That was lucky for the South Koreans then. But it does't change my point. The North Koreans would be better off today had the South won the war and the entire country united and fell in to the American bloc. When considering the advantages of a socio/economic/political system international relations can be just as important as questions of internal affairs. All factors must be considered.

I'm not sure. South Korea in the 50s was basically just another hard right wing dictatorship, a victory in the war could have helped the dictatorship survive.

re Marx and Engels views on the USSR, from what little I've read, Marx and Engels didn't really talk much about how a communist society would look like after a revolution. Of course, I could be wrong. IIRC, they focused on criticising capitalism and describing how a revolution should happen, with Lenin adding the whole vanguard party idea.

South Korea was a dictatorship until 1979 - the original post-war dictorship survived unitl 1960, but then after a coup it became a military dictorship. Yet it still prospered.

typos... *dictatorship

"Looking at Korea: Both the South and the North were smashed in the war. Today the North is dirt poor (and a dystopian nightmare?), while the South one of the worlds most advanced countries. Surely this means the North took an unfortunate path - it would have been better off had the South won the war and the two countries united, albeit falling under the American sphere of influence. No?"

This is incorrect. For one, the destruction North Korea faced dwarfed anything the South faced. There are estimates that as many as 2 million North Korean civilians were killed. Plus, every city in North Korea was leveled and firebombed with napalm. The UN forces also purposely attacked northern dams so the country was flooded. The urban destruction that the North faced was worse than what Japan or Germany faced during WWII. By August 1950 the US was dropping 800 tons of napalm on North Korean cities. Many small towns and villages were simply wiped off the map. This is a forgotten fact that the liberal democracies and capitalist apologists like to forget. Their campaign of absolute genocide against the North Koreans.

Would it have been better if the North had simply capitulated and the whole peninsula came under the dominance of the southern military dictatorship? No. Despite the destruction, the North's economy was doing significantly better than the South's in the two decades immediately following the war. The North's standard of living was higher. This only began to change really in the 1980s, when the South, backed by decades of US military and economic support, combined with its repressive military dictatorship, caught up. The North had a much more (and continues have a much more) precarious security environment, so it has to spend much more of its income on defense. This was magnified 100x over when the Soviet Union collapsed and China became a 'mainstream' power, recognizing South Korea. North Korea is surrounded by Japan, a US armed South, and was caught between the USSR and China. Starting in the early 90s, the North no longer had the Soviets to rely on, so it was surrounded by powerful enemies and had lukewarm "support" from China. Try developing in such conditions. All socialist countries experienced difficulties in the early 90s, even Cuba. North Korea's was amplified by its particular conditions. It has nothing to do with the social system.

800 tons a day I should say.

North Korea is a country, not a race. Therefore there could be no attempt at genocide.

But my statement is still true, surely. Had the North united with the South (in the American sphere of influence), North Koreans would be better off. You concede the south are much much better off, no? (maybe you don't concede) - why wouldn't the northerners have enjoyed the same growth had they joined the South?
To be clear this statement is not just about the merits of a command economy versus a free market economy, but takes a broader view. The South Koreans picked a more fruitful alliance than the North.
Indeed the best thing the North Koreans could do now would be to dismantle their government and unite with the South Koreans (after all they are all Korean). Sure it will be tough for the North for a few decades, but at least their standard of living would be on an upward trajectory.
On the subject of help from the US, no doubt the support was valuable, but surely the Koreans (like the Japanese and the Germans) deserve some credit for their success?

"Starting in the early 90s, the North no longer had the Soviets to rely on, so it was surrounded by powerful enemies and had lukewarm "support" from China. Try developing in such conditions."

So they should be more realistic and pragmatic about their predicament. What is the point of being a martyr?

"The South Koreans picked a more fruitful alliance than the North."

The North didn't "pick" an alliance. They aimed to reunify their country which had been artificially divided by the Americans, and then the country was bombed to bits for their efforts at liberating their country from an American imposed reactionary military dictatorship in the South, that was widely unpopular. They had no reason to expect a UN intervention to napalm their country on the military dictatorship's behalf. It would have been *better* had the Americans not decided they wanted to divide and destroy the Korean peninsula. And anyway, it's not clear for whom life would be *better* under a reunified southern dictatorship. The elites surely would be better off, but the egalitarian culture of the North would be replaced with the highly patriarchal culture of the South.

It's not necessarily the case that countries which accept their role as servile pawns in America's grand strategy end up being "better off" than those who dare be independent. North Korea, despite everything, hasn't been the victimized by American instigated coups, insurrections, revolutions, turmoils, and civil war. Lots of US puppets have, however. But anyway I'm loath to accept the blame-the-victim premise of your argument. It's akin to telling rape victims to not defend themselves when sexually assaulted, because you might wind up dead. How about we start from the point of view which says rapists should stop attacking people?

"North Korea is a country, not a race. Therefore there could be no attempt at genocide."

