North Korea Exposed - CNN Special

[moddemny]

For those who missed it CNN is airing a documentary again on the sick things that go on in North Korea (Saturday 8PM). I bring it up because it is relevant to the ANSWER debate that went on in September and other debates here about the history of Communism. Here it is, a glimpse of the horror that goes in a supposed worker's utopia for those of you with short term memory about what Communist regimes devolve into (I know, I have heard it before........ but that's not real Communism.......... yada, yada, yada.......)

For newcomers who may not understand what I am referring too here are some links (Note: These are just a few threads for some background, they are long and sometimes difficult to follow)

The ANSWER Problem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4386849#4387965


Workers World Party and Kim Jong Il
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4916581#4916642


Che's daughter backs the revolution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1839163#1839370


P.S. - I have to work over the weekend so I wont be in front of a computer all day for those of you who are going to flame me. So just in case I don't reply to anything right away and you accuse me of running away (Communists usually declare total victory if you don't respond in a few hours --- they don't realize other people have more productive things to do than debate them all day long) please understand I do have another life to lead and do not spend the bulk of my waking hours on DU. At best I have 2 hours a day to reply. Some of you are going to go into tirades about how I must be a troll, rightwinger, etc, etc, etc. Nope I am not, I just have a better grounding in reality on some topics. If you are looking for moles why don't you turn the attention to the amount of people from marxist/communist groups who seem to be making many attempts to "infiltrate" this board as well (instead of just Bush republicans), looking for new followers. Most of the people I know personally that voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry in the last few elections would never launch into a rabid defense of Che Guevara, Castro, Milosevic or Stalin in the way I have run across with some posters here. They are well aware of the realities of what happened in the Communist regimes of the 20th century and have no delusions about it's failures. If Communists came to power in the U.S. they would oppose them just as fervently (or more) as any Republican would. For those of you who continue to believe in your failed marxist/stalinist utopias, hey America is a free country your entitled to an opinion, simply realize the bulk of Americans, liberal or conservative, past, present or future will not stand by and go along with having your ideology rammed down their throat by some new revolution (with the same old discredited ideas) and that you do not have a fertile recruiting ground with liberal Democrats or anyone else on the center left. For those of you who (are not Communists) but consider me just paranoid, no I am not, I don't think old style Communists will come to power in the U.S. ............. I am tired however of Che/Castro/Stalinist supporters thinking they have a broader foothold than they really do in the anti-Bush movement and making the rest of us look like idiots. The symptoms I am exhibiting are not paranoia they are a reaction to people putting forward a twisted reality through revisionist history. Totalitarian Marxists won't convert me but I am not going to stand by and watch them twist younger minds who don't have the same memories of the Cold war that those a little older have. America came out on top and thank God it did.



Let the Mccarthy accusations begin...........

[moddemny]

1. Link to CNN for air times........

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.north.korea.html

[malaise]

2. I only have one question

If CNN can get cameras into North Korea, why can't they get cmaeras into Iraq to show Americans what their government is doing to citizens in another country.

[moddemny]

3. There is pleny of air time on Iraq.......all over.....

can we for a moment not twist this around on the U.S. and just judge North Korea based on what is going on in North Korea.

[displacedtexan]

6. Is there an in-depth expose on Iraq that is truthful?

I'd really like to see that. Seriously. I'm not being snarky.

[moddemny]

10. Whooaaaaa.......

Look how quickly it turns to Iraq when I mentioned North Korea. Somewhere in America you'll find a truthful representation of Iraq. If you try to air or publish a truthful representation of North Korea in North Korea you'll probably get the firing squad.

[manic expression]

20. Truthful?

:rofl:

Too bad those representations are repressed and ignored. We don't burn books here, we just remove them.

Let's play a game. I'll put out an oppressive country, and you tell me what first world power supports that government.

Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Pakistan
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Israel
Afghanistan (Mujahadeen, Taliban)
Iraq (pre-Gulf War I)
Chile (Pinochet)
El Salvador (before and during the revolution)
Cuba (Batista)
Iran (Shah)

You should have but one answer for them all. Get the picture?

on edit, that list is but a taste of our base actions.

