Seriously how can you object to the war if the regime is as bad as you claim? Why would anyone take you seriously in such a case? Oh it's terrible there, a hell on earth, they're bigger bastards than the imperialists, but somehow that doesn't help the imperialists in the propaganda war? You honestly think attacking the targets of imperialism don't help the imperialists? I don't get your logic at all. Especially since 99% of the time the crap said about the enemy du jour is a flat out lie.

So according to you, the choices are to either unquestioningly support everything North Korea does, because it is a victim?

Or to be 100 behind a military invasion of the country?

seriously?

So show me these lies putin. Show me how Nkorea is NOT repressive. I'm waiting for you proof.

or you could always just continue to try to change the subject while insulting me.

I am suffering under imperialist illusions

ENLIGHTEN ME

I'm done responding until you show me why you believe that NK is not repressive.

PS being the target of sanctions/etc. has nothing to do with the level of freedom in a country

The floods caused such a devastating effect because of deforestation. In the case of North Korea this must have been the result of a central directive (s).

"has nothing to do with the level of freedom in a country"

Really, one doesn't cause the other?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KCIoYNYNIj4

I'm saying just BECAUSE a nation is a target doesnt automatically mean it is not a repressive country, which seems to be your argument

s a great hero of the working class, I really have a problem with North Korea. Of course many of its difficulties are caused by imperialism, and it does have a heroic history. We need to speak out against US encirclement of the country. However the Kims have set up a ruling dynasty for god sakes!

http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/10245/

Amnesty international report on public executions in N.Korea (some horribly YouTube loinks too).

"The floods caused such a devastating effect because of deforestation. In the case of North Korea this must have been the result of a central directive (s)."

Except central directives engaged in afforestation, so try again. Obviously your heroes the British military weren't involved in destroying the DPRK's environment by napalming the country to death.

http://wfi.worldforestry.org/media/presentations/korea_s.lee.pdf
http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/46.htm

I love how the guy in your video talks about how (n)koreans are not being exploited by the 'top' yet kim jung il is the worlds largest consumer of cognac. come on.

"I'm saying just BECAUSE a nation is a target doesnt automatically mean it is not a repressive country, which seems to be your argument"

Not really my argument at all, but I'm tired of repeating myself. Clearly you believe that it's not irresponsible to partake in the propaganda offensive against enemy states, and that this has no effect whatsoever on targets to command solidarity. Or you don't care. Either way I'm done explaining my position.

So then you cant give me any reason at all to believe that NK is not oppressive, other than the fact that people tell lies about it. People tell lies about america too, doesnt mean the US government isnt brutal or oppressive.

No, that's not my position either. I'm sure glad you're so against people putting words in people's mouths.

Then stop deflecting and tell me. How is N korea not oppressive?
unlike you, I'm not in this to 'win' the argument, I would actually like to know. So if I am being lied to about north korea, and its not anything like I've been led to believe, SHOW ME.

All that banter and when I'm finally adamant about your burden of proof you dissappear?

WTF

ARRRRRGGGGH

Fuck you for wasting my time. I was really hoping there was something TO your points.

I provided you a report back from people who actually visited DPRK which disputes a lot of the media's depictions of the country. I don't know what you want. But here:

http://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/commentary/dprk-economy---food-production

Life expectancy is well above the world's average despite low gdp per capita.

Infant Mortality is half the world average.

Access to Clean Drinking Water is 100%.

TV ownership is widespread.

Optimum use is made of all arable land, but DPRK has limited arable land.

When imports from USSR were cut off, the imports of fertilizer needed for agricultural production were cut off, decreasing food supply.

Per Capita Food Production has recovered.

Anyway, I still fail to see how your argument that attacking targets of imperialism doesn't harm targets of imperialism makes sense. Why would anyone express solidarity if what you keep telling them is actually true? Why do you continue to ignore this problem?

If you have criticisms of DPRK, it should be done in a comradely and constructive way, not by regurgitating every imperialist lie as if it were the gospel truth, but by careful investigation and private conversation with the Korean Friendship Association and other friendly groups. Public denunciations of DPRK only serve to bolster the case for war. I've already made comparisons to Iraq, which you didn't bother responding to other than glib one sentence answers. Why should have anyone opposed the war in Iraq if as you say, Hussein was as horrible as you claim? Even though the government won *awards* from *UNESCO* for social development programs? Do you really think these public attacks have no consequence whatsoever?

Also, didn't know you were one of these Obi-wan types that demands I stay at my computer all hours of the day. I do sometimes have to do things.

Lol

"Also, didn't know you were one of these Obi-wan types that demands I stay at my computer all hours of the day. I do sometimes have to do things. "

um.... you were on for literally hours typing in everything but what I asked for.
Anyway I am going to go read your links etc. I will be back with, hopefully, a better informed perspective.

In terms of DPRK's political system, it is a multi-party system. There are three parties: Workers Party of Korea, Korean Social Democratic Party, and the Chengdoist Party (a religious party). Governmental leadership is divided among three main leaders - the head of the NDC, which was Gim Jeong Il until his passing; President of the Supreme People's Assembly - Gim Yeong Nam ; and the Premier which directs domestic policy - Choe Yeong Rim.

