So it's on the new page.

Bull. The term is used to describe the family in North Korean propaganda. You're refusing to take the regime you support at its own word. The lineage line is not some fluffy appeal to the whole Korean people, it's the co-option of the Korean people's *mythical* place of origin to bolster this dynastic claim.

North Korea is a monarchy. The Kims are your Windors.

Proof.
http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01500&num=5277
http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01500&num=5249

One would think that if you were to gnash your teeth about a prison-system you have no clue about except for Obi-wan style cliches you learned from CNN and/or your 7th grade social studies class, that you wouldn't be the biggest cheerleading for the leading incarcerator in the world. But no such luck I see.

And I see you've taken to copying your own posts.

Standard commie tu quoque. Just because the American prison system is bad doesn't mean North Korea's GULAGS are okay.

What would you know about the DPRK's so-called "gulags" that doesn't come from the National Endowment for Democracy and other American propaganda/agitator groups?

Absolutely nothing.

When North Korea falls and all the evil that goes on there is vividly exposed, you're going to feel very dirty for the things you've written here.

Another prediction of certainty from our resident Nostradamus whose statements of fact turn out to be articles of faith when you scratch beneath the smug surface.

Just like the "gulags" of the Soviet bloc were said to be exposed after 1989, except we found out that those people in prison actually were criminals, not political prisoners.

"When North Korea falls and all the evil that goes on there is vividly exposed, you're going to feel very dirty for the things you've written here."

No he won't, if he can look at the USSR's atrocities without batting an eye then I guarantee the DPRK's atrocities won't do anything either

"No he won't, if he can look at the USSR's atrocities without batting an eye then I guarantee the DPRK's atrocities won't do anything either"

You celebrate laissez-faire capitalism without batting an eye about the evils it entailed in 19th century America. You think the social cost (slavery, brutal working conditions, enormous gaps in wealth) is worth the benefits (limited government).

I think the costs of socialism are worth the benefits. Don't posture about your moral superiority, we simply work for the victory of different classes.

Don't confuse North Korea with Socialism ..... any 'Social' movement must come from the will and the actions of the masses, not a dictat from the ruling regime. It is a collective set of morals & ethics that shape all aspects of society, politics, economics, the legal system, education, sport, the arts, culture, etc.
And the failings in Western Capitalism and global imperialism does not justify in any way the NK way of life. To hold this brutal regime up as an example of Socialism is shamefully inaccurate.

Costs of socialism? we have socialist countries in europe, but we aren't suffering from levels of incarceration as the US or political repression of North Korea.

I don't pretend we are perfect, far from it; but I don't see how North Korean despotism has achieved anything like the improvements in quality of life that we've seen in western europe and south korea in the past 50 years.

Not sure how you can claim socialism is responsible for the improvements in the quality of life in Europe

don't be an idiot fasces, socialism, at least in the form of social democracy has introduced the nhs and various other social programs that have greatly improved the life of people in europe

"You think the social cost (slavery, brutal working conditions, enormous gaps in wealth) is worth the benefits (limited government)."

I flat-out don't consider the first two a part of the laissez-faire model I support. Slavery and the Chicago Fire are pretty blatantly acts of violence that cannot be and are not condoned in a model of nonaggression.

You're welcome to support institutions that sanction mass rape and genocide, but making things up to insinuate that I support similar acts of violence and atrocity as long as they're in "my" corner is fundamentally disingenuous and not the hallmark of civilized discussion.

brutal working conditions cannot be said to intrinsically not be a part of laissez-faire capitalism. as long as there is no regulation there is no reason to suggest there will not be brutal working conditions. in fact it is rational to assume in a completely capitalist society working conditions would be brutal

@Socrates: "don't be an idiot fasces, socialism, at least in the form of social democracy has introduced the nhs and various other social programs that have greatly improved the life of people in europe"
thank capitalism for providing the capital so that Europe could afford said social programs. Also a basic security net =/= socialism.

Europe actually has far better private property protections then the US and score better than America on its more pro market views of immigration, trade and, ironically labour regulations, meaning on some levels, European countries are more capitalist then the US (with Great Britain actually scoring higher on the Economic Freedom of the World Index and Sweden scoring 2% lower then America)

"brutal working conditions cannot be said to intrinsically not be a part of laissez-faire capitalism. as long as there is no regulation there is no reason to suggest there will not be brutal working conditions. in fact it is rational to assume in a completely capitalist society working conditions would be brutal"
Oh the irony of liberal-progressive argument on the evils of capitalism:
They use Costco as an example of a company that can compete with Wallmart in prices and yet pays higher wages. They then turn around and say if there was no minimum wage everyone, except for a few evil capitalists, would be working in brutal conditions for little wages.

Labour is just another market, where people compete with each other for, and its important to remember that like any free market, the transaction must be voluntary. If you thought the conditions were too brutal, you'd find another job.

I should also remind you that almost three quarters of Americans working in the private sector are making more then a dollar more than minimum wage and are not in a union. So the argument that in an absolute capitalist system everyone would be poor is a rather dumb argument.

