North vs South Korea Bullshit

[Bobby_2021]

5 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Bobby_2021 It’s time to question your pet theories and paradigm.

Dude don't ride on Leo's back as if you are making some deep point.

Either you engage with me on facts or pay attention to the discourse enough to properly understand the matter enough to engage.

Leo is peddling typical 20th century western propaganda which was hell bent on bombing every single communist uprising to rubbles and to steal all their natural resources and enslave their citizens.

This is the facts. And there was no one to meaningfully counter the US. Until now.

Chinese communists have beaten you at your own game and you are in petty denial of it.  

Capitalism is simply a precursor to Communism. No Marxist theory is being violated in the case of China.

You need to seriously bend the facts if you have to seriously assert that a country where there is no land ownership is seriously capitalist. Get real.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

@Leo Gura But could you at least concede that sanctions play a significant role in holding back the development of a Nation?

[Husseinisdoingfine]

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

@Leo Gura But could you at least concede that sanctions play a significant role in holding back the development of a Nation?

That is the denial of @Leo Gura

South Korea got investments and help from the west while NK got sanctions after 1953.

That is all the difference.

And people pretend like sanctions aren't a thing. It's the most important thing after bombs of course.

Edited October 20 by Bobby_2021

[Hatfort]

China did well by acquiring some capitalist free market principles, but not completely disregarding any state intervention. It's growing well, infrastructures are being built, there's innovation in its industry, they are producing good products, and people's daily lives are improving as well. Strategic oligopolies have a roof, the state.

The US is so scared and brainwashed about the socialist and communist labels, that they perceive as the end of freedom any minimum state intervention in what could make the markets better for the people, the businesses, and their economy in general, at a bit of expense of the wealth and freedoms of the top ones. Their media is as bought as their duo-uniparty by the big companies and some other foreign lobbies not worth mentioning right now.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Meanwhile, South Korea: I tried to find a chart as convenient and easy to read as the chart above, but couldn't

Quote

According to recent data, South Korea exports around $683.5 billion in goods, while importing approximately $731.3 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of around $47.8 billion dollars; meaning South Korea imports more than it exports by nearly $48 billion. 

Key points: 

Exports: $683.5 billion

Imports: $731.3 billion

Trade deficit: around $47.8 billion 

Source: https://www.statista.com/topics/11969/imports-into-south-korea/

 

But what I'm trying to uncover is how much is this the result of central planning, and how much of this is the result of sanctions. Is Cuba a poor country as a result of the embargo, or Socialism? We know for a fact that sanctions have the capacity to destroy Capitalist economies.

Here's a chart of Iran's shifting GDP as a result of sanctions.

Edited October 20 by Husseinisdoingfine

[zazen]

Two things can be true at the same time. 

That economically carpet bombing countries with sanctions holds them back immensely and is anti-democratic and anti-capitalist - ironically perpetrated by the West who claim democracy and capitalism as what exemplifies them.

That life is too complex to fit into ideologies such as capitalism and communism in their purest forms. China doesn’t fall into the trap of aligning itself purely ideologically but see’s them as utilities/tools/mechanisms.  It’s done extremely well with its hybrid system and the world should learn from it.

If the core tenant of communism is that the means of production are owned collectively, in order for their profits to be redistributed equally, in order to make a society classless and stateless - China has deviated from this a long time ago. They have political authority with control of strategic industries, whilst providing social safety nets, whilst using the market forces of capitalism to generate wealth - which create classes that are evident in the disparity between rural and urban China (similar to Americas coastal elites vs rural working class)

Whilst the state owns land, this doesn’t exclude people from owning the means of production to accumulate wealth through business, factories and leased property. These create inequalities (which is opposed to Communism) but that China handles the excesses of very well. Land can be leased through a leasehold system, which also occurs in Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai and UK (especially London which is owned by the Crown and aristocratic families) - yet these aren’t communist countries but in fact often hailed as the successful fruits of capitalism.

Edited October 20 by zazen

[zazen]

6 hours ago, numbersinarow said:

What failed in the past doesn't have to fail in the future.

It really, really wasn't true marxism. And I'm not a marxist but I easily concede this.

It failed due to the authoritarian people and regimes around it, not because of itself. There can be libertarianism with elements of marxism.

So if someone understands, easily and rightfully, that "Communism failed when it was tried so it's bad." is a bad argument, which is honestly obvious, then we can see that "problems with the implementation of a theory" don't exist in general.

