North Korea - how lucky are we...


Did the Nazis? In 1945? How do we know? Was there a democratic vote?
Anyone who dissented was shot or sent to a concentration camp along with their loved ones.
Is not revolting = support? Or is it just self-preservation?
Obviously, they had some support, but if that support is the SS \ military \ most of those with access to guns, then it doesn't seem to be a safe assumption to me that that translates = the support of "the people".

I'm not advocating total bombardment, I'm pointing out that the level of internal collapse in a society in the absence of such external pressure would have to be in excess of what Germany and Japan were enduring in 1945. And that level would have to be extreme - mass starvation and civil war.
Some sort of externally backed coup would be much more preferable. If North Korea does descend into such a scenario, China would be culpable.
 
odyssey06 said:
The nazi regime didnt collapse from within... even in 1945 under total blockade and air bombardment. It took the death of hitler and invasion from two fronts.
Click to expand...

odyssey06 said:
Did the Nazis? In 1945? How do we know? Was there a democratic vote?
Anyone who dissented was shot or sent to a concentration camp along with their loved ones.
Is not revolting = support? Or is it just self-preservation?
Click to expand...

I never said majority support. I said significant support. Sufficient to perpetuate the regime. Typically, this includes support of the military - who are also citizens of the state, with their own families and communities offering support.
In order to sustain a military and police state as big as apparently NKs is, a certain standard of living must be provided, otherwise the centre will start to collapse.
 

It does so with complete control of the media, education, strict limitations on travel (permits needed to travel outside your assigned work area) and brutal punishment enforced by a large military and police force that are treated better than the rest of the population, but also brutally punished if they dare question the leadership.

I can't imagine it's easy to stand up to a corrupt regime where even speaking of your discontent is enough to land you in a work camp, and going further will have you publicly executed and three generations of your entire family interred.
 
Leo said:
brutal punishment enforced by a large military and police force that are treated better than the rest of the population, but also brutally punished if they dare question the leadership.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right, it most certainly is not easy. But again I revert to the large military and police force. This needs to be sustained in order to perpetuate the regime.
If there is 1m+ serving in the military, this is not sustained solely by dictats from the top. It requires layers, upon layers of subservient and loyal subjects to keep the whole thing together, including some significant support from the population, even if that support is based on self-preservation.

The Pope in Rome has no sway over Catholics without the support of layers and layers of clergy, from Bishops, Nuns, Priests etc, supported in turn by subservient congregation manifesting itself in school teachings etc. This is how it is sustained.

Saudi Arabia is another example of a brutal regime beheading its citizens as a means to control population and demand loyalty to the regime. It rewards those loyal to the regime.

But the fundamental point is, that the recent US/NK tensions have little, if nothing to do with the US having concern for the plight of NK citizens.
It all has everything to do with trade, in particular Chinas interference in the South China Sea, building artificial islands for military bases to control trade along the region.
 

China is North Korea's main source of food and energy.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes I know. What is your point? Are you suggesting the US instead point its nuclear warheads at China for supporting the NK regime?
Click to expand...

No, but you seem to be describing North Korea in a vacuum. They are sustained and shielded by China.
Unless that external support dries up, I don't see internal collapse as a realistic scenario.

And China is culpable in the heinous crimes the regime carries out against its own citizens.
By its actions, China is an enemy of the North Korean people in a way that the US is not.
 

I dont consider NK to operate in a vaccum.
Im simply sceptical that the US interest in NK has much to do about the plight of its people.
NK is a pawn for the US in dealing with the big fish - China.
 
TheBigShort said:
I dont consider NK to operate in a vaccum.
Im simply sceptical that the US interest in NK has much to do about the plight of its people.
NK is a pawn for the US in dealing with the big fish - China.
Click to expand...

This might be one of those rare occasions when US self interest and the cause of human rights align.
Like liberating western europe. Or defending the right of south eastern nations to trade unhindered.

Ireland taking a stance on North Korean human rights abuses is Skibbereen Eagle territory. Genuine but ineffectual. So what if in terms of the US interest, human rights is secondary concern, if it's effectual?
 
odyssey06 said:
This might be one of those rare occasions when US self interest and the cause of human rights align.
Click to expand...

It may be, but I seriously doubt it. The US military engages in conflicts around the globe on a perpetual basis to sustain its self-interest.
Human rights are always secondary.

odyssey06 said:
Like liberating western europe. Or defending the right of south eastern nations to trade unhindered.
Click to expand...

There will be no defending of 'right' to trade unless it is in their self-interest. Arguably, that is no different from any other nation state, but it means human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Gaza etc continue unabated.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying the US is the big bad wolf in all of this. Its the economic system that prevails that leads to conflict and instability through the world.
 
TheBigShort said:
It may be, but I seriously doubt it. The US military engages in conflicts around the globe on a perpetual basis to sustain its self-interest.
Human rights are always secondary.
Click to expand...
The US military is a tool of the US government and does nothing of its own volition.

TheBigShort said:
There will be no defending of 'right' to trade unless it is in their self-interest. Arguably, that is no different from any other nation state, but it means human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Gaza etc continue unabated.
Click to expand...
What's the alternative?

