How similar is North Korea to pre-invasion Iraq?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Isn't the main reason why communism doesn't work, that it leaves people with little incentive to work, and that competition drives progress, etc? So what happens when robots take over and there are fewer and fewer jobs for humans to do? A certain point may come when communism becomes more workable and the downside of capitalism (corporate oligarchy) becomes the bigger evil than the downside of communism.Should be interesting to see how that all turns out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagreeing with your conclusion doesn't mean we don't know what we are talking about. Your fantasies of theft do not make a viable system.

What does then? Capitalism is a pure collapsible pile of shit, which produces slumps, colonialism, world wars, world overheating and the destruction of humanity. You may be for this total idiocy, being McCarthy-brainwashed, but educated people prefer democratic socialism, when they know what it is, which you manifestly don't.

The educated understand that your ideas can't work in reality. Nobody answers the tough cases. Your answers work reasonably well for operations that are mostly labor. They fail badly for operations that are mostly capital.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Isn't the main reason why communism doesn't work, that it leaves people with little incentive to work, and that competition drives progress, etc? So what happens when robots take over and there are fewer and fewer jobs for humans to do? A certain point may come when communism becomes more workable and the downside of capitalism (corporate oligarchy) becomes the bigger evil than the downside of communism.Should be interesting to see how that all turns out.

No, communism works no better in a situation where robots are doing the actual work. That would simply be bookkeeping games (and doomed to failure--by then the capital per worker will be a decent fraction of their lifetime earning potential. Try to give the workers the means of production and the result is many sell them off.)

 

[untermensche]

Disagreeing with your conclusion doesn't mean we don't know what we are talking about. Your fantasies of theft do not make a viable system.

What does then? Capitalism is a pure collapsible pile of shit, which produces slumps, colonialism, world wars, world overheating and the destruction of humanity. You may be for this total idiocy, being McCarthy-brainwashed, but educated people prefer democratic socialism, when they know what it is, which you manifestly don't.

Modern capitalism is based on worker theft.

That's what makes it run.

It is called "profit". And it is money taken from the workers who earned it and given to others.

A system based around theft. A very human system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What does then? Capitalism is a pure collapsible pile of shit, which produces slumps, colonialism, world wars, world overheating and the destruction of humanity. You may be for this total idiocy, being McCarthy-brainwashed, but educated people prefer democratic socialism, when they know what it is, which you manifestly don't.

Modern capitalism is based on worker theft.

That's what makes it run.

It is called "profit". And it is money taken from the workers who earned it and given to others.

A system based around theft. A very human system.

That "theft" pays for the equipment they are using. It's not like your fantasyland where the communist fairly delivers all the tools and facilities. And it's not like your fantasyland where everyone knows how to run the whole business so you don't need people to run it.

 

[untermensche]

Modern capitalism is based on worker theft.

That's what makes it run.

It is called "profit". And it is money taken from the workers who earned it and given to others.

A system based around theft. A very human system.

That "theft" pays for the equipment they are using. It's not like your fantasyland where the communist fairly delivers all the tools and facilities. And it's not like your fantasyland where everyone knows how to run the whole business so you don't need people to run it.

Yes the theft from workers ultimately pays for any equipment.

Workers pay for all equipment.

It is really their property even if we have an immoral system of masters and slaves that says otherwise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That "theft" pays for the equipment they are using. It's not like your fantasyland where the communist fairly delivers all the tools and facilities. And it's not like your fantasyland where everyone knows how to run the whole business so you don't need people to run it.

Yes the theft from workers ultimately pays for any equipment.

Workers pay for all equipment.

It is really their property even if we have an immoral system of masters and slaves that says otherwise.

The problem is you have some fantasy that the means of production can exist without somebody paying for it.

 

[untermensche]

Yes the theft from workers ultimately pays for any equipment.

Workers pay for all equipment.

It is really their property even if we have an immoral system of masters and slaves that says otherwise.

The problem is you have some fantasy that the means of production can exist without somebody paying for it.

No, you live in a fantasy world where somebody besides workers pays for anything.

Just because the masters can steal from workers at will is no reason to be blind to who pays for things.

 

[iolo]

Isn't the main reason why communism doesn't work, that it leaves people with little incentive to work, and that competition drives progress, etc? So what happens when robots take over and there are fewer and fewer jobs for humans to do? A certain point may come when communism becomes more workable and the downside of capitalism (corporate oligarchy) becomes the bigger evil than the downside of communism.Should be interesting to see how that all turns out.

No - it's because capitalist armies are sent to murder the people.

- - - Updated - - -

What does then? Capitalism is a pure collapsible pile of shit, which produces slumps, colonialism, world wars, world overheating and the destruction of humanity. You may be for this total idiocy, being McCarthy-brainwashed, but educated people prefer democratic socialism, when they know what it is, which you manifestly don't.

The educated understand that your ideas can't work in reality. Nobody answers the tough cases. Your answers work reasonably well for operations that are mostly labor. They fail badly for operations that are mostly capital.

I very much doubt, child, that you are better educated than I am. You mean you'll murder us?

