socialist hero! He even dresses in red!

[Fragony]

Well if you are referring to his absolute faith you might just have a point

[CountArach]

@ HoreTore - Truly, God is on our side.

@ Xiahou - Lets just pick out one paragraph of your wikipedia post:

While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, led to full employment during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938. [11] Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. [12] The right to quit also disappeared: Labour books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. [12]

Which part of this says Socialism to you?

[Tribesman]

Which part of this says Socialism to you?

lots of bits .
Trade unions
real wages
collective bargaining
the right to strike.

[CountArach]

I must have missed those words. Thank you Tribes for enlightening me

[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?

[Adrian II]

Ooh. Cool stuff..... didn't expect a lesson in political ideology from a Western. I'll definitely buy that movie if I see it.

You should. That movie is the product of two Italian movie wizards (Leone and Morricone), two fine American actors (Coburn and Steiger), two major film schools (Hollywood and Cinecittà), and of course two of the world's most tragicomic revolutions... You'll love every minute of it.

[Fragony]

Hey we have a movie thread, this one is to annoy socialists

[Adrian II]

Hey we have a movie thread, this one is to annoy socialists

Sorry to bring up good taste. It shall not happen again.

[Tribesman]

Hey Adrian , you had me down as the wrong charachter

[Fragony]

Sorry to bring up good taste. It shall not happen again.

Good boy, wasted on socialists anyway. Now if you could please say something funny this discussion is going nowhere,

[Adrian II]

Hey Adrian , you had me down as the wrong charachter

I know what you mean.

Still, the pub scene in that movie must appeal to you..

[Furious Mental]

The economics of Nazism and fascism in general were not based on the USSR or the ideas of any communist or socialist movement. The inspiration for the so-called "corporate state" was the organisation of the British, French and German economies during World War One, that is, the economy remained in essentially private hands but through legal and political powers was subject to state control for war production. State power was also used to crush organised labour and thereby remove impediments to private capital's completion of its appointed tasks.

However Hitler considered himself neither a capitalist nor, in any objective sense, a socialist (the name National Socialist German Workers' Party having been adopted simply as a ploy when he and other Nazis believed they could take power at the head of a working class revolution). As far as fascists are concerned capitalists and socialists are both enemies because they divide the nation up with individual or class competition, and because both are utilitarian ideologies that ultimately measure happiness in material terms they turn people away from selfless sacrifice.

[Tribesman]

Still, the pub scene in that movie must appeal to you..

which one ?
the one where yer man is talking political or the one where Coburn offs the cops , the soldiers and his mate that was talking political ?

[Adrian II]

which one ?
the one where yer man is talking political or the one where Coburn offs the cops , the soldiers and his mate that was talking political ?

The latter. I don't suppose this sort of thing ever happened to you, although you may have similar experiences. You're bound to have heard quite some stories in this vein.

My point is that it is very well done in the movie.

The only copy of the entire scene I could find is this one.

The juvenile, weasel-like British officer. The bland faces of the Irish visitors as the pub is gradually emptied, particularly the guy at the left end of the bar in the shot around 0.55 seconds into the scene. Most of all, the way in which Coburn's face suddenly hardens when he spots the traitor and the British soldiers is perfect cinema. Because of the use of the mirrors, among other things. I suppose they had to manipulate the camera and mirrors quite a bit to get every shot right. If you watch the scene again and again to let it sink in and grasp the details, you will see that the shooting angles are impossible unless you move the mirrors about. And I haven't even mentioned the lighting. This is pure art.

[Shaka_Khan]

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...

I'm glad you said if. It wouldn't make sense to invade the people whom we wanted to liberate. If we fight against N. Korea, we'd be fighting against a country that's unified under heavy brain-washing. Although they're people like us, if we attack them, they'll look at us as invaders, not liberators. Part of their propaganda is that we're the reason for they're starvation.
One of the main reasons why the other liberations were successful in the past was because we had allies. The US didn't fight Iraq and Afghanistan alone. In addition to the Coalition, there were a lot of Afghanis on our side. And a lot of the Iraqis resented Saddam Hussein. South Korea is on our side because we liberated that country after WWII and went to help that country when the North invaded. We wouldn't be in these countries in the first place if nobody in that area wanted our help.

With the nuke issue, the US wanted to invade N. Korea ever since Bill Clinton was president. But he didn't have the support of S. Korea, Japan, and China. The capital of S. Korea is within N. Korean artillery range. S. Korea would suffer the heaviest in civilian numbers. Japan doesn't like the N. Korean government either but Japan didn't support an invasion. The strongest action that the Japanese government preferred was economic sanctions. China would be wary of the US gaining a foothold on the Chinese border. Although China needs the US economically, incidents in the past near Taiwan have shown that both countries are competing militarily as well.

Anyway, I don't think people can convince wars with oil for now. I don't see how the liberation (or invasion) of Iraq helped us.

[HoreTore]

Well, the Iraq war is turning a million casualties and some 3-4 million refugees now, I doubt that an invasion of North Korea would have caused that many more. Also, Saddam was losing his grip, he would likely have been overthrown within 10 years anyway. The leadership in North Korea is not, however, if anything they're tightening their grip even more.

As to the artillery, well... Doesn't the US brag about how they have the mightiest military force in the world? Artillery positions are static positions, perfect targets for an air force/cruise missile. They might get a few rounds off, but it shouldn't be too difficult to overcome that challenge.

As for China not liking the US, the obvious solution would be to get them along.

As to allies within North Korea, judging from the interview with that refugee in the film, there should be party members on our side. Also, the US allies in Afghanistan and Iraq is one of the reasons why the wars there are not successful, as the only thing the warlords have is a loyalty on paper. They're corrupt criminals, and they have nothing against attacking NATO forces when their heroin farms are burned down.

I'm not in favour of war at all, but if there is one war I could support, it would be against North Korea. And Burma too, I suppose.

Another thing with North Korea, is that you can't attempt to destabilize the country by covert operations and such, because of the combination of insane/paranoid leaders and artillery fixed on South Korean civilian targets. It's either total war or nothing at all...

[Furious Mental]

I think North Korea is alot more ideologically disciplined than Iraq. There had many attempts at coups in Iraq before the American invasion, and there were rebels all over the country of every ideological hue from communists to Islamic fanatics. As far as anyone knows North Korea's government is neither prone to coups nor unable to exercise total control over all its territory. I very much doubt that the military of that country is amenable to serving a puppet regime.

"there should be party members on our side"

"Another thing with North Korea, is that you can't attempt to destabilize the country by covert operations and such, because of the combination of insane/paranoid leaders and artillery fixed on South Korean civilian targets. It's either total war or nothing at all..."

The problem there is that one can't wage total war and simultaneously be attempting to co-opt the government to be one's friend.

[ajaxfetish]

But seriously, if you call every state with a state controlled economy, that would make the european monarchies of the middle ages socialist states. Are you seriously suggesting that King Louis XIV was a socialist...?

Going a bit off topic, but I can't help it. Are you suggesting that King Louis XIV lived during the middle ages?

Ajax

[Furious Mental]

It doesn't necessarily mean Louis XIV, and it is a valid point. Conflating state ownership of means of production with socialism leads to the conclusion that royal ownership of land is socialist because the monarch is the state. Of course the legal position in most Commonwealth countries is that the Crown does own all of the land.