If America wiped out the population of North Korea, what would you call it? North Korea is a nation/national community as well as a country. The people who inhabit the territory of North Korea make up that national community. What would you call its annihilation?

Yes lets not get bogged down with semantics. We know what you are talking about.

"And anyway, it's not clear for whom life would be *better* under a reunified southern dictatorship. The elites surely would be better off, but the egalitarian culture of the North would be replaced with the highly patriarchal culture of the South."

Elites aside, let's compare unskilled workers, skilled workers, and professionals. In each of these cases the equivalent in the South is currently *much* better off. No?

As far as blaming the victim goes. I can see you where you are coming from, but I think you are stretching the analogy too far. I am talking about pragmaticism versus loyalty to an ideology. There used to be a saying "better dead than red" - I don't buy that. I would rather be "red than dead". But I think this might be getting away from the point, so I'll withdraw my comment about "picking the wrong side".

Regarding "servile pawns in America's grand strategy" - this might be a fair point.
Did the Soviet Union have "servile pawns in their grand strategy". I ask this in order to understand how you define "servile pawn". Granted,when you put it like that, who would want to be a servile pawn?

I didn't mean to click send then...

yes America has done many bad things. No argument there from me.
But as far as "servile pawns" go, South Korea, seems to have had a better time than many other states, thus maybe North Korea might have had a better time too. No?
If not, why would its experience have been different?

I have done some quick reading on North Korea's economy. It seems you might be right about it enjoying an economic head-start on South Korea - at least until 1960.
So while North Korea was devasted duirng the war, it was back on a level playing field with the South soon after. Mabye a command economy can be effective, to a point, under certain circumstances. But this also means we can't blame the devastation of the war on the fact the North is behind the South now. This goes back to my comment about North ulitimately being better off had it unified with the South, as a capitalist state. Better off in the long term.

I have a feeling that this hearsay example isn't going to matter for much, but my girlfriend and her family immigrated from Ukraine in 1992. She's lived pretty much her entire life in the States, but her parents, of course, were alive and well during the Soviet days, and I have to concur with spyman here... I don't think I've heard them praise the USSR much. Of course the USSR in their stories is better than the right wing here in America makes it out to be, and at least they have *some* positive memories of it (in particular, the culture of the USSR struck me as more fitting for someone with my particular personality than American culture), but it sure doesn't sound like this amazing wonderful place to be.

I can't respond to all the points here yet, but on the exiles talking about the USSR thing. Yes, I can't think of many ex-pats anywhere who don't have an axe to grind against their homeland. Hence, why they are ex-pats. Usually the people who end up defecting to the enemies of their own country lost out in the social changes taking place at home. So, in all likelihood Ukrainians or whomever who talk bad about the USSR were privileged in their home country and the Soviet Union put an end to their privileges. This is surely the case with all the Gusanos talking bad about Cuba in Miami. Yeah, you won't find a Miami Cuban praising the government there. On the contrary, they'll probably openly advocate terrorism and an American invasion. This shouldn't come as a surprise, and we shouldn't take ex-pats words as the holy gospel when it comes to what life is/was like in their home country.

Ditto the Iranian ex-pats who openly hail the Shah of Iran as some great leader in Canada. There's no cheaper way to increase your status than becoming convenient propaganda for your country's enemies. Especially defectors to America, who are all given a massive platform for their propaganda. Look how we wound up in trouble in Iraq, because we listened to anti-Saddam exiles like Ahmed Chalabi and thought they couldn't possibly *lie*. Damn, how wrong that assumption was.

Uh, first of all, they immigrated AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union. They didn't "defect to their enemies." They got the hell out of the clusterfuck that the Soviets left Ukraine in.

But more importantly... really? You mean that Ukrainians that immigrated to America couldn't POSSIBLY have a legitimate grievance with the sadistic fucks that were behind the Holodomor? You know, that little manmade famine that nearly killed as many people as the Holocaust. No, they must be Nazi sympathizers.

Except, oh wait, they're Ukrainian JEWS! Clearly they're in bed with the Nazis and just trying to slander the Great Peoples Liberator Protector Big Brother Soviets.

Source on casualties from Holodomor: http://books.google.com/books?id=F3UwF1eqb0AC&lpg=PA70&dq=stalin%27s%20genocides&pg=PA70#v=onepage&q&f=false

I mean, seriously, the USSR wasn't the worst thing to happen to humanity by any means, but this is fucking absurd.

Er, my bad, link appears to go off the page. I'll post it again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F3UwF1eqb0AC&lpg=PA70&dq=stalin%27s%20genocides&pg=PA70#v=onepage&q&f=false

...

Really sorry. Incompetency ftw.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F3UwF1eqb0AC&lpg=PA70&
dq=stalin%27s%20genocides&pg=PA70#v=onepage&q&f=false

Broke it up into two lines, so c/p them both.

"Usually the people who end up defecting to the enemies of their own country lost out in the social changes taking place at home. So, in all likelihood Ukrainians or whomever who talk bad about the USSR were privileged in their home country and the Soviet Union put an end to their privileges."

