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

@Green Witch,

I agree with what you're saying in principle, Green Witch. But remember that it's just a semantics problem when looked at that way. You're quite right about the intrinsic meaning of the word 'Communism', but we can't forget that the Soviet totalitarians (or totalitarian Soviets, if you will) did call themselves Communists and the entire movement was universally referred to as Communism in all the news and other social media. Hence, to say that 20th Century Communism was a repressive totalitarian movement is not really incorrect.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

.....The only hope we have is that China might finally get sick and tired of holding up this country (N.K., I mean) .......and turn a blind eye to a land invasion of the place from the South.

The only ocean access to the Vladivostok military area the Chinese now have is courtesy of North Korea. If the South were so stupid as to cross the DMZ (more landmines per m2 than anywhere else on the planet) braving the North's artillery and nukes, they would cut off China completely. Please consult a map.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Green Witch wrote:

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.

Communism is an abstract idea that has never, as you acknowledged, been manifested in any real form on a political scale. It doesn't "do" or "want" anything.

The flaw in Marx' thinking was that the concentration of power required to seize all public and private property - all for the "common good" - and to control all economic activity in a way that directly contradicts observable patterns of human behavior, is itself sufficient for an intolerable tyranny. The "whithering away" of that power is, and always has been an absurd fantasy - as the unfortunate citizens of Russia and Ukraine discovered.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

There was an expert on the BBC the other night. He said in theory people may want a unified Korea, but no-one wants to pay for it. So the realpolitik is that China, Japan and S. Korea are more concerned with containing N. Korea than putting their hands in their pockets.

0 Replies

@Green Witch,

DAVID wrote:

communist slavery

Green Witch wrote:

This is an oxymoron.

O, yeah; tell that to the fugitives thereof,
some of whom fled under the gunfire of communist automatic weapons,
while thay fled after jumping the Berlin Wall, or crashing thru it with trucks.
Tell that to the fugitives from Cuba whose little homemade boats
were sought to be sunk from commie helicopters
boming them from on hi, as thay fled communism toward Florida.

Tell them it did not happen and of your definitions.

David

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

I agree that commie slavery is likely to endure in North Korea,
for the foreseeable future. It is the destruction of justice for those slaves.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Green Witch wrote:

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.

georgeob1 wrote:

Communism is an abstract idea that has never, as you acknowledged, been manifested in any real form on a political scale. It doesn't "do" or "want" anything.

The flaw in Marx' thinking was that the concentration of power required to seize all public and private property - all for the "common good" - and to control all economic activity in a way that directly contradicts observable patterns of human behavior, is itself sufficient for an intolerable tyranny. The "whithering away" of that power is, and always has been an absurd fantasy - as the unfortunate citizens of Russia and Ukraine discovered.

Very well said, George!

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David, we are all perfectly well aware of your "commie" obsession.
There is no need to go on & on & on & on about it .....
It becomes incredibly tiresome after about the first 10 repetitive posts ....
Please spare us.

It is the lives of people that matter, the conditions they live under, not what tyrant dictators call themselves or their states, no matter which political ideologies they claim to be serving.
To claim (as you have) that Pinochet is a hero & "right" when his military dictatorship murdered & "disappeared " those who who opposed his regime, while carrying on about reprehensible "commies" like Kim Jong-il strikes me as blind hypocrisy. Both were dictators, both were responsible for despicable human rights violations.

It matters nothing whether tyrannical dictators claim to be "left" or "right".
Nothing justifies such extreme actions. Nothing can justify the (at least) half a million who were killed in Suharto's purges in Indonesia. Nothing can justify Stalin's reign of terror. Why can't you see that?
-

3 Replies

@msolga,

Many ideas are perceived as tiresome by folks who are not particularly interested in them. Some people perceive an acute interest in the safety of whales as tiresome; others find it very interesting and important. In this area I believe tolerance of the interests of others should be the dominant value.

With respect to political systems there are important, real distinctions to be made. Few systems or governments are entirely guiltless of individual acts of injustice or even of some systematic acts of this type. The actions of Austrailians, Canadians, Brazilians and Americans (and others) with respect to native populations are examples as is the former practice of slavery in the United States and the British Empire. I suppose that you would (properly) find all of these acts "unjustifiable". Despite all this meaningful distinctions can be made with respect to the general willingness of various countries and political systems to engage in such actions.

Certainly in the modern era self described Communist systems clearly distinguished themselves as uniquely willing and adept practicioners of mass murder and oppression. Indeed they even coined an abstract term of art for the political aspect of the practice: it was "the elimination of the irreconcilables" in the Marxist/Leninist lexicon. In the USSR that process is thought to have consumed some 10 million lives and in Maoist China some 20 plus million. Even the more popular Fidel Castro had many tens of thousands of his bourgeois countrymen killed following his successful revolution. (In comparison his Argentine and Chilean counterparts were small time pipsqueaks.)

