The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

@Hygro: not dismissing the forum, just saying I am offering the perspective. Don't care if anyone believes me, because you have all made up your minds about DPRK and that is a shame..

But that isn't actually true, and I invite you to see this. What I will suggest is you've made up your mind about how other people think politically, and I think you'll find the framework is awfully similar to a reflection of how you think about politics. But I don't think about politics remotely similarly in the way that you do. I'm not talking about political bents and issues, I'm literally talking about the thoughts/feelings mechanisms with which we actually process information.
 
@Hygro: not dismissing the forum, just saying I am offering the perspective. Don't care if anyone believes me, because you have all made up your minds about DPRK and that is a shame.

@Alassius: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War cites official communiques that state explicity the Air Force had "run out of targets" and had bombed every structure in the North they could.

But, still, those people are dead. Those buildings were destroyed.

All of the posters save Gary Childress and Cheezy have taken the mainstream media allegations of DPRK as gospel and you have already made up your minds.

Like I said, I can only put the data out there. I have no axe to grind.

America has a far worseoff, far less happier population. Quote me, I just said it on the internet.

So, you are agreeing that you cannot find a source for that specific quote? How do you know the communique was talking about "every structure in the North", rather than, say, "militarily valuable" buildings? Did you fill in the blank yourself?

I have made up my mind because I have actually lived in one of those countries. I saw the "greenery of the fields, children playing at the roadside, soldiers returning home to their villages for a short home-leave, women facing the sun at dusk". Heck I was one of those children. But I didn't see colorful traditional dresses. I saw dirty, thick clothes with patches all over. You didn't even have to see, you could smell it from twenty feet away - washing machines were a luxury that you might get one when you got married, maybe. I saw a 17" colour TV set that was the envy of my neighbours. My dad got it using his guanxi. I saw people frying congealed pig blood because it tasted somewhat like meat. I saw Magnum ice cream that I wanted so much but never got one, because it was so expensive. I saw old houses built without running water or flush toilets. I saw worker's dormitories that were dark, damp, and smelly. Dormitories where an entire floor - maybe twenty people - shared two toilets, a few sinks, and no kitchen. People cooked on coal stoves in the corridor because their rooms were just big enough for a bed. There was no ventilation other than the door, which of course had to be kept closed during the winter, because there was no heating. I saw the public showers with no stalls, no curtains, just pipes smelled of rust. I saw the public baths where they changed the water once a day - and they were always full of people. Where else were you going to take a bath if you didn't even have a flush toilet at your home? I saw those public toilets in factories and schools that were basically a open cesspool half covered by concrete with slots to squat on. In winter the urine on the floor would freeze, and you could easily slip.

But sure, you could say we were happy. Maybe even happier than the Americans. But I know for a fact that it was the bliss of ignorance. We were happy with life because we didn't know it could be better. And we were plenty unhappy about life too. We were meticulous about every penny because we had so few of it. We haggled with peddlers over the price of one spring onion. We fought with our colleagues over a raise that let you buy another 5 pounds of pork a month. And we fought really, really hard over such fantastic opportunities to move in those new purpose-built one-bedroom flats with running water (that was cut off during the day), flush toilet (still no shower), and central heating. But that was already the late eighties, a decade after we've had enough with a planned economy.

That was the same time we learnt about American life. We've literally just discovered heaven. For twenty years the phrase "going abroad" meant an escape to paradise, where everyone is so rich that nobody needs to worry about the price of one spring onion. It was only recently that the phrase lost much of the snobbishness associated with it, because in the big cities we're having it nearly as good or happy as the Americans. We don't have to go abroad any more to live in paradise. And certainly we don't want to go back to the life in the collective dormitories.

That's what I saw with my eyes. Now what have you seen to make you think "America has a far worseoff, far less happier population"?
 
I'm sorry, Hygro, but what again is your point?

My generation saw the world's largest land mass, once a mighty and productive socialist republic, fall flat on its face because it was soft on its own communism and allowed itself to fall prey to "Great Power Chauvanism" and play the capitalist game with socialist production.

My generation also saw the US go from a creditor nation to a debtor nation; saw a once productive workforce restratified to service work and unemployment and we witnessed the largest accumulation of wealth into the fewest hands EVER.

Capitalism is destroying the planet and its people, it has rendered all that was once near and dear into commodities.

You know, maybe, though I doubt it, the DPRK can't take care of its people... it has been under economic blockade for decades, after all.

But the US CAN and it does NOT take care of its people.

I think that is the bigger crime.

Not "Black and White," but "Right and Wrong."

Edit: as for "your" generation and its skepticism... I am working with six college students who, when they graduate, will be joining our movement full-time. That's just little old me, in one place.

Capitalism is now a conscious entity out to destroy everything? This is part of the binary thinking that Hygro is referring to. In order to figure humans out, humans have come up with some half truth concepts that pit socialism and capitalism against each other. They both have great merits and will actually work if done properly. Now if humans did not use terms like oppression and greed to add to either system of thought, either system can be used for the greater good. Owning property is not bad if one views it as being good stewards of what is assigned to them and not using material wealth in a greedy manner, but perhaps this is the wrong thread to defend it in. It is however wrong to assign greed and oppression as blanket qualifiers just to mislead people in a binary manner.
 
