How long do you think the DPRK is going to exist for?

[Aleksey_aka_al]

A little speculation on propaganda: what if the purpose of North Korean propaganda isn't to convince individuals that the regime is good and the country is prosperous, but to convince those individuals that everyone else around them believes the propaganda?

Then they've learnt from the West a lot.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's not what Orwell's model was. A member of the Inner Party, in order to be secure in his control, must genuinely believe that 2 + 2 = 5. He cannot "act" as if Party doctrine is true while privately believing the opposite--that is precisely what lands a person in a cozy room at the Ministry of Truth.

Much of Orwell's dystopian toturial on "How To Run a Dictatorship" is based on the premise that most dictatorships collapse when the leaders screw something up. In order to stay in power, Orwell says, the dictator must properly discipline himself. He must be able to genuinely believe his own bullcrap.

True, I forgot how important the whole "doublethink" thing was in Orwell's model. But, without drifting too far into that topic rather than this, I'd say that Orwell had a tendency to underestimate the significance of institutional ideology in these sorts of regimes, and so overestimate the strength of these kinds of phenomenon to resolve the apparent contradiction. The assumption that it is necessary to genuinely believe some to act upon it in a sustained rather than temporary manner, which is basically what "doublethink" amounts to, doesn't take into account the extent to which institutions- most significantly political, but also of other sorts- posses their own logic, which must be adhered to if one is to function within that institution. (The classic example would be the baffling extent to which the Soviets went to maintain the image of a democracy which, personal testimonies would seem to suggest, most people were quite aware was a nonsense.) This produces what I suppose you might call a "de facto doublethink", but the actual ideological depth is less pronounced.

That's how all these centralized authorities operate. It's the same scam whether you're running a country, a corporation, or a crime syndicate. The boss has a small entourage of enforcers, who enforce his will in exchange for great wealth and privilege, of which the boss has the most. The propaganda is part of that enforcement. No one can be everywhere at once, so propaganda serves as the internal check to the rubes to do what they're told "or else." The notion that the leadership is subject to the same propaganda is rather ludicrous, because they are the ones calling the shots. How can they run things if they didn't know what was going on? That would amount to anarchy.

Do you think that the leadership were raised in isolation until the age of 50, or that they underwent some special process of deprogramming upon their appointment? There's no other way, that I can think of, to explain a claim of effective "brain-washing" on the one-hand, and of a cynically manipulative leadership who all grew up under Workers' Party government. So you either attempt to salvage one of those claims, or- and this is what I would recommend- moderate both.

As much as I respect George Orwell, you are quoting a fictional novel.

It's a fictional novel which advances a theoretical model of authoritarian government, though, so it can still be discussed. You just have to make sure that you're actually discussing the model as a model, and not just using it as a handy analogy. (This means, aside from anything else, taking the under-acknowledge weight of class structure in the model into account, which BasketCase may be perhaps less willing to do than is necessary.)

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Do you think that the leadership were raised in isolation until the age of 50, or that they underwent some special process of deprogramming upon their appointment? There's no other way, that I can think of, to explain a claim of effective "brain-washing" on the one-hand, and of a cynically manipulative leadership who all grew up under Workers' Party government. So you either attempt to salvage one of those claims, or- and this is what I would recommend- moderate both.

I'm sure the leadership is privy to information that the rest of the population isn't, so regardless of their upbringing, they are at an informational advantage. I'm sure that, in company, they pretend to acknowledge all the propaganda expected of them to acknowledge, but they all know the deal. What would be impossible would be for them to be unable to regulate propaganda if they never knew what the truth was. Do you really expect me to believe that a whole government can operate for decades having absolutely no knowledge of what is ever going on?

It's a fictional novel which advances a theoretical model of authoritarian government, though, so it can still be discussed.

So is Republic, by Plato, but it's still just a fiction. And even in 1984, it is acknowledged that the Inner Party knows what's real and what's propaganda.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm sure the leadership is privy to information that the rest of the population isn't, so regardless of their upbringing, they are at an informational advantage. I'm sure that, in company, they pretend to acknowledge all the propaganda expected of them to acknowledge, but they all know the deal. What would be impossible would be for them to be unable to regulate propaganda if they never knew what the truth was. Do you really expect me to believe that a whole government can operate for decades having absolutely no knowledge of what is ever going on?

I expect you, as I've already said, to acknowledge a third way between brainwashed stupor and cynical knowing.