[moddemny]

26. "Let's play a game."

You expect me to play games about Human rights with someone who has Che Guevara as his avatar? That's your standard?

[manic expression]

33. Oh, so you refuse to answer what I've said

Thanks for the demonstration of sheer denial.

Answer the question. What power supported and/or supports those terrible regimes?

If you want to talk about Cuba's excellent post-revolutionary human rights record, as well as amazing progress thanks to socialist policies, that is for another thread. I'll be sure to prove you as incorrect then as I've done here.

[moddemny]

42. "Thanks for the demonstration of sheer denial."

It's funny, because even before you posted, I mentioned in my original post that I don't live on DU all day and Communists declare quick victories in message boards. You becoming so predictable it's getting boring. It would take me quite some time to explain/write what the case is with each of those individual countries. Some had direct US aid, some were simply being engaged because hopefully through engagement they will become more open. In some examples your facts are just plain wrong, the U.S. doesn't support the Taliban..... anyway the world is not perfect and the U.S. is not directly responsible for everything that goes on in your laundry list of countries it does not exercise direct control over. However Stalin was directly responsible for the abuses of those under his direct control in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Mao for his, Castro for his, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. If you total up the people killed and abused in former Communist regimes in will far outweigh by tens of millions then those hurt by the U.S. Humanity still has a long way to go and not everthing wrong in the world U.S's fault. As to why the U.S. didn't engage Communists peacefully? Communists weren't interested, Kruschev put it plain and simple "We Will Bury You" When a reasonable Communist like Gorbachev showed up even a hardcore anti-Communist like Reagan extended his hand in friendship. I never argued the U.S. was perfect but if you want to use Che as a model for Human rights or peace how can you reconcile these quotes? (there are many more----- a snippet of his philosophy)


Obviously not a believer in due process.......

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredon (The Wall)!"

Nope, not the next Gandhi.......

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"

Even if the United States wanted to make friends....... not very reconcilatory.....

"Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism, and a battle hymn for the people's unity against the great enemy of mankind: the United States of America. Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this, our battle cry, may have reached some receptive ear, that another hand may be extended to wield our weapons, and that other men be ready to intone our funeral dirge with the staccato singing of the machine guns and new battle cries of war and victory"

[manic expression]

46. The only predictable thing

is your ignorance and the incorrect nature of your opinions.

The US DID support the Taliban. DID, as in the PAST TENSE of the conjugated form of TO DO. We supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, and they became the Taliban when they took control of the government, so we did support them. I also forgot Diem of Vietnam, so add that to the list.

Which countries were "simply being engaged because hopefully through engagement they will become more open"? Quite a weak and mistaken excuse. The fact is that the US fully supports (or supported) the countries I have listed (and then some). In this way, America is directly contributing to their oppressive actions. We are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for violations that occur through our own hand or the hand of a government we support. DIRECTLY. There is no excuse for injustice.

Also, we fly terror suspects to countries like Syria and Egypt to be tortured. Pretty direct.

Am I defending the USSR/PRC? No. I haven't and I won't. Nice strawman, by the way. However, I do find it ludicrous that America's actions are very similar those countries'. US Humanity is quite disgusting enough, thank you. Do not justify an injustice with another injustice.

The funniest thing is that a Soviet during that time would have said much the same thing as you, as in "we're just engaging them! We have no DIRECT control!". :eyes:

Not everything in the world is the US' fault, but it's not the USSR's fault, or the PRC's fault, either. The point is that the action is the fault of the government which did it. In this regard, we are at fault for quite a lot.

Reagan "extended his hand in friendship"? You really do have no grip of history.

I'd love a source for those quotes.

Here are some (validated) quotes:
"Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery."
- Ernesto Che Guevara

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."
- Ernesto Che Guevara

http://www.geocities.com/glorybangla/cqtes.htm#rev
(that's called a source, class)
http://zaadz.com/quotes/authors/che_guevara/
(another source for the second one)

[moddemny]

50. Not all the Mujahadein became Taliban......

so much for your grasp of facts....... The Northern Alliance were also former Mujahadein and fought the Taliban...... What happened in Afghanistan is a lot more complex than you make it out to be, but your looking so hard for the U.S. boogeyman you'll twist the facts.