@Hygro: I apologize for my generalized statement. Thank you for pointing that out. It is, however, in my nature to distrust "Western News Sources" in their take on anything that is not entertainment.

My bias is class warfare. I am mislocating my class enemy when I.denegrate you guys, my on-line CFC pals.

And for that I also apologize.
 
@Hygro: I apologize for my generalized statement. Thank you for pointing that out. It is, however, in my nature to distrust "Western News Sources" in their take on anything that is not entertainment.

My bias is class warfare. I am mislocating my class enemy when I.denegrate you guys, my on-line CFC pals.

And for that I also apologize.
Aw, thanks man, I came to this thread to apologize myself. You're the only one here articulating your specific viewpoint with you style, I don't want to badger you for it. But if I do it again, know it's not personal antagonism :p And to everyone, feel free to tell me off if I get on your case. I snarked on a close friend's tweet last morning he tagged me into and then did terribly on an econ final this afternoon so it's all my own thing).


@Alassius, thank you for posting that. Are you okay with us asking which country you're talking about and when?
 
@Alassius, thank you for posting that. Are you okay with us asking which country you're talking about and when?

China. I was born in '81. The economic reform did not touch the inland city I was from until the nineties. My dad took vasectomy to get us a 490 sq ft one bedroom flat with plumbing, mutilating himself because it was a "promotion" for the one-child policy and that was the only way I could have a decent place to live.

Any other kind is exceedingly rare.

No. You could, for example, move to a completely strange country, and make a life out of it. You'll be happy because it's what you have achieved and you'll treasure what you have. Or you could set up a goal, for example help people, do volunteer work, organise workers, and so on. You can choose what you want with your life. You get happiness when you achieve your goal. Or you could be happy with a simple life, which is really, really easy if you're born in the right country. I know plenty of people who live a "poor" life by choice, so much so that you can't offer to pay for a restaurant bill because it insults their pride. That is a materially poor but spiritually rich life, and that's happiness. They wouldn't take it if you offer them a gold mine. When you live an actual poor life not by your choice, you clinch to every penny you can get. You'll laugh at the idea of passing on a gold mine because that'd seem like rich men's hypocrisy to you.
 
China. I was born in '81. The economic reform did not touch the inland city I was from until the nineties. My dad took vasectomy to get us a 490 sq ft one bedroom flat with plumbing, mutilating himself because it was a "promotion" for the one-child policy and that was the only way I could have a decent place to live.

That's some real intense stuff, man. I appreciate you giving your account.
 
No. You could, for example, move to a completely strange country, and make a life out of it. You'll be happy because it's what you have achieved and you'll treasure what you have. Or you could set up a goal, for example help people, do volunteer work, organise workers, and so on. You can choose what you want with your life. You get happiness when you achieve your goal. Or you could be happy with a simple life, which is really, really easy if you're born in the right country. I know plenty of people who live a "poor" life by choice, so much so that you can't offer to pay for a restaurant bill because it insults their pride. That is a materially poor but spiritually rich life, and that's happiness. They wouldn't take it if you offer them a gold mine. When you live an actual poor life not by your choice, you clinch to every penny you can get. You'll laugh at the idea of passing on a gold mine because that'd seem like rich men's hypocrisy to you.

It would be very much appreciated if you did not assume that everyone in First World capitalist countries is rich. I don't need one of the strongest defenders of capitalism on these forums to lecture me about clinching pennies and being happy with what you've managed to accomplish, or trying to leave your home country to go someplace better. Because I have worked very hard to accomplish what I have and to get what I have. But even fighting against the currents of capitalism, I lack the egotism to claim that I did all that by myself, even if it feels like that sometimes.

Now take your materially poor but spiritually rich life lectures and turn them back around on the society you hate so much, and realize what a hypocrite you are.
 
It would be very much appreciated if you did not assume that everyone in First World capitalist countries is rich. I don't need one of the strongest defenders of capitalism on these forums to lecture me about clinching pennies and being happy with what you've managed to accomplish, or trying to leave your home country to go someplace better. Because I have worked very hard to accomplish what I have and to get what I have. But even fighting against the currents of capitalism, I lack the egotism to claim that I did all that by myself, even if it feels like that sometimes.

Now take your materially poor but spiritually rich life lectures and turn them back around on the society you hate so much, and realize what a hypocrite you are.

Are you claiming you aren't happy, or are you claiming that none of the materially poor but spiritually rich people are happy?
 
Are you claiming you aren't happy, or are you claiming that none of the materially poor but spiritually rich people are happy?

I'm claiming that being happy isn't simply a "choice one makes" to spite all worldly conditions suggesting one should feel otherwise; but if it were, then your lecture about how "I can be quite happy being poor under capitalism, if only I want to" applies equally to poverty under the socialism you can do nothing but slander.