So is Republic, by Plato, but it's still just a fiction. And even in 1984, it is acknowledged that the Inner Party knows what's real and what's propaganda.

My point was simply that the book was not written in a vacuum, and was intended as commentary on existing political tendencies and formations. That doesn't seem particularly contentious to me.

 

[amadeus]

Apartheid SA, ... vanished with little warning,

I just saw this.

There were a lot of signs that the fall of the National Party was inevitable, and this was most recognized in the upper tier of the NP itself in the 1970s. John Vorster's government pulled its unofficial support for Rhodesia after the withdrawal of Portuguese troops from Angola and Mozambique, hoping to avoid further conflict in the region and appease the anti-Rhodesia policies of Western powers.

Domestically, the relative white population was shrinking and poor economic performance left a lot of whites leaving the NP; electoral support of the NP amongst Afrikaners dropped from 85 to 60 percent over the course of two election cycles. At the same time, the ANC was increasingly active in strikes, civil disobedience, and terrorism, driving many whites to support the hardline Conservative Party under ex-Minister of Education Andries Treurnicht (Treurnicht would later become opposition leader in 1987 as the KP became the second-largest party in parliament.)

The NP, now led by P.W. Botha, as Vorster resigned due to a scandal regarding some attempted bribes to international news agencies to plant stories favorable to South Africa, wanted to "rescue" the government by winning over the support of South Africa's other minority groups, Coloureds and Indians. East Asians were reclassified as "white" after the Japan protested when a Japanese athelete was denied the use of a whites-only pool; Koreans and Chinese were also classified as white to maintain friendly relations with the two countries. A new constitution was written and a tri-cameral parliament was established—one branch for whites, one for Indians, and one for Coloureds. Instead of helping to save the system, though, it further alienated blacks, including moderate blacks whom the government had targeted in trying to "win over."

Violence accelerated in the townships and in a desperate attempt to regain control, Botha declared a state of emergency in many areas. The chaos ensuing in the townships was part of the ANC's strategy to make black areas "ungovernable"—local (black) leaders were deposed and often brutally killed. The actions taken by the government, including curtailing some press freedom and imposing curfews also damaged South Africa's international relations. This was unfortunate because at the same time, the NP was accelerating some reforms, but reserving the "big" reforms, such as legalizing the ANC until the ANC renounced violence—Mandela was offered a release in 1985 on the condition that he renounce violence, but rejected it outright.

In the late eighties, the situation more or less spiraled out of control and Botha's ill-health led to his resignation and replacement with F.W. de Klerk shortly thereafter. de Klerk would be the one to "end" apartheid in 1990 (though the elections would not take place until 1994.)

So, it wasn't as though South Africa suddenly crumbled—South Africa, like the Soviet Union was merely destined to fail.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

So, it wasn't as though South Africa suddenly crumbled—South Africa, like the Soviet Union was merely destined to fail.

Any system where 14% of the population oppresses the rest of the population is destined to fail.

 

[BasketCase]

As much as I respect George Orwell, you are quoting a fictional novel.

So what? Theory is not fiction. Just because a book is a work of fiction doesn't mean it can't have very important realities hidden in it. The theories Orwell wrote on how to properly run a dictatorship are not fictional. Just because the cookie jar is labelled "cookies" doesn't mean there are actually cookies in it. Raid the cookie jar at my place and you'll find yourself with Jelly Bellies instead (I'm kind of a rebel that way).

That is why you must always shave with Ockham's Razor, or else you will get overly complicated conclusions like this. If everyone in the state is taking orders, then no one is making orders, and therefore, there is anarchy. And anarchy certainly doesn't produce totalitarianism.

I never said "taking orders". I said "policing". The greatest threat to a dictator is his own cabinet. The greatest threat to a ruling group comes from within the ruling group. George Orwell's theories are that, in order to prevent this threat from materializing, the rulers must police themselves and each other. If everybody is practicing self-censorship and ratting out anybody who expresses dissident ideas, you don't get anarchy--you get the perfect police state.

Now running off on a tangent about Occam's Razor: which is the simplest way to produce children? For two humans to have sex, or for one human to perform mitosis? Obviously the second one is simpler. But, of course, that's not how it actually works. "More complicated" does not always mean false. There. Occam's Razor just got busted. Occam's Razor isn't an ironclad rule (it's more like a guideline.....ARRRRRRR.....)

Edit: I demand pirate smileys!!

Any system where 14% of the population oppresses the rest of the population is destined to fail.