"The funniest thing is that a Soviet during that time would have said much the same thing as you, as in "we're just engaging them! We have no DIRECT control!"

AHAHAHAHA...... Hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe is not direct control???? The Soviet crackdown in Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968? Not direct control?

"Am I defending the USSR/PRC? No. I haven't and I won't. Nice strawman"

Your hero Che did, guess you have to pick your banner more carefully.

[manic expression]

52. So predictable....

"The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

Note that we supported them. So much for what?

Hundreds of thousands of American troops in Iraq RIGHT NOW is not direct control???? Troops in Afghanistan, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Somalia, Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Sudan, Serbia, Grenada, Iran (hostage-rescue) and other countries that have been invaded by US troops just doesn't matter to you, I guess. This is ignoring coups and unjustified covert actions in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, China, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Bolivia, among others. What about our imperialist holdings in Puerto Rico? And about troops on foriegn soil...how do you explain this?
http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/

So blind....

How did Che support the USSR or PRC? Do tell.

(on edit) Oh, and I was saying what a Soviet WOULD HAVE SAID, using a mindset akin to your own. Good job with completely missing the point and being wrong...again.

[moddemny]

27. "We don't burn books here, we just remove them."

Guys like you who support scum like Che should be happy about the U.S. When I went to vote in New York this election the Socialist Workers Party was on the ticket (out in the open in plain sight)........ and their candidate supports Castro. Looks like the U.S. isn't as repressive as you make it out to be.

[manic expression]

35. Scum?

Right. Let me show you a little something.

Before the 1959 revolution
• 75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.
• More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.
• 85% had no inside running water.
• 91% had no electricity.
• There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.
• More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.
• Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.
• The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.
• 45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.
• 25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.
• 1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).
• 27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.
• Racial discrimination was widespread.
• The public school system had deteriorated badly.
• Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.
• Police brutality and torture were common.

___



After the 1959 revolution

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.

-

It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.

By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;

Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.

Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.

“Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”

Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.

“Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”

It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.

There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.

The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.

“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”

Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.

The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.

“What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.



No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care is forced on Cubans. Castro didn't give it to them. All of the people of Cuba worked hard to create the infrastructure and systems that they felt were essential for any progressive system.

(on edit...thanks to Mika for this)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Scum? Perhaps you should look at the government which imposes embargoes on a country for simply helping their people.

Again, the statement "we don't burn books here, we just remove them", exactly illustrates your example. Sure, a third party MIGHT get on the ballot. They can perhaps, just maybe, create some real dialogue in this country about the issues at hand. However, the reality is that the system creates a monopoly on politics and power. There is NO way a third party has the SLIGHTEST chance of winning an election of any significance. Furthermore, corporations control the government, as most representatives depend on affluent interest groups for needed money to get reelected (which means only corporate whores have a chance in elections). Also, the media is in complete compacence with all this, as well as America's base actions and unjustified aggression, as is clear from this little bit of propaganda you're touting.

Who said the free? Not me? Certainly not me?

[H2O Man]

41. For sake of conversation:

In his wonderful book, "Robert Kennedy and his times," Arthur Schlesinger Jr., tells of a conversation between Senator Kennedy and Roger Baldwin.

"What do you think of Che Guevara?" RFK asked.

"I think he's a bandit. What do you think?"

"I think he is a revolutionary hero," Kennedy replied. (page 861)

In Richard Goodwin's 6-70 article "A Day" in McCall's, he notes that Robert captured the American left's imagination when he took on a Che-like presence.

And the July 8, 1968 Look quotes Stanley Tretick telling RFK that, "What you really are is a revolutionary. You should really be in the hills with Castro and Che." RFK answered, "I know it."

The things you say about North Korea are fine by me. But I think you might do well to reconsider some of the blanket statements and insults, such as "scum." I could be wrong, but I doubt that you would want to lump Robert Kennedy as an enemy of freedom and democracy.