The government acts according to the principles of democratic centralism, meaning that ideas are freely debated, but once agreed upon *everyone carries out the line unanimously*.

Voters in elections have the option to submit a "disapproval" of the nominated candidates in district elections. Various nominees are voted on by recommendation committees at the local level, and agreed upon by majority-vote by the recommendation committees who then send the agreed-upon nominee to the electoral authorities.

1st real quick I think its the chondoist party, though I suppose spelling and translation arnt the best of friends

Ok so I gave you the greatest benefit of the doubt I could muster when reading your link. I even ignored that it was by the DPRK society. So first, I did learn a few things, corrected some false assumptions I held, so thanks for that.
That said this has nothing to do with totalitarianism. This is like the NK version of the CIA world factbook, lots of figures about how many tv's NK has, whatever. I get that it'ss not the poor impoverished starving dirty place it is often made out to be. But there are plenty of historical examples of repressive regimes that had high standards of living.

So... I still dont see how you're getting NK=not repressive and kim jong il = not a brutal dictator with a personality cult?
I'm starting to think that you dont actually have any reason to belive so, and that you just wish it so. If I am wrong please show me, though at this point I dont expect anything useful from you. I had to brow beat you for 2 hours to get you to post one link about life expectancy and number of TV's so I dont have my hopes up that this one more post will get you to be any more forthcoming with the information I suspect you dont even have.

PS, I didnt really have the context for this disscussion earlier, a friend said something about saber rattling on the MSM, of which I was completely unaware, so I can see where some of your venom comes from now, I understand and even kind of admire it. That said you have been a huge douchebag in the way you have conducted this conversation. Sorry, just had to get that out.

I had no expectation that any government whatsoever would be considered anything less than 'totalitarian' by your standards. If there were any meaningful criteria by which you wouldn't label a government such, then this might be a worthwhile exercise. But anyway the point was never that the DPRK was some kind of shangri-la (although I think I provided adequate information demonstrating that the government cares enough about its people and isn't "starving them" while drinking cognac) but rather faced severe difficulties. I don't know why I'm the "douchebag" here, but you've been nothing but belligerent all the while complaining about my tone, which I suppose is typical around here. I think any fair-minded person after reading this would say that you've engaged in far more personal attacks against me than anything I did in response.

The question about anarchism vs Marxism has always been how are gains to be defended. From where I sit it appears that not only are anarchists not particularly concerned with making gains, but are even less concerned about what to do to defend them. It's the complete indifference to the practicalities of power which is rather mind boggling, not to mention the rather glib dismissal of the inconvenient fact that DPRK has a rather good standard of living considering how poor it is and the challenges it faces. It's as if standard of living is of no relevance at all when considering how good or bad a government is.

I have little patience with people who are concerned with nothing except the form of government and governmental procedures, while caring little about outcomes. The key question about whether a government is "repressive" (because I agree with you - *all* governments are repressive towards someone) is who is it repressive towards? Is it repressive towards the working class? Is it repressive towards the landlords, bankers, and industrialists? That's what matters. All governments are dictatorships. Where governments differ is which class is in control.

"I think any fair-minded person after reading this would say that you've engaged in far more personal attacks against me than anything I did in response. "

Yes I'm sure I have. Sorry about that, you just do such a good job of pushing my buttons

"It's as if standard of living is of no relevance at all when considering how good or bad a government is. "

not at all. I think its absolutley relevent, and you corrected some misconceptions I had myself. I just dont think its the ONLY relevant thing. Why dont you give me a link that talks about freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of (or from) religion. Can its citizens leave if they wish to? What happens to dissidents? these are the questions I am so concerned with.

No matter how hard you try to paint this forums resident militant anarchist as pro-imperialist it wont work friend. Because I am hesitant to throw my support behind a (until I've been shown otherwise) brutally repressive regime, does not mean I support, condone, am a part of, or otherwise approve of ANY imperialistic actions. This is not akin to helping the imperialists.
Does saying that hamas doesnt always respect human rights tantamount to being 100% israeli backer? no. Does saying 'hey stalin did a lot of really fucked up things' mean you supported the nazi's? of course not.

Ok let me show you my point of view. Every single thing I have ever seen or heard about north korea, including north korea's own mouthpiece has led me to believe that it is a repressive, dynastic, totalitarian dictatorship. Everything. Fuck, have you ever been to the state run news website? I mean.... NK wins world cup? American dissidents mourn for loss of kim jung il on congress' lawn? really? So this is my view. The best you can do to change my opinion is to post a DPRK website telling how many more TV's they have than cambodians.


Ok maybe we are using different definitions for the same words. What do you think of this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfUD1iPc8kw

If you're interested: http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3

This is part 1 of a three part video, of some guys who travel to North Korea and film as much of their trip as they can. You can sort of see what its like in the (Chinese) tourist approved areas of the country. So its a warped picture but a picture you might find interesting nevertheless.