N. Korea and US to begin talks

[kj]

Well its a bit of a relief to see that the US and N. Korea have finally decided to stage one on one talks in China with the Chinese taking an active role in proceedings. I think the Koreans realise America means business but at the same time are holding their ground.

Apparenty talks may begin as early as next week. so fingers crossed something can be worked out.

[Flaming Toilet Bag]

blah, what is Bush up to?

[musink]

Hes up to no good. And he would get away with it too, if it werent for us meddling kids.

[musink]

Bad news, talks failed.

Looks like its time for Cold War II.

Does anyone have any information on why talks have failed? I dont trust the news.

[XerXes]

NK is one of the last bastions of communism; they are the antithesis of liberal democracies. It is a cultural/ socio-political nightmare there.

The US has occupied land on the peninsula since the 1950s. They act as a protagonist and reactionary force designed to balance out the threat NK poses to the south, et al.

Talks with NK will always fail; progression will be limited because this ailing country is culturally trying to save face. If this wasn’t so, why are NK and SK still technically at war? They have been talking over the cease fire since 51’ but not much has changed except that there are far less amounts of skirmishes going on between the two sides.

They are economically bankrupt and highly dependant upon foreign aid; much of which comes from the USA’s deep pockets. The potential of having CRBN (chemical, radiological, biological, nuclear) weapons, specifically nuclear, allows NK to put on a show and to demand media attention.

Without the world providing assistance, NK would most certainly implode. For example, the village just over the border (just outside the DMZ) is a façade. This is but one intelligence indication of the state they are in. Rolling blackouts, etc. People are dying of starvation over every other cause.

Everything they do, such as pulling out of talks, is just a way to maintain face and a buy a small measure of control so they continue to receive the aid they are desperate for. Pulling out of talks and firing missiles are nothing more than a call for help.

Mark my word, a united Korea will not come anytime soon. Maybe when KJI dies we will see some progress. But like his dad, he’s a f-ing nutcase too. When the talks succeed, that’s when I will get real scared.

Just my two cents.

[AlanG]

Originally posted by XerXes
NK is one of the last bastions of communism;

NK is not and never was communist, its a totalitarian dictatorship

[XerXes]

Greater minds than you and I would not agree with your summation. Following World War II, the Korean Peninsula was split and the north came under Communist domination. Thus, it WAS Communist. However, to be perfectly accurate its government structure is authoritarian socialist with a one-man dictator. See the CIA’s fact sheet available at: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/kn.html

However, the world (media, academics, et cetra) largely sees NK as a Communist country (well, because it is) and hard-line communists and supporters clearly recognize it as such. http://www.kimsoft.com/dprk.htm.

But I suppose if that is all you found wrong with my post then, I should count myself as lucky.

[AlanG]

Na I agreed for the most part with the rest. But you are wrong about NK being Communist. And you can quote the CIA all you want, try reading some Marx and then call them Communist. There has never even been a socialist state before never mind communist.

From the Communist Manifesto

In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

Being at war with South Korea

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

having a dictator living in luxury contradicts this

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

how many palaces does the dictator own?

Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation

the proletariat is not one man ruling

Do I need to quote you any more?

Just because the CIA says its a communist state doesnt mean its true. As someone once put it better than me "you can shove feathers up yer arse but it doesnt make you a chicken". In the same sense, would you think the Labour party represent the Labour movement, and stand for the Labour movement?

[kj]

Originally posted by Alan G

Just because the CIA says its a communist state doesnt mean its true. As someone once put it better than me "you can shove feathers up yer arse but it doesnt make you a chicken". In the same sense, would you think the Labour party represent the Labour movement, and stand for the Labour movement?

I'm not sure how your quote fits in with the argument. No one is pretending to be communist. Your quote implies that the ruling party of NK are putting on a communist appearance. This contradicts your entire argument.

The Labour party does represent the Labour movement, thats why they are there, to represent the Labour movement. But i'm willing to give way and suggest that yes they may not stand for all the Labour agendas and ideals, but they were elected to represent the movement. Again, i'm not sure what this has to do with the argument.

[AlanG]

Originally posted by kj
I'm not sure how your quote fits in with the argument. No one is pretending to be communist.

XerXes said "NK is one of the last bastions of communism"

Your quote implies that the ruling party of NK are putting on a communist appearance. This contradicts your entire argument.

that was the point, showing that NK is not a Communist state.