[H2O Man]

47. Though I'm being ignored ....

and cannot add things for the sake of conversation ..... I thought I'd quote this section from a 1970 letter from Rev. Daniel Berrigan, S.J.,: "I'm trying to say that when people look about them for lives to run with and when hopeless people look for hope, the gift we can offer others is so simple a thing as hope. As they said about Che, as they say about Jesus, some people, even to this day, he gave us hope. .... I hope you see your lives as Che saw his, that is to say mainly as teachers of the people, conscious as we must be of the vast range of human life that still awaits liberation and education and consciousness."

[displacedtexan]

21. Huh? I'm totally serious.

I think we all know how awful N Korea is-- and I'm sure the CNN expose is good-- I'm just more interested in Iraq right now, and I thought you could recommend some documentaries.

[malaise]

54. Which was my only point

MSM's programme on abuses in any other country won't spin at this time as their cronies are busy abusing citizens in a country they invaded illegally. Sorry, I don't give a rat's ass about North Korea at this time. Get those hidden cameras in Iraq. MSM won't even show some balls and cover the funerals of dead American soldiers. Meanwhile the US government attempts to sanction torture. That sounds rather North Korean to me. Spare me please.

[ret5hd]

4. wow...you are so astute in your observations...

especially about your assumptions of DU being a site populated by true believers in totalitarian dictatorships that happen to call themselves communist.

will you be my guru?

[moddemny]

5. People who participated in threads I am referring too.......

know what I am talking about... and no I am not accusing the bulk of DU of being Communists.

[ret5hd]

7. no, really...would you be my guru?

[NNN0LHI]

8. Yea did you see them mean old Taliban beating those burka clad women?

Oh sorry. Wrong CNN Propaganda Special. That was a couple of wars ago now. My memory is getting terrible.

Don

[htuttle]

9. That was before the one...

...where they showed Iraqi soldiers torturing dogs with poison gas, but after the one where they claimed Iraqis dumped babies out of incubators.

[NNN0LHI]

13. But I still can't remember which evil fellow had the human shredders

I sure hope we can hurry up and invade whomever is doing that. If we haven't already that is.

Don

[RepublicanElephant]

11. i don't mind watching a documentary, but i DO mind getting played...

...by the bushco propaganda machine.

a bastard's okay, as long as he's our bastard.
when he's no longer our bastard, it's time for regime change.

[moddemny]

12. What was going on in North Korea.......

..... went on long before Bush came to power.

[RepublicanElephant]

14. i know that....

but when's the last time we got a mainstream media expose on one of our "friends"?

you know, like saudi arabia?

[moddemny]

19. "when's the last time we got a mainstream media expose.......

on one of our "friends"?"


We are off topic on from my original post but hey if you want a special on Saudi Arabia, I am all for it...... email cnn. North Korea may still be North Korea (with atrociies far greater than Saudi Arabia) afterward but if you want Saudia Arabia exposed, go for it.

[manic expression]

23. But it won't happen

all the countries that the US supports that are terrible (Uzbekistan recently murdered 500 protesters) will never be "exposed". Why? Because it will make Uncle Sam look bad.

The "melting pot" seems to be calling the kettle black.

[htuttle]

18. And?

The operative question is: What is to be done about it? Since there's little question that Kim Jong Il is a 'bad guy', what course of action are propaganda films on CNN like this one urging?

Would invading make things 'better' for people there? Highly unlikely. Not way the US fights wars (bomb everything in sight, then sell slices of the country to corporate cronies).

Would there be any justification for doing it outside the framework of the UN? (No).

So what IS the point of catapulting propaganda like this right now? The US government doesn't need my permission to introduce resolutions at the UN. What is the real goal of agitprop like this? (I say 'agitprop', not because it's not necessarily true, but that it's done in such a way to elicit emotion in the viewer). Think about that.

[moddemny]

24. "So what IS the point of catapulting propaganda like this right now?"