TheBigShort said:
Dont get me wrong, im not saying the US is the big bad wolf in all of this. Its the economic system that prevails that leads to conflict and instability through the world.
Click to expand...
What economic system? The countries where we see most conflict are nominally socialist. The alternative to trade is war. Trade is a good thing. The freer that trade the better. The problem with the USA and the EU is they want it both ways; we sell you our goods and services, often with our companies owning and running your resources, but we won't buy your goods and services without imposing hefty tariffs. The Common Agriculture Policy being the most glaring example of an unjust economic and trading model which causes suffering and hunger and stymies economic development. Beside that the US military is only in the ha-penny place.
 
TheBigShort said:
Kim will rightly point to China as an example of increasing prosperity, all under the centralised command regime of the Chinese Communist Party.
Click to expand...

Do you think the increasing prosperity in China is more attributable to their centralised command regime or to the opening up of their economy?
 
Firefly said:
Do you think the increasing prosperity in China is more attributable to their centralised command regime or to the opening up of their economy?
Click to expand...

Its hard to tell, certainly they have opened up their economy for foreign investment, but there are still highly restrictive practices with regard to capital transfers and immigration etc.
Also, from what I understand foreign ownership of Chinese entities can still be restrictive, entry into particular markets is also determined at a central level despite the establishment of 'Free Trade Zones' such as Shanghai.
But despite this, as you have mentioned, they have increased their prosperity.
 
Purple said:
What economic system?
Click to expand...

The economic system that values increasing wealth through the narrow scope of increasing GDP/GNP.
I'm not saying they are not important indicators, but they are limited in scope to measuring the well-being of a society. As such, the name of the game is for to increase value through GDP growth regardless of understanding if the economic activity inducing the economic growth is good for the overall economic well-being or not.
 
Society is bigger than the economy so while we shouldn't use GNP/GDP or GNI to measure societal success what's wrong with using them to measure economic growth?
 
TheBigShort said:
Its hard to tell.
Click to expand...

It's not really. It's all here (if you read with an open mind) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform, essentially it's made up of less state control, privatisation and more opening up of trade, trading conditions and exports.

The Central Command bit:

"
The economy was heavily disrupted by the war against Japan and the Chinese Civil War from 1937 to 1949, after which the victorious communists installed a planned economy.[4][not in citation given] Afterwards, the economy largely stagnated[citation needed] and was disrupted by the Great Leap Forward famine which killed between 30 and 40 million people,
"

The Opening up bit:

"
In the 1990s, Deng forced many of the conservative elders such as Chen Yun into retirement, allowing radical reforms to be carried out.
Despite Deng's death in 1997, reforms continued under his handpicked successors, Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, who were ardent reformers
..
Also in 2005, China was able to surpass Japan as the largest economy in Asia
..

and there's plenty more.

From your earlier post I took it to mean that you attribute the improvements in the Chinese economy were due to it being a centrally commanded economy but anyone half an iota of common sense would disagree with that.
 
TheBigShort said:
The economic system that values increasing wealth through the narrow scope of increasing GDP/GNP.
I'm not saying they are not important indicators, but they are limited in scope to measuring the well-being of a society.
Click to expand...
That's why we have other measures such as global happiness measures and cost of living comparisons and the like. I think you'll find though that, on average, countries with high GDP/GNP ratios are usually the better places to live....
 
Firefly said:
From your earlier post I took it to mean that you attribute the improvements in the Chinese economy were due to it being a centrally commanded economy but anyone half an iota of common sense would disagree with that.
Click to expand...

No I don't attribute it all to a central command economy at all. Perhaps we have crossed wires here. My interpretation of a free-trade open economy is that it limits government interference in my business to a greatest extent possible. In other words, if I am trading freely with pre-arranged agreements I am protected by those agreements that are supported by laws that protect me from undue influence from government, and that I have the ability to sue that government through court of law if I believe government has unduly encroached on my rights to engage in that trade.

I'm not so sure that such privilege, to such extent, is afforded to foreign business within China? I may be wrong, perhaps there is in the Free Trade Zones like Shanghai, but my understanding is that if the Chinese government wants to close a FTZ, it can do so at its own discretion. In Europe, looking at Brexit, it takes a referendum, negotiation, legislation etc to close a free trade agreement.

That is what I mean by central command economy - that all authority ultimately lies with the government, which I would fundamentally oppose.
My understanding is that such authority still extends to the Chinese government.
 
Firefly said:
That's why we have other measures such as global happiness measures and cost of living comparisons and the like. I think you'll find though that, on average, countries with high GDP/GNP ratios are usually the better places to live....
Click to expand...

Not necessarily so.
 
@Firefly I think you are mixing up political doctrines with economic doctrines. A central command economy is a political doctrine, free or open trade is an economic doctrine.

Both the Soviet Union and China are have central command authorities. One failed to implement free and open trade, stifling economic growth that collapsed the political doctrine. The other opened up to free trade to improve economic conditions, which to date has preserved the central command.

In Europe, with its principles of free trade and movement, the British believe that this is stifling their ability to prosper. Some believe that Brussels acts as a de facto central command - an unelected authority with undue influence on the affairs of the British people.
Which is it? Is the EU an unelected authority imposing its will from a central command, or is it a free open democratic economic and political entity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register