Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:36 am
I think you're too focused on shifting the blame from the philosophical concept of where communism originates, to this ideology that means whatever it is you just said - rather than examining the individual policies and determining where it lands on a political compass. I mean, NK is anti-capitalist, they have a heavy progressive tax rate, an abolition of any real property rights, their rights are seized to the government at a whim, and their education and (universal) health care system is pretty typical of what we'd expect from a social-communist nation. It sounds to me like a communist-policy state and a pretty far cry away from being conservative, just not one that is funded by the same underlying beliefs as Maoism or Maxism.
Sure, but it just sounds to me like NK is even less capitalist than the Soviet Union.
Cuba, as well as North Korea can survive for decades desbite American sanction is because of this:
There are always political dissendents and people who wish to go to South Korea, BUT
For the large majority of people in North Korea, they have reached 'an unwritten deal' with the state, the deal is this: the Kim family will run the state and he gives the people a welfare state, treat them nicely, provides all the basics for free, and in return the people will give their 100% loyalty to the Kim family.
Under this deal, If you disobey the leader, you have breached the contract and therefore is liable to the punishment; because you failed to honor your duty and withdraw your loyalty first, the leader will dishonor his duty and stop treating you nicely, too. he will treat you as the enemy of the state.
In medievel Europe under feudalism, you work for the landlord who owns the whole estate, in return the landlord will provide free housing, free food and free clothing to you; if you disobey the lord, the lord will hang you upside down.
North Korea looks more like feudalism rather than communism.
Under feudalism, if the lord is getting old and then died, his son will inherite the estate and become the new lord, likewise, in North Korea, when the old Kim dies, the young kim will inherite the country. However if you take a look at the major communist countries, Soviet union, China, Cuba, in
communist constitutions the leader can never pass their position directly to their son when the old one is dying, to communists the North Korean practice is
20000% politically incorrect.
If you check the North Korean constitution, you will find that the constitution states very, very clearly the Kim family is the only family that is legetimate to rule, nobody else can take the throne.
If this is not feudalism, then what is feudalism??
By saying North Korean
Juche idea as being 'right-wing ultra-conservative ', I'm not saying North Korea is not against capitalism, I'm saying North Korean militarism/Jingoism is right-wing ultra-conservative, the practice of passing the throne from father to son is right-wing ultra-conservative, and I 'm saying preserve the rigid North Korean status quo instead of pursuing for the better is right-wing ultra-conservative.
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:36 am
That doesn't really make any guarantee we won't do anything. In fact that sounds more to me like a reason we would go to war with them, and not a reason why we wouldn't. If they were the ones to strike first, that's also another way it could lead to a war.
Anyway, almost every developed nation on this earth has the ability to shoot down nuclear and ICBM missiles at this point, South Korea and Japan included. The recent missile they flew over Hokkaido was intentionally ignored by japan, but could have been intercepted.
If by 'That doesn't really make any guarantee we won't do anything' , you mean America will secretly send some death squads to target and murder Kim himself instead of declaring a major war, then
I say it will never do the trick:
Because the North Korean system is a rigid feudalist system with a very large bureaucracy, the top leader being murdered simply means the bureaucracy system will find another leader with a surname of Kim to replace the murdered one, and they will not abandon nuclear weapon. If you check the medievel history of Europe and ancient Rome, a king was being murder or killed by illness does not lead to the total collapse of a kingdom, instead a new king will take the throne. A king's life can be taken, but the power structure beneath the throne is still very stable.
North Korea is making nuclear weapons not because Kim himself wants it, but because Kim and the power structure beneath Kim--the Workers' Party of Korea collectively want nuclear weapons, To make North Korea abandon nuclear weapons, America has to destroy the very power structure itself, and
the only way to do that is for America to capture Pyongyang.
However, North Korea will 100% likely use its nuclear weapon in that major war campain if necessary, and this means South Korea and Japan are unlikely to join hands with America and enter the war.
The result will not be the collapse of North Korea, but the collapse of South Korea- Japan- America military alliance in the far east.
Without South Korea and Japan providing necessary air and naval bases, the American army will not win the war, even if America win some battles and clear a path that leads to Pyongyang, the Chinese army right across the border will not stand idle,
they will secure Pyongyang first before America
The chance of America attacking North Korea in a major war is 0, because when you consider all the real costs of starting that war for America, the benefits simply does not justify the costs.
And don't forget the oppurtunity costs of entering a major war, if Trump decides to start the war machine, there will be not much tax-payers money left in the treasury to allow him to rebuild the broken infrastructure in America.