The similarly authoritarian Facsist governments of Germany and Italy also engaged in such acts. However, I believe it is also evident that the German version of this system was much more ghastly and murderous than was the Italian one. Neither were "excusable" but one was much worse than the other. I think that both of these and the aforementioned Communist systems were far worse and more systematically committed to such horrors than were the episodic excesses of Australia, Canada, the U.S. or the British Empire - or even the excesses observed in Argentina and Chile during periods of intense local political struggle. Indeed in both of these latter cases the militarist right wing governments voluntarily walked off the political stage after their respective political struggles ended - that is something none of the Communist or Facsist governments ever did.

In short there are indeed meaningful and significant distinctions to be made in this area - even involving individual actions that you might justifiably find to be "inexcusable".

2 Replies

@msolga,

Right on, msolga. I've said this before on other threads and I'll say it again -- regardless of what label youput on it, OmSigDAVID would have made an admirable and efficient COMMUNIST.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Indeed in both of these latter cases the militarist right wing governments voluntarily walked off the political stage after their respective political struggles ended - that is something none of the Communist or Facsist governments ever did.

At the risk of ambiguity through the use of metaphors, the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, if not walking off of the political stage, instead declared bankruptcy, went out of business, shuttered their shops, and cleared the way for more democratic shop keeping.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Yes it would, but why should we be prepared to limit our hopes and expectations to a slightly benign dictatorship.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Why should anyone fear what Baby Kim might do?

Perhaps because it is widely believed that to make his bones with the NK military he arranged for the recent track on SK that resulted in 50 death (you should read what you quote in your posts)

Or maybe because be was raised by a father who sent NK commandos to kill the SK president when he was abroad. They missed the president but got two of his ministers.

The same Dad who had his favorite SK actress kidnapped so she could make a movie in NK.

Insane evil runs in the family, and they have a huge military and nukes.

A security calculus that assumes NK leaders will behave in a way that can be rationally predicted is fundamentally flawed.

0 Replies

@Green Witch,

There has never been a country that has adopted communism as you define it, but we have had quite a number of Communist countries, and all of them have been disastrous for their citizens.

They've identified themselves as communist and they have ruled over, literally, billions of people, while hold the power to destroy the planet. You're going to tell them they're not communists?

You're going to tell the people who consider them as actual representations of communist nations that they are ignorant and wrong?

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

David, we are all perfectly well aware of your "commie" obsession.

Yeah; I did not think much of the nazis, either.

msolga wrote:

There is no need to go on & on & on & on about it .....
It becomes incredibly tiresome after about the first 10 repetitive posts ....
Please spare us.

Comrade Olga, your side LOST.
Accordingly: I still have my freedom of speech.
I 'll say whatever I damn please, whether u like it or not.

msolga wrote:

It is the lives of people that matter, the conditions they live under,
not what tyrant dictators call themselves or their states,
no matter which political ideologies they claim to be serving.

Agreed.

msolga wrote:

To claim (as you have) that Pinochet is a hero & "right"
when his military dictatorship murdered & "disappeared " those
who who opposed his regime, while carrying on about reprehensible "commies" like Kim Jong-il strikes me as blind hypocrisy.

NO. So long as my support of Gen. Pinochet is sincere & earnest, it is not "hypocrisy".
I assure u, in the fullness of unlimited candor that I supported Pinochet's attacks against the commies.

msolga wrote:

Both were dictators, both were responsible for despicable human rights violations.

No; doing it to the commies
before thay were able to do it to US,
was a good and valuable contribution to the 3rd World War,
which your side LOST.

msolga wrote:

It matters nothing

"matters" according to WHAT criteria???????

msolga wrote:

whether tyrannical dictators claim to be "left" or "right".
Nothing justifies such extreme actions. Nothing can justify the (at least)
half a million who were killed in Suharto's purges in Indonesia.
Nothing can justify Stalin's reign of terror. Why can't you see that?-

I prefer not to insult u by suggesting that u cannot
understand the concept of a WAR. It was the 3rd World War,
wherein your commies tried to execute Marx's goal of world conquest under communist slavery.

When we (us and Pinochet) succeed in degrading the communist enemy: that is GOOD.
When the red bad guys defeat us: that is BAD. That is how it works.

David

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

........They've identified themselves as communist and they have ruled over, literally, billions of people, while hold the power to destroy the planet.....

Finn: the lady you're addressing is reading from a very old script - you should have recognized it by now <G>

Quote:

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, my comment was more about another poster's apparent inability to have any empathy at all for the victims of dictators whose particular ideologies he supports ..... apparently it's OK to cause mass civilian suffering, deaths & human rights abuses if a particular dictator or regime is of the "right" variety.
I find such an attitude incomprehensible.