You truly know nothing of the evils of capitalism if this is your perception of the life of the poor. It's their own damn fault they're sad, they should just learn to be spiritually happy with few possessions. That's the virtuous life. What hogwash. If you actually believed a word of that you would have never left China, and if you did, you would not protect the structural greed and exploitation here one iota.
 
I'm claiming that being happy isn't simply a "choice one makes" to spite all worldly conditions suggesting one should feel otherwise; but if it were, then your lecture about how "I can be quite happy being poor under capitalism, if only I want to" applies equally to poverty under the socialism you can do nothing but slander.

You truly know nothing of the evils of capitalism if this is your perception of the life of the poor. It's their own damn fault they're sad, they should just learn to be spiritually happy with few possessions. That's the virtuous life. What hogwash. If you actually believed a word of that you would have never left China, and if you did, you would not protect structural greed and exploitation.

I'm not a defender of capitalism. I'll bet that I know more of actual cases of the evils of capitalism than you do. I'm from a country running a cutthroat Victorian capitalist economy, remember? I'm simply against Marxism and Stalinism because I don't see those as solutions to the evils of capitalism. They are much worse.

You think it applies equally to poverty because you haven't seen the people under socialism. I've seen both. You don't understand the difference between choosing to be poor and being forced to be poor. Not everyone want to choose to be poor. Those that don't would need the society to give them a way to become affluent. Those that do have a way to become rich, but choose to stay poor, are given a genuine choice. That is what makes their choice honourable. They choose not to be greedy when they could. This choice leads to happiness because it's a genuine choice, because they could have chosen a different way. Are you going to claim that this is not true happiness?

Under Stalinism most people weren't greedy only when they couldn't be. That was not a real choice, and if given an opportunity, they would choose to be greedy. Plenty of the Chinese did after the reforms. Those choose to be poor in the rich world would not.

I'm not saying that all poor people were poor because they chose to. Those who chose to are and probably will always be a tiny minority. But this tiny minority have their pride and happiness that is not a result of ignorance. They are not a "role model" in the sense that I think everyone should be like that. Rather, their lifestyle is merely one of the many possible ways you can have happiness under capitalism.

Do the same exist under Stalinism? Maybe. But just like under capitalism, they will be a tiny minority. Their way of life would not apply equally to the vast majority of poor people who did not choose to.

But that's where Stalinism is much worse than capitalism. For all its faults, the life of a poor man under capitalism is much better materially than under Stalinism, even before welfare. When a person doesn't want to be poor, he'll most certainly pick capitalism over Stalinism. That's what the vast majority of the Chinese did.
 
I'm not a defender of capitalism. I'll bet that I know more of actual cases of the evils of capitalism than you do. I'm from a country running a cutthroat Victorian capitalist economy, remember? I'm simply against Marxism and Stalinism because I don't see those as solutions to the evils of capitalism. They are much worse.

This statement contradicts itself.

Y You don't understand the difference between choosing to be poor and being forced to be poor.

No, you don't understand the difference.

This whole post is capitalist apology and victim-blaming. Stop pretending to be impartial.
 

He's not defending capitalism, he just thinks it's the best system out there. It's the same "logical and impartial" card that conservatives love to play. I'm not surprised to find it in the repertoire of such a Popper adulator as Alassius; his writing is laced with it, especially the theory surrounding The Open Society. He's not pro-capitalism or pro-liberalism, of course not. That would be too blatantly picking sides. But if one establishes standards which only ideology could possibly meet, then that's the exact same thing. It's like when there's a job opening, the qualifications of which can only be met by one person: the person they want to take the job, but have to technically put on the general job market for all applicants, to keep up appearances of fairness.
 
I see your point but I don't think that follows. He specifically cited Marxism and Stalinism (and implied Maoism) as unacceptable. But depending on how Marxism is meant, and by context I think we can hazard a guess, Alassius is saying that state run, top down 20th century "communism" is oppressive and a bad way of organizing a society.

There are other Marxian and non-Marxian post-capitalism models out there as well. I for one am a fan of the coolocracy. :cool:

The coolosmology :cooool:
 
There are other Marxian and non-Marxian post-capitalism models out there as well.

Do you think "capitalism" constitutes an era?
 
I think it constitutes a thing from which another thing can grow out of that supplants it.
 
This statement contradicts itself.



No, you don't understand the difference.

This whole post is capitalist apology and victim-blaming. Stop pretending to be impartial.

Can one be happy choosing to embody socialism and still live in a capitalistic society? Is it not bliss knowing you do not have to accept the comforts of said society, and forge your own existence therein?
 
I think it constitutes a thing from which another thing can grow out of that supplants it.

That "thing" is socialism. But you can call it what you want, since the process is happening, we just gave it a name.

As distribution and accumulation becomes more centralized (Wal-Mart, Chase Bank) the "socialization" of production has happened -- just with private ownership of those means.
Now, we have the "corporation, which is social, imo, the difference being who gets to keep the "profit," and who has controlling interest.

Under socialism, that "profit" (we call is surplus value -- unpaid labor) goes back to society, is socially owned.
 
Back
Top Bottom