Its valid to not dismiss ideas simply for not working in the past except that certain aspects of Marxist theory, like the idea of a centrally planned economy - are inherently problematic and can lead to the kind of authoritarianism which you say is the reason for it failing in the first place.

The question is whether “True Communism” much like “True Capitalism” can ever be implemented in their purest forms by a human nature that isn’t 100% pure.

Communism demands we not be greedy for the sake of community and assumes others will fend for us - capitalism demands we be greedy enough to fend for ourselves and assumes doing so will have a trickle down effect on those less able to compete with us.

Edited October 20 by zazen

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

@Leo Gura But could you at least concede that sanctions play a significant role in holding back the development of a Nation?

That is questionable.

What is your evidence?

But also, you should consider the bigger picture. If your style of government causes the world to sanction you, then it is not a viable style of government.

In the world of realpolitik, you can't just pretend that sanctions are someone else's fault. One of the many problems of Communism it that since it promises to launch violent revolutions and expropriate property, it will be very polarizing and strongly opposed by the status quo. Which includes scanctions and coups and the like. Because you are basically promosing to take all their property. Is that a wise way to conduct a government? No. And you see the end result in that map of North Korea.

You can cry, "But in a fair world the capitalists wouldn't employ sanctions!" But this shows how stupid Marxism is because there is no fair world. Your politcial theory needs to account for how politics actually is, not how you wish it were. Yes, if you try to confiscate the wealth and property of all the world's most powerful and wealthy people they will sanction you and refuse to trade with you. Surprise Pikachu face!

Edited October 21 by Leo Gura

[Gidiot]

what Is the main goal of capitalism? At least socialism/communism have a vague goal of happiness of the society it hasn’t been implemented successfully because mankind is too stupid not the other way around.

[Davino]

@Gidiot

 

 

[Bobby_2021]

15 hours ago, zazen said:

 It’s done extremely well with its hybrid system and the world should learn from it.

Wholly agree with this. 

1. Means of production exists in society.

2. Humans will operate the means of production.

Communists operating means of productions does not make them full blown capitalist like the US. It is not like US is the only place in the world where means of production exists, and their way is the only of handling means of production. 

US = Free market capitalism with minimal state intervention and individual ownership. Works well to bring slow, but steady and consistent growth, but stagnates and corrupts itself in the later stages.

USSR = Heavy State controlled capitalism with zero free market. Uplifted millions from poverty while working in an insulated economy. Unsustainable in the long run.

China = Hybrid mixture State intervention + Free market + State owned + Individual owned. Combines the best of US and USSR. 

Chinese system is far more complicated than anything we have seen before. 

You simply cannot put China into any neat category at all. The thing is you cannot own land in China, but you can own what is built on top of it as a lease of some sort. It is messy. CCP has the final word in everything. But hey it works.

15 hours ago, zazen said:

the core tenant of communism is that the means of production are owned collectively, in order for their profits to be redistributed equally, in order to make a society classless and stateless - China has deviated from this a long time ago. They have political authority with control of strategic industries, whilst providing social safety nets, whilst using the market forces of capitalism to generate wealth - which create classes that are evident in the disparity between rural and urban China (similar to Americas coastal elites vs rural working class)

This deviation is not a violation of Marxian theory. Capitalism is merely a stage in the evolution to communism. Much like feudalism was a precursor to Capitalism.

This is exactly what 19 century communism says.  

China is not remotely capitalist either according to the US definitions. If you can accept that US is capitalist, then China is not capitalist. World of difference.

It a regime with a communist vision partially co-opting capitalism as a steppingstone to proper communism, exactly as mentioned in the textbook. 

China is the actual communism.

Edited October 21 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

 

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But also, you should consider the bigger picture. If your style of government causes the world to sanction you, then it is not a viable style of government.

What a spectacular capitalist propaganda. Next time you whine about single mothers not getting paid enough and workers being forced to pee bottles by Jeff Bezos, then maybe that is not a viable form of government as well.

Who are you to say what is viable and what is not? And even if it not viable, what gives them the right to bomb 85% of their North Korean infrastructure? No system of government would be viable when you burn down 85% of a country. duhh.

Your version of real politik is US being able to steal trillion of the world's wealth (something that communists merely threatened to do), bomb and destabilize continents and prohibit the rest of the world from trading with them.  

[zazen]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But also, you should consider the bigger picture. If your style of government causes the world to sanction you, then it is not a viable style of government.

