the "dear leader" is gone: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il dead

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

U r telling me that I don't have a clue about communism ?

I think it's rather benevolent of Felix to limit it to Communism.

@izzythepush,

I have studied communism for quite a few decades
including discussions with surviving fugitives of communist slavery,
some of whose relatives did not make it. Its pretty serious; death is better.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Pinochet's regime is a good thing though? You posted earlier that your Commie associates were sad in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Those people weren't real communists. A real communist would have been sad when Stalin seized power, and when Trotsky was murdered. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the collapse of red fascism.

1 Reply

I found this really interesting site quite by accident this afternoon.

It consists of photographs of Kim Jong-il looking at all sorts of different things!

Enjoy. Smile

Quote:

kim jong-il looking at things:

the dear leader liked to look at things.
updated every other day and sometimes
on the weekends too.

looking at a sweater

http://kimjongillookingatthings.tumblr.com/

1 Reply

@msolga,

Thanks.

That was both amusing and a vivid testamony of the absurdity and hypocrisy of authoritarian rule.

0 Replies

The Evil Empire came into being by murder of the Czar & his family.

The commie slave masters r indistinguishable from traditional old world monarchs,
especially Asian monarchs of purely unlimited jurisdiction.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The Tsar's regime was pretty shitty. The great tragedy of the Russian Revolution was the premature death of Lenin. Have you read Animal Farm?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

The Tsar's regime was a good deal more tolerant and beneficial for Russians than what followed its collapse. The achievements of Russia during the last half of the 19th century in art, science, literature and even economic growth far eclipsed what followedf under Lenin and all his successors.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

According to Angus Maddison's long term economic data charts, the per capita income in 1870 Russia was 1,023 dollars (1990 purchase power parity); 43 years later, in 1913, a few years before the Bolsheviks, it was 1,488 dollars: a growth of 45 %, roughly 1% a year. By 1950, it was 2,834 dollars. Under the first Bolsheviks, personal income rose about 90% in 37 years, double the rate than under the tzars. With Stalin gone, average income grew at a much faster rate: by 1973 it was at 6.058: it more than doubled in only 23 years. From then on, stagnation, as the system collapsed under its own bureaucracy.

http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/oriindex.htm

I agree with you, George, about the achievements in art & literature. The Soviets did build a science powerhouse in some disciplines, so they were competitive with the tzars to say the least. And the economic data says they fared better until the mid-seventies.
There were no freedoms under the Bolsheviks. But was the Tzar's Ojrana less feared than the Soviet's KGB?

1 Reply

@fbaezer,

Soooo very convenient, cite an alleged expert while linking not to his quoted claims, but instead to his self-serving biography! Likely that method passes for academic integrity in Mexico - though FYI the assorted claims of your "expert" have been widely derided and ridiculed everywhere including in this award-winning book published by Princeton University Press:

Quote:

A Farewell to Alms:
A Brief Economic History of the World
Gregory Clark

Winner of the 2008 Gold Independent Publisher Book Medal, Finance/Investment/Economics Category

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8461.html

You should be ashamed of yourself for assuming all the posters here are terminal idiots who never had a clue about finance and economics, enabling you to freely dispense your Marxist drivel! Your "expert" professor doesn't even deny making up his alleged data, and instead blames Prof. Clark.

Don't try this again.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The Tsar's regime was pretty shitty. The great tragedy of the Russian Revolution was the premature death of Lenin. Have you read Animal Farm?

I did.
I understand that Winston Churchill urinated upon the western wall
of the 3rd Reich, to demonstrate his contempt for its creator.
I almost never use reference to excrement in my writing,
but for ulyanoff (a/k/a: "lenin") I will make an exception,
applying the term "shitty" to him. His work was horrible beyond ineffability.

David

0 Replies

And all this prattle has what to do with the current situation in N. Korea?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Pinochet's regime is a good thing though?