The Labour party does represent the Labour movement, thats why they are there, to represent the Labour movement. But i'm willing to give way and suggest that yes they may not stand for all the Labour agendas and ideals, but they were elected to represent the movement. Again, i'm not sure what this has to do with the argument.

Well the Labour movement includes the trade Unions who fund them, with the FBU, the nursery nurses (UNISON??) and now Scottish Water (3 including UNISON i think) all now planning action against them they show how little they stand for the labour movement. Not to mention their change of the Labour constitution which delcared their change from being a socialist party. I was just pointing out that you shouldnt go on what a group label themselves as but how their actions match the definition of that label.

[kj]

Firstly the thing about Scottish Water is a complete disgrace in my opinion. Scottish water remains a public body, and at the same time is run by a Quango, made up primarily of businessmen and other private investors. Scottish water has moved from providing a service to being a money making orientated operation.

People have been laid off, several hundred / thousand if my memory serves me right, very recently. By laying of such a huge force, how can Scottish Water continue to provide a service worthy of the people that rely on it.

But we are drifting away from the argument, partly my fault, but when it comes to the Scottish Water, i hope i know what i'm talking about for various reasons.

Just one question, what gain would NK recieve from putting on a Communist face?

[AlanG]

Well if the ruling party claim to be communist they can constantly claim that they are in a transitional stage to communism and use it to rule over the people. The same way Stalin did over the Russians. It was the CIA that was sourced, what the CIA gains is fuel for their McArthy withhunts etc. By claiming these types of regimes are communist means that anyone who is genuinly communist or socialist gets labeled alongside them so they can turn the public opinion against them (see McArthy trials). ill start new thread on scottish water etc.

[XerXes]

At the end of the day there is no such thing as a pure form of communism; like the 256 shades of gray between black and white, so too there are various forms of this ideal. This can be said quite easily for most political or quasi-political structures. But when it comes to communism, let’s be realistic: it is the great (FAILED) experiment.

Have you been to Russia? I have. The place is decimated. It is a 4th world country at best. Have you been to China? I have. The countryside villages are the real test of this concept in work. Have you been to Korea? I have. I served on the DMZ as a patrol leader for the UN. My opinions, though not always fully accurate, are based on real-world experience and specialized post-graduate education.

Maybe to the “letter of the law” NK isn’t communist. Big deal, who cares? As I pointed out, it is an authoritarian state. But call it what you want. It has elements of communism, socialism, and other political structures too. But at the heart of this argument is the fact that the country’s own “leaders” and people identify themselves as communists. Consequently, others recognize their claim. In this sense they do represent a faction thereof -- even if they do live up to people’s romantic perceptions of what communism is supposed to be.

You can argue the point of countries like NK not fleshing-out Marx’s manifesto, but what does that prove? Marx wasn’t perfect and neither was his theory or the subsequent theories and concepts that have been proposed and fought over. If it were, the experiment would be successful (surely) somewhere in the world.

People like to think Communism as being something great for a lot of reasons. Maybe they are upset of feel emotionally guilty because mom and dad have money, or maybe they are upset with all of the “injustices” in this world. Tough shit; since when is the world supposed to be fair and just? Hold a baby as it dies in your arms and you quickly realize that.

What one has to understand is that communism and its little brother socialism, while perhaps have good elements, are greatly built on false philanthropy. That is, legalized theft and disbursement of the spoils. You cannot eliminate free trade and entrepreneurialism and expect a society to flourish. Ownership of property is tremendously important for societal growth, structure, and success. Like it or not.

The proof is in the pudding. To illustrate this all you must do is look at the people in the west that argue the greatness of these concepts (communism, et al). Do THEY practice what they preach? Take away their designer clothes, their walkmans, their choice… and they will be ready to fight you at the drop of the hat. Gucci for everyone isn’t a right. I’ve yet to meet a so-called (western) communist who lives out their ideals. Talk is cheap as they say.

We could debate this until the sun goes down. I recognize the core of what you are saying and there is SOME validity to it, but I feel you are missing the point. People demonize communism and ideas like it because they are intelligent enough to “see” them for what they really are. McCarthyism (not McArthy) ended a long time ago; he wasn’t wrong in recognizing that communism is a threat to the way of life we ALL want in the West – you included. But he was an idiot. It is important to call a spade a spade.

You can personally call the demonizing of communism as a “witch hunt” or whatever, but sometimes you just have to pull your head out of your ass and take a look around you (and the world).

My thoughts and reasoning on this topic are relatively sound and chasing semantically motivated philosophical arguments or rabbit trails serve no real purpose for either of us. We can respectfully agree to disagree.