I know I'm arguing wages while your arguing working conditions, which you may bring up in your next post, I'm just using wages because its perfectly quantifiable while working conditions is not (we may disagree on the definition of brutal working conditions, but we will both agree that $8.25 is a dollar more then federal minimum wage.)

However, greed is why wages is a good substitute for working conditions and my argument stands; employers don't care how they pay you for your labour, they just care about minimizing the cost and so if there is a demand for less harsh working conditions, you will find that employers will improve the working conditions in exchange for a decrease in wages.

This is where using sweatshops in an argument will fall flat (you haven't yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if you do, since its the most common argument among those claiming low wages and brutal working conditions is a product of capitalism); a poll asking ~400 employees across 2 different sweatshops asked three questions:
1. Do you want safer working conditions: 100% of respondents said yes.
2. Would you be willing to have a lower salary in exchange for safer conditions: ~85% of respondents said no. (can't remember the exact answer)
Third question was how much lower would you be willing to have your salary, but the answer for that one is pretty irrelevant since most of the respondents were pretty clear that they'd rather better wages then better safety. I should also mention that for these sweatshops the average wage of the employees was 180% of the average wage of the country they were in (remember these are really poor countries), so compared to their neighbours, its not like these people weren't relatively well off.

My point is, its a complete myth that brutal working conditions would be found in a capitalist country.

social programs ARE socialist, as is free education, and go against a neoliberal state. idiot.

yes labour is another market, but as even adam smith pointed out, the poor employee needs his job more than the employer needs to employ said employee. the unequal conditions force the worker into accepting jobs in awful conditions because it is better than the alternative (i.e. no job and starving).

and i didn't say everyone would be poor, but some workers would be in dire poverty and suffer awful conditions - just because some people in the private sector would be paid well doesn't mean there wouldn't be some in awful conditions!

god you're an idiot, to have uesd sweatshops in this - the reason they wouldn't accept a lower salary is the same reason they work in such exploitative conditions - they have no choice! they needs that tiny exploitative salary, otherwise they will perish! and these are all obvious points without even asking for you to show some evidence for all your facts - which i really don't think should be accepted prima facie.

it isn't a myth, and you haven't shown it at all! let me give you a 'hypothetical' case, wherein you are a poor manual labourer and you need a job to be able to survive (and for your family to survive). unfortunately the only job that really allows you enough food to get enough food to stop you and your children suffering from malnourishment is an exploitative sweatshop (that may or may not pay a fraction higher than another exploitative job that doesn't even give enough to stop malnourishment from occuring). do you take the job? of course you do, and that is why in capitalism you will have the possibility for brutal working conditions. it's a fact admitted by some of the most famous economists (and these are people that are against socialism). the labourer in a completely unregulated society wherein there is little/no great demand for his services will be forced to self himself for practically nothing, because he needs employment to procure the means for his survival.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image_thumb5.png?w=644&h=421

There's your socialist paradise, Putin. Literally a dark hole. A place where the nights are dark and cold.

"social programs ARE socialist, as is free education, and go against a neoliberal state. idiot."
Since you're using Adam Smith as the paradigm of my beliefs (which is not necessarily true) I'm going to point out the fact that he supported public education.

Milton Friedman, a better representative of more modern libertarian beliefs (ignoring the fucking retarded ancaps), also supported a guaranteed minimal income, aka welfare.

These are people who by any means would be right-wing extremists in almost every policy.

Also I thank you for the needless ad hominem attacks.

"yes labour is another market, but as even adam smith pointed out, the poor employee needs his job more than the employer needs to employ said employee. the unequal conditions force the worker into accepting jobs in awful conditions because it is better than the alternative (i.e. no job and starving). "
Citation needed, since I doubt Smith said something along those lines, but even if he did, I don't really give a shit what a 300 year-old economist thinks. Most of his theories are out dated.

I'm also going to point out the fact that Britain and the US, when the were the almost absolute capitalists in the late 19th century had the highest average wages in the world. The reason why marxism never overthrew most capitalist governments was because the wages got good enough that most people didn't need or want socialism.

"and i didn't say everyone would be poor, but some workers would be in dire poverty and suffer awful conditions - just because some people in the private sector would be paid well doesn't mean there wouldn't be some in awful conditions!"
not some, most. My 3/4 was an estimate based on the fact that only 8% of private sector employees are union and that the lowest paying field in America, the fast food worker, still makes a median income of $8.80.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-companies-pay-near-175421996.html

Fact is so little people are paid at minimum wage the current rate is kind of irrelevant. Obviously increasing that would change, but wages go up naturally without the need of a minimum wage.

"the reason they wouldn't accept a lower salary is the same reason they work in such exploitative conditions - they have no choice! they needs that tiny exploitative salary, otherwise they will perish! and these are all obvious points without even asking for you to show some evidence for all your facts - which i really don't think should be accepted prima facie."
That's my point, the only reason why the sweatshop model works is because there is no alternative to it. In richer countries you have alternatives and so wouldn't see sweatshop labour.