Did you see the show the first time? I only saw half it...... the point of it coming out know is because more technolgy, hidden cameras, cell phones etc. is available now to get information out. There are more people risking their lives to get the truth out. Before you had to rely on the word of defectors, now there is more objective proof.

Watch the show and it will answer some of the other questions...... one of the most important things opening up North Korea and breaking through the brainwashing of it's people is smuggled South Korean videos.

[htuttle]

30. South Koreans are adamantly against any aggressive action toward the North

...for a number of reasons, such as not wanting to get stuck in the crossfire, not wanting their North Korean relatives to be killed, etc...

Do you agree with them? Or is there a point where you think we should ignore the wishes of South Koreans (and the welfare of all on the peninsula), and push for an invasion? Is there a point where you think the US should invade on their own, without the UN?

Again, I don't see anybody disputing that North Korea sucks. The issue I see reappearing with people here is they they don't trust the mainstream media and the Bush administration's motives.

And what of Sun Myung Moon's involvement in all this? He's been a major power behind the US right wing (and especially the Bush administrations) since the late 70's, and has his fingers in businesses in both North and South Korea (and of course, you could probably assume the North Korean business interests involve some sort of defacto slavery going on). That's just one more factor that fuels my (and probably others') suspicions.

Frankly, I don't think the Bush administration would actually 'invade' North Korea under any circumstances. I think they'd just nuke it. And I think millions would die as a result. Most likely, since it seemed that they were trying their hardest to ignore North Korea before the Iraq war (with Kim Jong Il practically jumping up and down on his chair trying to get our attention), I'd bet they really just want to stoke up the old 'patriotic war machine' juices to bring their approval ratings up.

[moddemny]

32. Hold on a second..........

First you missed some of points in the original post..... second you do have to watch the show.......


I understand and agree with the South Koreans...... The North even without nuclear weapons can kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people with chemical tipped missles or the 500 big guns they pointed at Seoul..... I am not advocating attacking North Korea so calm down. If you watch the show one of the main themes is that the North Koreans are in a much bigger information vaccum then we ever realized. No cell phones, tv from outside etc.... the more info that comes from the outside the more some of them realize the situation they are in. Hopefully it will reach a critical mass that they by themselves will begin the overthrow. Whichever way you look at it the situation even without U.S. intervention can still turn very bad very quickly because Nk's leader is a nut.


You keep looking at all this through the lens of the Bush Administration, calm down dude....... If you followed my post, the original ANSWER debates and some other threads you would know what I am driving at. If ANSWER really believes what they belive and they are not some front for some agancy for other reasons than they have expressed open support for totalitarian regimes. They make North Korea, Cuba, and many other former Communist countries sound like they were models of human organization and virtue. When someone says it ain't so (meaning Communism wasn't perfect) however briefly with the smallest of comments they get bashed ........ and frankly when a Che/Stalin/Castro supporter shits on me for saying hold on, Communism wasn't that great am I not going to roll over and say please, please forgive me, Che or Castro or Kim Il Jong is a hero. As a matter of fact if you take your love for your backwards heroes too far and really try to act on it I am going to make sure it's not easy for you. No aspiring Communist revolutionary going for the brutal overthrow is going to have an easy time with me. I don't give a sh*t what Bush has done, Bush's wrongs doesn't make them right.

[manic expression]

15. Bolshevik Russia Exposed - German Special

It's a bit outdated, but I think you'll enjoy it nonetheless.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/feldpost.htm

I'm sorry, but I don't have the times available for you.

:eyes:

[lovuian]

16. yes dictatorships are evil and Korea is a dictatorship as well

as China... Communism is a tool to explain to its people that you being poor is for the governments good...

In Capitalism we are told its the poors tough luck they are lazy and just not educated enough and so just go live in the gutter

Social Security is a government socialistic program developed due to the Great depression when there was no work for anybody...

Socialized health care was developed so that everybody has healthcare

Its not a simple explanation but Capitalism unregulated and corrupted into monopoly can be so terrible look at the Great depression and it usually makes wars...