True. But only because all the other forms of government are also destined to eventually fail.

"Everybody who eats, dies eventually. Therefore food kills you."

 

[innonimatu]

I just saw this.

There were a lot of signs that the fall of the National Party was inevitable, and this was most recognized in the upper tier of the NP itself in the 1970s. John Vorster's government pulled its unofficial support for Rhodesia after the withdrawal of Portuguese troops from Angola and Mozambique, hoping to avoid further conflict in the region and appease the anti-Rhodesia policies of Western powers.

Hah, he hoped anything but to avoid further conflict in the region! They kept invading Angola until the late 80s. Of course, that was with the blessing of some western powers. By then South Africa too became entangled in the larger "Cold War game".

 

[amadeus]

Hah, he hoped anything but to avoid further conflict in the region! They kept invading Angola until the late 80s. Of course, that was with the blessing of some western powers. By then South Africa too became entangled in the larger "Cold War game".

Clarification: I meant conflict between South Africa and its trading partners.

The war in Angola is interesting from the U.S. perspective: on the one hand, you have the Reagan administration giving the "reformed" Maoists in UNITA weapons, and on the other, the Reagan administration helping Chevron and the Angolan government protect the oil wells. At the same time, you also have the U.S. in both the Carter and Reagan administrations chastising South Africa while encouraging it to bomb Angola. The Angola that the oil wells are in... that the American taxpayer is paying to protect. For Chevron. Against communism.

 

[Commodore]

What scares me is how accurate the game Homefront seems to be. I mean Kim Jong-Il died around the same time as in the game and his son has so far made peaceful gestures to South Korea just like in the game. Those of you that live west of the Mississipi better get ready to fight off the Greater Korean Republic!

 

[Winner]

Just heard that courts in DPRK started handing out punishments for "insufficient display of grief" following Kim Jong-il's death. Apparently not crying enough is considered a treason

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So what? Theory is not fiction. Just because a book is a work of fiction doesn't mean it can't have very important realities hidden in it.

It's just a thought experiment of totalitarianism. I'd take a work of facts over a work of fiction.

I never said "taking orders". I said "policing". The greatest threat to a dictator is his own cabinet. The greatest threat to a ruling group comes from within the ruling group. George Orwell's theories are that, in order to prevent this threat from materializing, the rulers must police themselves and each other. If everybody is practicing self-censorship and ratting out anybody who expresses dissident ideas, you don't get anarchy--you get the perfect police state.

That's true only in the sense that people at the top don't want to unsettle the status quo. They want to maintain their privileges. But that has nothing to do with propaganda. Propaganda isn't enough incentive for the ruling class.

Now running off on a tangent about Occam's Razor: which is the simplest way to produce children? For two humans to have sex, or for one human to perform mitosis?

Humans don't reproduce by mitosis. Occam's Razor applies to a set of (real) options, not just stuff you made up as a strawman.

 

[Takhisis]

So, now that the U.S. have agreed to send 240000 tons of food, how much will this do to help avert the predicted famine? How will this help Mr. Kim?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So, now that the U.S. have agreed to send 240000 tons of food, how much will this do to help avert the predicted famine? How will this help Mr. Kim?

You should already know the answer to the question, based on previous examples. Previous food aid had never helped the starvation of the North Korean people. It still goes on, as does the state of North Korea, which has been able to fund a nuclear weapons program. Can you guess how a country mired in starvation has the money to fund nuclear weapons development? Yeah, that's where they got the money.

But this American administration seems to have learned from previous mistakes and made foreign aid dependent on NK's adherence to the agreement to stop nuclear weapons production. If they renege, no more aid. At least that's my understanding of the agreement. I'm sure NK will try to violate the agreement to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

When Kim III stops looking at things it'll cease to exist.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

As long as they know that they can trade fake concessions on the nuclear issue for food aid, they have no need to reform either politically, economically... or on the nuclear issue.

In a year's time, once the new Grand Vizier has secured his power base they'll make another provocation against the south and announce they've restarted the program thus beginning the cycle all over again.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

As long as they know that they can trade fake concessions on the nuclear issue for food aid, they have no need to reform either politically, economically... or on the nuclear issue.

In a year's time, once the new Grand Vizier has secured his power base they'll make another provocation against the south and announce they've restarted the program thus beginning the cycle all over again.

That's my take as well. These regimes rarely change because the instruments of their power are so entrenched that it takes real courage from a strong leader to shake things up. Kim Jong Un is not likely to be that hero.