Not always. DPRK was caught in the middle of the Sino-Soviet dispute and got the stick from both ends on that at times. But my point was DPRK was largely fine until the USSR collapsed and the mess of the early-mid 1990s with the nuclear brinkmanship of the US & the floods which wiped out its rice production for 3+ years.

"The man who works a job he hates to make money so he can do things. Is not living a worthwhile life. "

How is this different under a command economy? You still have to work to make money. Much of the same work must still be done. Do the workers "love" their jobs more in a command economy?
And how does a command system ensure that workers do the work "they are best suited for" more readily than in a market economy?

I agree fully that Western pressures have made life in North Korea worse than it could have been, but remain convinced that the baulk of their hardships are of their own making.

I agree that problems like say, malnourishment/famine etc. are due in very large part to external pressures. I dont think external pressures are the reason N korea has prison camps, shoots escapees, or worships the dear leader as a living god.

Maybe if you didnt see things as either or, in such black and white, you would be able to grasp the complexities of reality
for example
'Nkorea has been the target of extreme foreign pressure designed to weaken it'
and
'Nkorea is a brutally repressive totalitarian monarchistic dictatorship-personality cult'

can BOTH be true. AT THE SAME TIME!!!! AMAZING!!! OMFG!!!!

Yeah build a bomb and loads of missiles and let the people starve that is what you defend.

Well at least you agree that pressures have played a role. It's something.

Putin and fullhamish, this thread seems to be back on track. Can you guys perhaps bury the hatchet and agree to cut out the personal attacks? It gets boring page after page, thread after thread. Cheers :-)

A "personality cult" that has not a single statue or monument of/for Gim Jeong Il in the country.

"can BOTH be true. AT THE SAME TIME!!!! AMAZING!!! OMFG!!!!"

Do you understand the concept of internationalism? Or do you think constantly attacking DPRK has no effect on its ability to defend itself from aggression? Must every government which you defend against aggression be 100% perfect?

Dont act like I have conceded something due to your brilliant debate skills. Honestly I really want to not care anymore and just walk away, you just piss me off so much with your snarky ignorance, you're the kind of person I hate the most (notice how that is the same trait people hate in TC and krellin). From the beginning I have been on board with you that N korea is a punching bag, you are just so goddam confrontational and condescending you never wanted to hear me out, just try to prove me 'wrong'.

@ Fulhamish

To be fair to North Korea they had good reason to fear invasion. Can you imagine Western powers not intervening if North Korea had given them an easy target?

Well at least you agree that pressures have played a role. It's something."

This is a point you have opened my eyes to, as well.

I honestly don't know what your problem is. If you weren't so insistent on claiming that I was calling DPRK a utopia we would have agreed a long time ago.

^That was to Putin.

Spy: The idea (at least of the social and economic system that I'm talking about) is that everyone works on some of the necessary tasks. So no single person is burdened with the worst tasks. Everyone has a term working in food production for example.

Under Capitalism how many people become, lawyers and doctors, for the prestige and the money that comes with it.

Remove that profit motive, and they can pick a job that they are better suited too, and that they want to do.

If the logic doesn't seem to follow to you, I have no desire to try and explain it. I'm not the most articulate person. You'd best just read Part 2 of Thomas More's Utopia. That'll give you the gist of how necessities could be handled, I'm pretty sure if gives you a basic idea of the placement of work too. It also, due to the stripping of the unnecessary allows everyone a great deal more spare time, to pursue things they find worthwhile.

Which means the necessities, food, housing are a given. Meaning that the main

Do you understand the concept of internationalism? Or do you think constantly attacking DPRK has no effect on its ability to defend itself from aggression? Must every government which you defend against aggression be 100% perfect?

OK
wtf is your problem for real? I can simeotaneously think that N korea has a right to self defense, and that it is a supremely fucked up regime.

yeah no statues, just his picture in every single public building AND private residence.

It wouldn't be "fucked up" if it wasn't constantly under attack. To continually attack it doesn't do anything but goad the imperialists on.

Seriously this is on par with the constant attacks on the Spanish Republic in the middle of Franco's rebellion. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe undermining the legitimacy of the Republic in the middle of a fascist uprising is a bad idea? Perhaps? Or is this crazytalk?

OK, please explain this to me.

to clarify, I want you to tell me how/why Nkorea is NOT a hellish police state. I already know 'imperialist aggression is bad'

Explain what? You can't just sit on the sidelines when a bully punches its victim and claim that you're doing the right thing because, while you agree that the victim has the right to self-defense, the victim insulted you or something at one point so you're just going to shout insults at him while simultaneously calling the bully a punk. It doesn't work.

All I'm saying is when a foreign doctor cures you of blindness you've had for years, and the first thing you do is (bypass the doctor) and thank the picture of 'dear leader' on the wall, to me that shows fear. Shows that they are afraid of what 'dear leader' might do if they didnt think he was so 'dear'

"Explain what? You can't just sit on the sidelines when a bully punches its victim and claim that you're doing the right thing because, while you agree that the victim has the right to self-defense, the victim insulted you or something at one point so you're just going to shout insults at him while simultaneously calling the bully a punk. It doesn't work. "

what if the victim is another bully, worse or at least as bad

Supporting DPRK does the korean people no favors.

Why after the floods and famines did kim jong il spend all of the countries money on more weapons instead of say food.

"what if the victim is another bully, worse or at least as bad"

If you believe that then you're objectively on the side of the attacker and should not pretend otherwise.

"Supporting DPRK does the korean people no favors."

And attacking the DPRK at a time when it's under constant attack does them a load of good, I guess. Because when America does launch the war, you're going to be able to turn around and say "No, really, despite all the polemics I've been doing, we should really oppose this war". Just ask the Iraqi people, whose award-winning government was destroyed, and its place a predatory occupation was installed, after years of demonizing Saddam Hussein. When solidarity is anathema, war follows.

Also, you keep insisting kim jong un is not the new leader, why? DPRK state news said so in the same broadcast about the death of jung il.

"Why after the floods and famines did kim jong il spend all of the countries money on more weapons instead of say food."

Maybe because that didn't happen - in the sense that the DPRK has lobbied over and over again for food aid, and invested a lot of resources in food production. And gee why on earth would DPRK spend money on weapons, it's not as if a bunch of other countries want to bomb it to bits or anything. Seriously, man, and you claim I don't make any sense?

The transition is not final. KCNA wants to project continuity and stability. The real decisions haven't been made yet.

""what if the victim is another bully, worse or at least as bad"

If you believe that then you're objectively on the side of the attacker and should not pretend otherwise."

HOW SO?

ok. stop it. just stop. Just because DPRK is a totalitarian regime, doesnt mean I support ANY war against it. And saying I think it is a totalitarian regime doesnt mean I think anyone should go in militarily (or otherwise) and depose them. stop putting words in my mouth jesus christ.
If you really think I'm in the wrong here, maybe you should show me proof that DPRK is not a super fucked up brutal dictatorship/monarchy, instead of whining about how I am just as good as a warhawk for questioning your claims that Nk is somehow revolutionary and free. I'm not afraid to admit I am wrong, so go ahead I';m waiting. DPRK is not a totalitarian regime BECAUSE.... [insert proof here]