[moddemny]

36. I am not talking about Social Security or

nationalized healthcare...... Those were programs that were(or are trying to be carefully phased in and thought through (in the case of national healthcare not yet, but hopefully soon). Some on the right do take the socialist label to far and would even call a water utility Communist..... that's not what I am talking about...... So eveyone in this thread can calm down......... I am not a freeper, right wing troll..... Now we can get back to the hardcore totalitarians.

[manic expression]

40. Yes, shall we?

Hardcore totalitarian governments:

Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, military occupation of Iraq, Haiti.

Who is supporting them?

[pretzel4gore]

17. CNNT (cable news network traitors) shouldn't cast stones

living a a glass house (having committed planned treason over many years).....n korea was born in war 50 years ago, and is in a state of war with both south korea and the usa, which spends 1/2 the entire planets military budget.....people should be wary of listening to traitors like cnnt, and they should expend their wrath on subjects they might be able to affect, which is NOT north korea! (n korea is a PRC ally, and the PRC is a nuclear power)
i admire your concern and interest in n korea, but maybe your use of corrupt liar media like cnnt or fox, nbc, cbs, abc, pbs, nytimes, la times, washpost, reuters, ass press etc hinders the success(?) for all we know, n korea could be utopia

[Darranar]

22. Why not read what the people who defend the theory here actually say

instead of smearing them by making up positions they have never taken?

[moddemny]

25. "Why not read what the people who defend the theory here actually say"

I have many times....... even when I could have been studying more useful things........ Your question almost implies automatic conversion...... What if I heard it and I rejected it? They usually smear first then........ troll, rightwinger, blaaaahhhh, blaaahhhh, blaaahhhh.

In the end there is more to life than theory, why ignore the wholesale failure in practice?

[Darranar]

28. I have never seen anyone on this website

defend the current regime in North Korea or the post-Lenin regime in the Soviet Union as a "worker's utopia" or a "socialist paradise."

Those who defend Fidel Castro here do not also defend Joseph Stalin, despite your implication to the contrary.

Again, if you have a problem with the theory, argue against the theory. North Korea is hardly a legitimate example of the theory in practice.

[moddemny]

29. "I have never seen anyone on this website"

defend the current regime in North Korea or the post-Lenin regime in the Soviet Union as a "worker's utopia" or a "socialist paradise."

Then you missed the threads, some links are posted above and their are many associated with same debates.

[Darranar]

31. No, I did not.

The two threads you linked to that actually had discussion of the subject I read when the discussion on them was still active. There is no statement in either of them that amounts to that.

The third thread I had not read before, but I did when you posted this thread and there was nothing of the sort there.

So, a link would be appreciated - preferably one that actually supports your claim.

[moddemny]

34. Find out what ANSWER represents then get back to me......

I dont save all my posts.... you have a star by your name so you can use the search function........ In the Che thread people are openly supportive of him and Che was supportive of Stalin. Castro and Che both supported the more hardline Communist approach over a softer more democratic socialist model. So am I suppose to ignore the fact that Che and many other Communist revolutionaries wanted to export the hardcore version all over the world? What are you trying the say? Che supporters really don't support him (I mention Che here because I used the Che thread in the original post), I don't understand they like him but don't believe what he was doing??? How is one suppose to interpret it?


You can follow back links to original sites..... like the WWP which expressed solidarity with Chinese Communists over the Tianamem Square massacre....... A lot of Communists will pretend to be socialists in order to disguise their ideas to make them more palatable to the mainstream..... that's why groups like ANSWER use fronts. What's the deal then? Why use so many front groups or permutations of your ideology?

[manic expression]

37. Have you, at long last, any sense of reality, sir?

There is a huge difference between Stalin's government and the Cuban government. They are opposites. The sooner you get that through your head, the better you will understand the world.

The Cuban government represents the people very well.
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQDemocracy.html

Their "hardline approach" meant social reforms which benefited the people, as well as a government that listens to them. Look at the statistics for Cuba. Healthcare, housing, education/literacy, equity and justice are among the best in the world, especially among Latin American countries (the worst of which are "US-approved"). What Cuba has done for its people is amazing and a great model.