In the world of realpolitik, you can't just pretend that sanctions are someone else's fault.

In non-communist cases, sanctions are clearly weaponized against countries to maintain US hegemony or undermine those countries. It's usually the US that imposes the sanctions which then pressures others to follow suit via penalties on third parties who continue doing business with the sanctioned country. Many non-Western countries still trade with sanctioned countries through various means although it is difficult to do. Sanctions are basically economic warfare and can result in chaos, instability and deaths indirectly via poverty.

But in the case of communist countries it's clearly a response to seizing foreign assets without compensation. @Bobby_2021  Leo's reasoning is sound in that if a country expropriates foreign assets this can expect a response as it violates property rights and global norms. Whats understandable is that countries want to achieve economic sovereignty and weaken imperialistic chains, but how they do so can back fire. If done so in a revolutionary way rather than a gradual way through buy outs, partnership etc this causes back lash and capital flight - because why would anyone want to invest in a country that could just seize your investment (to nationalize it) without compensation.

 

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

It a regime with a communist vision partially co-opting capitalism as a steppingstone to proper communism, exactly as mentioned in the textbook. 

China is the actual communism.

Related to above, the issue is that the process involves theft when it wants to transition to communism - which is un-ethical and assumes that the elites who got rich through capitalist elements will voluntarily give up their wealth for a communist utopia.

But lets say they do. The problem then is that communism assumes the wealth it takes which was built off of capitalist mechanisms can then be sustained without those mechanisms. In simple terms, if capitalism is good at growing the pie, and communism divides the pie - how does it replenish the pie?  Wealth isn't static, once the pie is eaten its eaten. Communism fails at making pies and growing them due to lack of innovation and incentives.

Where Marx is right is that capitalism comes before communism, because Communism first needs something to re-distribute in the first place. But he shouldn't stop there - how does it then maintain there's something to be continuously re-distributed when you get rid of the mechanism that creates things to re-distribute. Once the pie runs out, another revolution will occur, capitalism will come back, and communists will say lets try again because the last time we didn't implement it properly.

Communism can work in a tribal settings but is much harder at scale where communal ties barely exist. But technological advancements could help resolve a lot of the issues. If work can be automated with AI and robots then we don't have to worry about incentives to motivate people to produce. Big data can be analyzed with AI to not mis-allocate resources and plug inefficiencies caused by central planning trying to manage such complexities. Blockchain and decentralization can help things not be authoritarian.

Edited October 21 by zazen

[Bobby_2021]

30 minutes ago, zazen said:

Leo's reasoning is sound in that if a country expropriates foreign assets this can expect a response as it violates property rights and global norms.

NK was bombed to hell because US was paranoid of anything communism. 

NK didn't steal trillions in foreign assets. It's the US and UK that stole trillions from the middleast under the guise for spreading freedom and democracy. 

Blame NK for caricature framing as if they are going to kill us all isn't helping. NK was much better economically and developmentally than the South before the bombing in the 1950s.

[Bobby_2021]

35 minutes ago, zazen said:

which is un-ethical and assumes that the elites who got rich through capitalist elements will voluntarily give up their wealth for a communist utopia.

There is no concept of "their" wealth in China. 

The elites who rich from capitalism never owned anything.

Everything is owned by the CCP. That is their system of governance.

You don't need to voluntarily give up wealth, when you don't own any in the first place. 

Any notion of ownership in China hinges on leasing it from ccp for a limited time.

[Leo Gura]

North Korea invaded South Korea to spread its Communist dictatorship.

So spare us your crocodile tears.

[Bobby_2021]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

North Korea invaded South Korea to spread its Communist dictatorship.

So spare us your crocodile tears.

There were significant factions of Communists even in South Korea which have been occupied by US. They were peasants compared to the industrial North.

North was about to liberate the South from the foreign forces and reunite since there were artificially divided in the first place.

[Bobby_2021]

Either way it is not about why things happened and blame one or the other.

It is to evaluate the state of a nation in context of their history.

"This is how the real world works" is a dangerous argument.

Especially since what's been working is pretty bloody.

Had the USSR went on a bombing spree citing stupid reasons, the world would have been a much different place.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

North Korea invaded South Korea to spread its Communist dictatorship.

So spare us your crocodile tears.

I didn't read the thread but I think both might be same level of hell at a few inches...

South :

70 hours work week.

Extreme social pressure.

1 megacorpos running the country.

That's two dystopia.

I m rather intrigued on how they managed to do two extremes different hell.