Juche; North Korea’s philosophy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche and https://maoistrebelnews.com/2013/05/31/what-is-the-juche-idea/ inform that the North Korean juche idea’s purpose is, to empower the people, to help them escape bourgois oppression, through independent empowerment.
Fer goodness sakes: I can’t put any blame on the North Korean victms, they had no choice in the matter (meaning that DPRK is just as democratic as any western state), but socialists/communists in the west CAN know better than to voluntarily believe the self-deluding nonsense Kim Il Sung espoused to justify his oppression of an entire country’s worth of humans.

Noryh Korea is so collectivist that no individual is allowed any independent empowerment, to the point that the state is even the only food supplier. And is responsible for the default mode of starvation of the entire country’s population, so the individuals have no other choice than to grow their own food. I presume that in order to escape imprisonment as traitors to the revolution, they must bribe the equally hungry officials with some portion of their food.

A reason for private ownership

This brings to mind, a reason for private ownership of the means of production, especially in such a communist hell hole like DPRK: suppose you don’t live in a bourgois suburb; you know, a nice house, with a garden around it, where, instead of a pond with koi for decoration/relaxation, you can grow vegetables, you know, for survival, not bourgois pleasure. Instead, you live on the 30th floor of a housing baracks, without garden. But you’re still hungry, so what do you do? You rent/purchase a plot of fertile land, and till that to grow your own food. You can’t rent from the state; all land is for all the people.

Once again: in 1917 people might have been forgiven for embracing socalism, bt in 1945-1950 there was no reason gr someone to embrace it, other than sadism. Never mind about the socalists that are still active today.

Advertisements

A strange…

Anarcho-communists live in a strange world. They insist on claiming that their brand of “pure”communism (not the unfulfilled intermediate-stage kind of the USSR) is possible and that therefore they are the only true anarchists. Since Anarchocapitalism allows for an employer-employee relationship, it therefore is not truly anarchist.
I suppose that’s true, but who cares about theoretical purity when 7 billion lives need organizing?
This is the strange bit: they must have a curious relationship with their employer. In my memory, the relationships with all my employers was quite cordial) it’s the best way to get things done: coaxing instead of whipping. This fits in with my opinion that politicians could achieve so much with leading by example instead of just making themselves (& their policies) unwanted.
Perhaps communists are incapable of comprehending that; perhaps THAT is the reason they continue to adhere to such a broken philosophy, in spite of all the evidence against it.
Speaking of the USSR: they continually hide behind claims that it was not meant as the definitive incarnation of communism: it was only an intermediate version, to fit in such a statist world.
Dream on: authoritarianit opression was logically the only kind of communism that could arise in a statist world , and once global communism had been a hieved (global hunger), the state would not go away, because thinking it would, would be to think that Stalin meant well. Stalin was too well trained by Lenin to give even a rat’s … for the people. There’s no beating about the bush: Stalin and Lenin were no more than measly politicians. (and probably the worst of their kind)

Selfishness

Socialism is the ideology that leads to greatest selfishness. After all: starving people have little energy/resources to empathise with others.

This is demonstrated on  the streets of Athens, where people are starving to death, while passed by on the streets by those few lucky enough to still have a job.

At least with capitalism people will still have enough wealth left over in order to care for others. Again, a quick recap of Social Atrophy is in order:

By removing contact with others (by moving social wellfare out of the hands of the people, into the hands of the state,  people are trained to have less concern for their fellow man: after all: “If already so much from my paycheck goes towell fare,,why should I bother about the less fortunate?”)

On millennialism

Written by Marjorie Hansen as a reply to a post on Facebook, about millennialism:

I don’t agree but I understand. In the 1970’s paying for college meant doing without a car for a few years. Today’s college graduates/Millennials owe more in student loans than I paid for my first house. The jobs their career guidance counselors, professors, and parents promised them just aren’t there. College as “just a good experience” is economically viable for only the wealthy. Yes, my generation failed them by handing out too many trophies but I think it goes deeper than that. We encouraged them to do as we did while “the times they are a changing”.

Reprinted with permission

DPRK should not be boycotted

Of course the Juche-regime of North Korea must disappear, what it does to the people is unacceptable. But a boycot of North Korea is a preposterous idea, for the folowing reasons:

1. It would only reinforce the regimes’s torturing of the people, or helping the dictators achieve their goal faster (their goal being the slow and painful extermination of the North Korean people). Just as the boycot of Iraq did not get people to rise up against the notorious-dictator-with-torture-chambers. It’s hard to rise up when starving and unable to get medical treatments (and affraid of the secret police).

2. Historical perspective: the US’s boycot of Japan resulted in the massacre of Pearl Harbor and the pacific theatre. Japan would likely not have been stimulated/inspired to invade and occupy e.g. Indonesia (which was already being ocupied there and then, by Dutch colonialists, giving the emperor the excuse of “liberating the colonies”). Many women/girls were used as comfort-girls (aka sex-slaves), they were obviously innocent victims.

The fact that in spite of these well known historical objections, there is still talk of boycotting the Population of North Korea., atthe very least, proves a lack of imagination of thise that claim to be suitable leaders is unsettling (and proof of unsuitabilty).

My solution to the Juche regime,  would be to make the world so much richer (by using capitalism… whay else?) that North Korea will simply shrivel away. And because that takes a lot of time – prolonging the suffering of millions of innocent citizens, one might consider a CIA assassination plot. Killing the devil you know, replacing with the devil you don’t. Causing who knows what sectarian strife there, and possibly bringing the world closer to nuclear war. With deepest regret, I must say that sacrificing the North Korean victims is probably the best solution to the Kim Il-whichever problem.

Socialists are unsuitable for government

It’ s now (2017) been a century since the Russian revolution (1917, duh), and still some people (pardon: humanoids) dare to promote the ideology. This means that they have zero historical awareness.
Or if they do, that they are deluded in thinking that they are able to solve the unsolvable problems with socialism.
Or they only pretend to be able to, without actually planing to go through with it, but they plan on abusing the power once have it.
Either way, that’s not somebody one would wish to have in power.

Another joy of private property

Thids ppstvis a follow up to: https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/the-joys-of-private-property/

If environmental activists are really so concerned about protecting public land from the president’s greedy cronies, the should champion that all land becomes private property. One can’t really complain about what the president does to state monuments, like enabling oil exploration, because it is HIS land.
If you wanna protect the national monuments, buy them, before explorers discover oil there and the price rises. When they’re your private property, you decide what does and does not get done there.
Si, shut up about Trump letting “his buddies in the oil industry” ruin public lands, because there is no such thing as public lands! When the government owns it, they can do to it whatever they want. So long as, once every 4 years, they pretend to care about the people, by holding elections (and lying to their faces – the pinacpe of democracy)