Also, other countries tried to do the same thing, such as Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Grenada, Iran and others, but Uncle Sam disapproved and promptly overthrew their governments, replacing them with authoritarian ones (Nicaragua and El Salvador managed to get some reforms for the people). Who's exporting injustice?

Mr. McCarthy? Is that you?

[moddemny]

44. "Have you, at long last, any sense of reality, sir?"

You are the one who likes point blank questions...... so why don't you answer one...... (so we can find out who has the grasp on reality) You honestly believe Castro is the best leader Cuba can have today?

[manic expression]

49. Well,

thanks for ignoring my entire post.

However, to answer your question: Castro holds and exercises very little power, so he is more of a figurehead of a leader than anything else. In that regard, he is the best for what he does: making speeches. However, the Cuban Assembly wields real power in Cuba, and I do think that the Cuban people believe they are the best leaders Cuba can have today. Would you care to argue?

Representation in Cuba:
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQDemocracy.html

[Darranar]

38. Of course he was supportive of Stalin.

So was Allende, a definite propagator of the "softer more democratic socialist model."

So were most of the left-wing movements in Latin America, good or bad, by the nature of the politics there. When the government, in alliance with the most powerful state on the planet, is trying to destroy one's movement, one seeks allies where they can be found.

Out of curiosity, how exactly do you expect a "softer democratic socialist model" to succeed in a country ruled by a brutal right-wing dictatorship?

Worker's World Party does not post on DemocraticUnderground, last time I checked. Nor does it control ANSWER. The reason it has the influence it does in ANSWER is because its organization is competent.

[manic expression]

39. Yes, but...

Stalin was long dead when the revolutionary movements of Latin America started to make progress. After Stalin's death, the USSR denounced Stalin. Therefore, even the most pro-Soviet revolutionaries would not have supported Stalin.

Another thing is that Cuba turned to the USSR only after America tried to overthrow its government, first by invasion, then by economic siege (that continues today). It was for survival, as you pointed out.

[moddemny]

43. "After Stalin's death, the USSR denounced Stalin."

Millions of people dead hopefully inspires common sense. Stalin was dead when Saddam Hussein came to power too but Hussein still used him as a model for brutality and control..... seems like che picked some of his habits also.......... Stalin was one example, he didn't have the monopoly on brutality........ Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Kim Il Jong, Milosevic, there are plenty of Communist mass murderers after Stalin.

[manic expression]

48. What?

Do you have any idea what that was in relation to? Since the USSR denounced Stalin when it supported Cuba (because of the US, mind you), there is no feasible way Cuba supported or was supported by Stalinism.

Saddam Hussein was supported by the US. We helped him to power and provided him the means to carry on a horrible war with Iran (who we also supported with weapons). Now we have invaded and murdered 100,000 innocents, along with 80,000 military personel, with untold destruction and oppression.

Secondly, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest are the opposites of Cuba's government. Get that through your head.

[moddemny]

51. Confused?

The point was Stalin even after his death was still an inspiration for some, including Che...... even worse when you consider Russians denounced him. In case you haven't noticed this post was about Communism in general and you keep bringing up Cuba....... not a very strong case of an ideology when you bring up one of the better examples of Communism as Cuba and the worst as China, North Korea, the USSR.

[manic expression]

53. You are so delusional it is ridiculous

The Cuban government is the OPPOSITE of the Stalinist government. The Cubans only turned to the USSR because of the economic siege the US put upon its people.

I bring up Cuba because a.) you brought it up by trying to slime me for my avatar for lack of logic and b.) it is an example of the amazing things socialism does. El Salvador did the same things, but to a lesser degree. Chile, Nicaragua and other countries TRIED to do the same thing, but Uncle Sam wouldn't have any of it.

[cantstandbush]

45. Didn't we all know N.Korea was like this? But we didn't until Katrina

what America was like. If i searched out the poorest, least educated communities in America i could make a docu that would look very much like N. Korea.

My point here is we should fix our own house first before marching off to war against a nation for having many of the things that are problems for us like poverty and WMDs.