Remeber, what were the living conditions like before the capitalists moved in to take advantage? Yes sweatshops is 'evil' capitalists taking advantage of workers in poor conditions, but remember the poor conditions were there first, not the capitalists.

40 years ago sweatshop labour was found in Hong Kong and Japan, eventually overtime wages go up in sweathshops, eg. average sweatshop wage in China has tripled over the last decade, Eventually the wages get too high and so the corporations move their factories to poorer countries, lifting people out of poverty little by little. Right now sweatshop labour is most popular in Indonesia and Bangladesh, but eventually when wages get too high there, they'll start moving into Africa.

A few months ago The Economist Magazine declared that capitalism has lifted 1 billion people out of extreme poverty ($1.25/day adjusted for inflation) in the last 20 years, now lets give it enough time to lift the next billion out.

As for my citations, I was too lazy to find them but if you must want my sweatshop study, it was done by Prof. Benjamin Powell, which he discussed here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX27K6Bsy84

"wherein you are a poor manual labourer and you need a job to be able to survive (and for your family to survive). unfortunately the only job"
I'll stop you right there. FREE MARKETS IS ABOUT COMPETITION! There will never be one job option. Before capitalism the serfs were far worse off, sweatshops didn't take away all the 'good' before going into a country, they saw that there were no good options, and seeked to take advantage of the situation.

In poor countries socialism doesn't work because the state can't afford welfare. Capitalism is the only way to lift people out of poverty.

i will cite if you want, but he did say that employers have an advantage that make employees lose out in wages, and then i hope you cede your case! and i didn't say he was reflective of your beliefs, just showing how even a right wing person would say such a thing.

cultural hegemony and ideology is why revolution never happened, coupled with the fact we use people abroad as our main source of the proletariat now.

some or most it doesnt matter (although in a pure free market i speculate most would have poor conditions), the actual point just needs the free market to lead to 1 person in awful working conditions to be right. and without a minimum wage OR unions wages would plummet.

1 sweatshops exist right now because rich countries demand it and so rich countries don't need to have them. 2 rich countries have govt provisions to make such things illegal.

they may have been poor before but that doesn't stop the fact capitalists were there? and do tell me how things were before the imperialist capitalist went in - hundreds of years ago in a pre industrial age...

have you not heard of the race to the bottom?

fuck me a neoliberal capitalist magazine said something good about capitalism! very strange. does it also mention 1/3 of all deaths are from poverty, something that wouldn't exist in a socialist world?

can you source someone who isn't a crazy laissez faire fan?

there can be one job option - there is an equilibrium point of labour supply, and the one person to fill the last job place before that equilibrium has no choice. but even if there were different options they would all be as exploitative because the boss has no reason to offer better wages. i can demonstrate it to using game theory if you would like. in fact i can demonstrate the exploitation using game theory and the assumption of reason.

socialism is supposed to be an international, not national, and works best as such (as does capitalism). and even a country like cuba manages to lift people out of poverty through socialism

> claims he's going to cite it.
> doesn't

Anyway, I'm on a phone right now, and will likely be too drunk when I get home to make a reasonable post today. Ill give a real one tomorrow

"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate." adam smith, wealth of nations.

Fair enough, Adam Smith is a pretty defunct economist simply due to his age. As I said earlier, I don't agree with a lot of what he thinks

*demands citation to prove point*
*dismisses point once cited*

you can disagree with a lot of what he thinks (even though i don't get how you can rationally disagree with that quote), but he isn't a 'defunct economist' in anyway.

Yes, i will claim that while socialist European nations have improved greatly in their quality of life. While North Korea has had an average decrease in height in the past 50 years, and failed in many respects to promote their own people.

Adam Smith's point results in Unionized labour and collective bargaining. Laws which protect workers right to organise are in some sense socialist, or at least anti-free market.

At least if you see socialism as a war on the rich&powerful waged by the poor&disenfranchised. Of course Putin is sticking up for the poor and disenfranchised in North Korea, who else needs his support??

Having a handful of public owned industries in an otherwise for-profit economy is not socialism.

"I flat-out don't consider the first two a part of the laissez-faire model I support. Slavery and the Chicago Fire are pretty blatantly acts of violence that cannot be and are not condoned in a model of nonaggression."

Of course not. In your theoretical textbook version of reality, you get to select ala carte the so-called "good aspects" of laissez faire while ignoring its unsavory elements. In this way you're able to keep your moral purity.

Why are all the so-called "socialist" governments of western Europe run by rightwingers?

Rightwingers who haven't removed social spending, health care, education, pensions, child care provisions... I suspect you will find that this is a form of socialism.

I'm not sure what mythical beast you are talking about, but perhaps it has never existed... And not all eurropean governments are right-wing.

@ ora

By that definition is there a party in Europe that isn't Socialist? I am not saying you're wrong, but the definition is so broad as to be almost meaningless.

yes, there are definitely non-socialist parties in europe. the difference is that europe is generally more leaned towards the left. our conservatives would roughly represent america's democrats. however, there are still a bunch of right wing parties.
plus, i think you have to be more leaned towards the left to be labeled as socialist in europe than in america.