However, if we are going to compare which "side" has caused the most suffering to humankind during fairly recent history, I would argue that the powerful "puppet masters" have much to answer for, too..... I mean those powerful countries whose influence (say nothing of the arms they supply) have allowed the likes of Kim Jong-il to hold power through their continued support & influence. How long could a relatively small fry regime like North Korea's last without Chinese government support?

Would "the rivers of blood" have occurred in Indonesia without outside intervention & support of Suharto? How long would Burma's repressive military junta, which has caused untold misery to that county's citizens, have lasted in isolation, without powerful Chinese government support?

And while we're talking of civilian casualties ... we should also take into account direct military interventions into countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan & the horrendous toll on civilians in those countries, by far more powerful countries with their own agendas .....

I think it's reasonable that their contributions are factored into the equation, too, when talking about human casualties. It is not just extreme left or right dictatorships alone which hold responsibility.

-

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

doing it to the commies
before thay were able to do it to US,
was a good and valuable contribution to the 3rd World War,
which your side LOST.

When we (us and Pinochet) succeed in degrading the communist enemy: that is GOOD.
When the red bad guys defeat us: that is BAD. That is how it works.

David

I think this is one of the more telling posts by David.
He's a soldier of World War III. The so-called Cold War.
Only one thing counts: which side you're on. So, in his view, My Lai was good
There is no middle ground: it's "us" against "them". If you're not all in for the USA and its allies, then you're a "commie". And you lost!

I believe patriotic Nationalism is his main drive. Not ideology, not deeds. His goal: to make sure the USA is the most powerful country in the world (doesn't matter if it is feared or respected), and that the US will be done elsewhere in this planet.

If patriotic Nationalism is his main drive, had David been born elsewhere, he would have probably made a good Communist, a good follower of the Great Leader, or a good Nazi.

A very interesting poster, I must add.

2 Replies

@fbaezer,

I think you nailed it, fbaezer. David has no actual political principles beyond might makes right and, as you said, us against them. Communist and Commie are just words to him; he has no more understanding of the principles of the ideology than a cat does of the daily newspaper. Nor of Fascism, Nazziism or even Capitalism. (And I often get the feeling that he has no real undertsanding of the underlying principles that govern the U.S. Constitution either.) It's all about America, right or wrong.

Frankly, that kind of ignorance and attitude disgusts me.

1 Reply

@fbaezer,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

doing it to the commies
before thay were able to do it to US,
was a good and valuable contribution to the 3rd World War,
which your side LOST.

When we (us and Pinochet) succeed in degrading the communist enemy: that is GOOD.
When the red bad guys defeat us: that is BAD. That is how it works.

David

fbaezer wrote:

I think this is one of the more telling posts by David.

Thank u. I try.

fbaezer wrote:

He's a soldier of World War III. The so-called Cold War.
Only one thing counts: which side you're on.

No, WINNING counts TOO!

fbaezer wrote:

So, in his view, My Lai was good

I fail to see that it helped.
If it did, that was beyond my knowledge.

fbaezer wrote:

There is no middle ground: it's "us" against "them".
If you're not all in for the USA and its allies, then you're a "commie".

That is not accurate.
That does not make sense and I never said that, nor implied it.
U made that up; its your fantasy.

There r and have been people, including children,
all over who have been ignorant of ideology.
That ignorance did not turn them into Reds trying to enslave the world.
If a man helps u sometimes, but not all the time, his recalcitrance does not make him an enemy.

fbaezer wrote:

And you lost!

The evil DID LOSE; 2O years ago TODAY!!!!!

It was a WONDERFUL ` Christmas ` Present for the world!!!!!

fbaezer wrote:

I believe patriotic Nationalism is his main drive. Not ideology, not deeds.

Your belief has no basis in fact.
It shows that u don't know me at all. My years of posts have shown
very strong ideological leanings tending almost to anarchy,
strong anti-collectivist (anti-commie, anti-liberal, anti-nazi)
in their energetic LOVE of personal freedom, Individualism,
support of laissez faire free enterprize and of hedonism,
hence my creation of the Opulent Mensan Special Interest Group.

fbaezer wrote:

His goal: to make sure the USA is the most powerful country in the world (doesn't matter if it is feared or respected),
and that the US will be done elsewhere in this planet.

My goal is also a very drastic, radical curtailment
of domestic jurisdiction within America, bearing in mind
that PERSONAL FREEDOM and jurisdiction are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL!

fbaezer wrote:

If patriotic Nationalism is his main drive, had David been born elsewhere,
he would have probably made a good Communist,

1. It is not my main drive.
2. I fiercely oppose authoritarianism
and I oppose collective ownership of property (exceptions being in military environments).

fbaezer wrote:

a good follower of the Great Leader,

Maybe follow him long enuf to take him out from the back.

fbaezer wrote:

or a good Nazi.

I 'm not anti-Jewish.
I am anti-authoritarian and anti-collectivist.

fbaezer wrote:

A very interesting poster, I must add.

Thank u for your kind words.

David

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know