- - - Updated - - -

Modern capitalism is based on worker theft.

That's what makes it run.

It is called "profit". And it is money taken from the workers who earned it and given to others.

A system based around theft. A very human system.

That "theft" pays for the equipment they are using. It's not like your fantasyland where the communist fairly delivers all the tools and facilities. And it's not like your fantasyland where everyone knows how to run the whole business so you don't need people to run it.

Who makes the equipment, idiot!

- - - Updated - - -

Yes the theft from workers ultimately pays for any equipment.

Workers pay for all equipment.

It is really their property even if we have an immoral system of masters and slaves that says otherwise.

The problem is you have some fantasy that the means of production can exist without somebody paying for it.

Working people pay for it, as they pay for everything, as you know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is you have some fantasy that the means of production can exist without somebody paying for it.

No, you live in a fantasy world where somebody besides workers pays for anything.

Just because the masters can steal from workers at will is no reason to be blind to who pays for things.

You're still preaching. How about addressing the point?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Iraq under Sadam Hussein was a nation under the thumb of a dictator. So is North Korea today. Both seem(ed) to me to be content to keep to themselves, harming really only their own people. The invasion of Iraq and killing of Sadam arguably opened Iraq up and created a considerably worse problem for other nations in the area, and for terrorism against the west. Would an invasion and displacement of North Korea on Trump's order do the same there?

I think you may be asking the wrong op title question. Really...don't you want to know if pre-invasion Iraq and N Korea have the minimum structural and US-relation things in common so that there could be similar outcomes?

Saddam was suppressing fanatics so he could remain in power. Some citizens were also radicalized by the war. Additionally, there were people in nearby countries who felt they shared something with Iraqis, enough to try to unify in a radical islamic state.

Korean dictator doesnt seem to be holding fanatics down, but instead brainwashing people. With his regime's removal, there might be more reasonable people. On the other hand, if Trump did something insane, like nuke them, he could possibly create sympathy and radicalization of neighbors, like family members in S Korea and sympathizers in China. I think familial ties may be a link and a long time ago, maybe ideology...but now China doesn't share that ideology with N Korea. N Koreans could learn to be economically successful and stable like the South. So overall I think there are less risks making a giant radical state for the Korean situation than Iraq, and if the regime were overturned slowly and peacefully things could turn out very well for them. Of course Trump could screw it up with a series of bad decisions regarding N Korea and China...

 

[iolo]

In the early days of the North Korean dictatorship the choice was that or yet more foreign rule and incorporation into the even smellier dictatorship of Syngman Rhee. It wasn't much of a choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the early days of the North Korean dictatorship the choice was that or yet more foreign rule and incorporation into the even smellier dictatorship of Syngman Rhee. It wasn't much of a choice.

Foreign rule?? Korea is Korea.

And look which choice turned out better.

 

[iolo]

In the early days of the North Korean dictatorship the choice was that or yet more foreign rule and incorporation into the even smellier dictatorship of Syngman Rhee. It wasn't much of a choice.

Foreign rule?? Korea is Korea.

And look which choice turned out better.

American rule. As it happened, the Americans got tired of trying to enforce it by fighting, otherwise it would be an even longer-running Iran.

 

[iolo]

Foreign rule?? Korea is Korea.

And look which choice turned out better.

American rule. As it happened, the Americans got tired of trying to enforce it by fighting, otherwise it would be an even longer-running Iran.

I meant Iraq. You lost out in Iran.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Iraq under Sadam Hussein was a nation under the thumb of a dictator. So is North Korea today. Both seem(ed) to me to be content to keep to themselves, harming really only their own people. The invasion of Iraq and killing of Sadam arguably opened Iraq up and created a considerably worse problem for other nations in the area, and for terrorism against the west. Would an invasion and displacement of North Korea on Trump's order do the same there?

I think you may be asking the wrong op title question. Really...don't you want to know if pre-invasion Iraq and N Korea have the minimum structural and US-relation things in common so that there could be similar outcomes?

Saddam was suppressing fanatics so he could remain in power. Some citizens were also radicalized by the war. Additionally, there were people in nearby countries who felt they shared something with Iraqis, enough to try to unify in a radical islamic state.

Korean dictator doesnt seem to be holding fanatics down, but instead brainwashing people. With his regime's removal, there might be more reasonable people. On the other hand, if Trump did something insane, like nuke them, he could possibly create sympathy and radicalization of neighbors, like family members in S Korea and sympathizers in China. I think familial ties may be a link and a long time ago, maybe ideology...but now China doesn't share that ideology with N Korea. N Koreans could learn to be economically successful and stable like the South. So overall I think there are less risks making a giant radical state for the Korean situation than Iraq, and if the regime were overturned slowly and peacefully things could turn out very well for them. Of course Trump could screw it up with a series of bad decisions regarding N Korea and China...

You also face more of a risk of turning the leader of North Korea into a martyr. They already revere him as a demigod. If he is killed by the enemy, that may radicalize North Koreans far more than they are now and they may become the equivalent of suicide bombers, etc.