Yes; it made me very, very happy, in terms of vengeance and justice.
I was also elated in October of 1965, when the Indonesians
counterattacked the commies and killed huge numbers of them.
Its sad that the commies that perpetrated the worst atrocities
got away with it, safely in death, but Pinochet did the best he coud, bless him!

izzythepush wrote:

You posted earlier that your Commie associates were sad in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Those people weren't real communists.

Yes; social friends.
Thay favored the continuation of communist slavery in the commie empire.

izzythepush wrote:

A real communist would have been sad when Stalin seized power,
and when Trotsky was murdered.

Maybe u think that Stalin was not a commie, as Hitler was not a nazi
and that there were no commies in the NKVD,
as there were no nazis in the Gestapo.

izzythepush wrote:

The collapse of the Soviet Union was the collapse of red fascism.

I will not dispute THAT; in my mind,
it is not necessary to distinguish among all of the collectivist-authoritarians.
Whether a victim is torn to pieces and eaten by a tiger or a lion
makes little difference to the victim.

Now, I venture forth to prepare for tonight's Mensa Dinner
of the Opulent Mensan SIG at 1 If By Land, 2 If By Sea,
whose signature dish is Beef Wellington!
I have successfully importuned its pastry chef
to offer us Baked Alaska for dessert,
bearing in mind its structural similarity to Beef Wellington!
Will u say "hello" to Lord Wellington for me ??

David

0 Replies

I wish some people would actually read Marx so they would understand the difference between these three things:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Fascism
A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Communism
Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens. It envisaged common ownership of all land and capital and withering away of the coercive power of the state.

We have never had a Communist country. I don't think we ever will knowing human nature. We've had people who dangled the fantasy of it in front of desperate people so they could take power, but Marx would have hated them as much as he hated Capitalism. China now has more in common with USA capitalism than it does with any form of Communism.

3 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

And all this prattle has what to do with the current situation in N. Korea?

It has to do with whether communist slavery n human degradation will end or continue there
(addressing the matter in a round about way).

David

2 Replies

@Green Witch,

Well said & very timely, Green Witch!
Thank you.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
And all this prattle has what to do with the current situation in N. Korea?
It has to do with whether communist slavery n human degradation will end or continue there
(addressing the matter in a round about way).

David

Yup. "Round about way" is correct. I agree it's fun to rehash 20th Cenury history,something we all do all the time. But I doubt that there's much chance of any significant changes in the repressive totalitarian regime of No. Korea. If young Kim should be one-upped by some other pretender to the throne, the army will still take charge and nothing whatever is likely to change. The only hope we have is that China might finally get sick and tired of holding up this country (N.K., I mean) and its pretense of being a Communist regime and turn a blind eye to a land invasion of the place from the South.

In the final analysis what is and isn't real 'Communism' has no bearing on the present situation. Why do you thing both Soel and Tokyo went into emergency sessions as soon as King Jong Il's death was announced? They're not just worried about the question of succession. They're speculating on whether anything can be done to take advantage of this state of confusion.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

communist slavery

This is an oxymoron.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Green Witch wrote:

I wish some people would actually read Marx so they would understand the difference between these three things:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Fascism
A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Communism
Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens. It envisaged common ownership of all land and capital and withering away of the coercive power of the state.

We have never had a Communist country. I don't think we ever will knowing human nature. We've had people who dangled the fantasy of it in front of desperate people so they could take power, but Marx would have hated them as much as he hated Capitalism. China now has more in common with USA capitalism than it does with any form of Communism.

The problem here is that Marx didn't coin the terms to which you refer, and that the terms totalitarianism andf Fascism came into use only after Marx died.

Most historians and political thinkers agree with you that we have never seen and likely will never see a "real" communist country or system precisely because it is an illusion contrary to human nature. Given that, why would any serious person wish to consult Marx' s writings for any purpose other than that of examining historical delusions?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Ideas about Utopia are worth studying. Marx also had some accurate observations about capitalism, whether you like them or not. I just find it annoying that people use these three words interchangeably when they refer to three different states of government. You could blend Totalitarianism and Fascism, but Communism is the opposite in that it wants to eliminate all forms of rule in favor of the people as an equal whole.

2 Replies

the "dear leader" is gone: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know