This would be true for some no doubt. But I don't think the people I know were members of a special class. Rather they talk about day to day frustrations - beauracracy, shortages, secret police, worrying about if your neighbours had denounced you (possibly lies), lack of incentive to work hard etc.

My Bulgarian friend does acknowledge that some people would like to wind the clock back, and sure if we only talk to ex-pats, then one would expect that to be a biased sample. This I concede. But it wasn't like he fled the country or things were worse for him than others. Just like the other Eastern-Europeans I know. They didn't flee. An opportunity arose to work in another country and they took it (as many people do, even people from the US and Australia). But in every case when I ask them what it was like the answer is the same - that it was frustrating, and they are glad that it ended.

Yeah here's the other problem with anecdotal evidence from 'friends' - it's entirely unaccountable and unverifiable. So, anybody can say they have friends from X country who support their point of view. I have an American acquaintance who visited North Korea (through the CPUSA) and said the country is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Why would you believe this? I wouldn't expect you to. I have innumerable friends who visited Cuba and even Cubans who visited Cuba and praise its social system to the high heavens. Again, why should you believe this? You shouldn't, and nor should I believe any of the various stories of Bulgarians living in Australia or Ukrainians living in America who talk bad about their old governments.

And really, it's kind of odd to say the Soviets "left Ukraine" in bad shape, when the people fled after the Soviet system collapsed. Obviously it wasn't the system that was bad, but the fact that it collapsed and a bunch of rapacious oligarchs stole the wealth of the country while the population suffered. Look at any social indicators whatsoever, and then come back and tell me people are "better off" under the new kleptocratic capitalist systems that govern Ukraine and Bulgaria respectively. The 1990s were a lost decade for both countries. Yay counterrevolution.

Yeah, um, no source whatsoever is given for this book's "figures" on the famine, and since the book cites Robert Conquest approvingly (calls his forgery - 'pathbreaking'), I highly doubt the credibility of your source. Especially since Naimark is one of those Hoover Institution thugs, notorious for their biased (to put it mildly) commentary on the Balkans. His short articles on "Kosova" during 2000 that I've read so far make me nauseous.

Of course the 1990s were a lost decade. You say that as though it's the fault of people making necessary reforms in the wake of the collapse of the USSR rather than the collapse itself, when it's pretty clear the collapse forced them to reform their economy. The fact that 10/15 states registered a higher GDP than they had in 1991 even accounting for the 2008 crisis should tell you something, and while Ukraine specifically wasn't there, it experienced growth throughout the entire decade after the lost decade until aforesaid crisis.

Never mind what spyman already brought up with the more day-to-day issues that are more or less gone now.

As for Holodomor: I've read "Borderlands" by Timothy Snyder -- went and looked up the figure he gave for Holodomor. If you don't object to his work (I kinda figured that you might object to using a book that sings the praise of Robert Conquest...), his figure is 2.4 million; substantially lower and not quite Holocaust level, certainly, but... how many millions isn't really that important to me. You could even take the lowest toll I've seen in looking up figures on Holodomor, 1.5 million: doesn't matter. The point is that even if Ukraine's economy hasn't recovered to its height under the Soviets and even if they "only" lost 1.5 million in a crime against humanity rather than 4-6 million, it's absolutely absurd to act as though Ukraine should just ignore the tragedies it suffered under the Soviets and sing the USSR's praises.

Again, I'm not denying that the USSR did some good. It modernized Ukraine in several aspects and defending not only Ukraine but the rest of the world from Nazism in WWII. But it's just as much whitewashing to deny that as it is to deny that the USSR wrought some horrors upon Ukraine, and while there's no specific obvious open sores like the Holodomor in every single formerly Soviet state, the idea of it being reasonable for the former Soviet states to resent the USSR still holds when generally applied.

*defended

I know an Australian family who lived in Cuba (late 90s or early 2000s). They loved it. So I don't doubt you.
As far as North Korea goes, i don't doubt that your friend was shown the good parts. And it's probably not all bad. But what about the horror stories one hears - executions for trying to escape and the like. Or is that all propaganda?

I never really liked that sport of throwing around millions of dead. As if there was a substantial difference between six and three million - both compose the worst crime imaginable, there is no qualitative difference. (And if you are looking for something larger than holocaust, the famine combined with persecutions of Nazi occupation of the USSR caused about ten million deaths).

I know a priest who works in North Korea as a delegate of a humanitarian NGO - he describes it as a giant conglomerate of various gangs and mafias fully controlling the flow of food, human trafficking etc. The sad thing is that if the regime collapsed, the whole region would be overwhelmed by millions of refugees spreading contagious diseases, organized crime, the NK military arsenal (now in the hands of criminals and scavengers) and costs of preventing a famine even worse than today's. There is no way any country could consider the unification of Koreas a viable idea.

Yet if North Korea collapses, unification is pretty much the only thing that can be done.