Dick Morris and North Korea | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
Human rights imperialism isn't so bad (none / 0)
I think if there's one type of imperialism that I would be OK with it's human rights imperialism. It's the most benign (even more so than cultural imperialism). I don't see how any society anywhere in the world would be worse off if it were governed by people who respected religious freedom, believed in pluralism and the right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness, etc.

I understand your point about not everyone agreeing with the Western notion of individual rights/freedoms. In fact, I would agree with you that some socities have radically different ideas about things like women's rights. But I'm not advocating imposing the Western notion of women's rights on North Korea because I am aware that women's rights is not a universal value.

Lets just start with one basic universal value: religious freedom. The freedom to worship freely is a universal value, in my opinion. I'm not a moral absolutist, but I'm not a moral relativist either. Only tyrants try to restrict freedom of religion. Just because tyrants don't believe in it does not mean that it's not a universal value.

I'm sure the North Koreans (even if they are non-believers) would rather live in a state that allows freedom of worship; actually, I don't know that for a fact... but I would venture a guess. I have a hard time imagining malnourished folks in labour camps protesting a violation of their soviegnty. Don't they have more important things to worry about? Like the fact that their children aren't healthy?

by saad on 08/07/2009 05:12:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No contradiction (none / 0)
While I agree that human rights discourse originated in the West, I don't think that that necessarily makes it Western. In fact, I would argue that Western philosophers were able to flesh out human rights discourse after it was dreamed up in Arabia.

Centuries before they started talking about human rights in the West, it was Muhammad who brought about various social reforms (e.g. freeing slaves, establishing the rights of women and ethnic minorities, banning female infanticide, fighting against exploitation of the poor, etc.)

According to the historian Bernard Lewis, Muhammad "denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents." The Arabs came up with capitalism even before the West. So these are not just Western values. I think he fact that Arabs reached the same conclusions as Westerners on the human rights issues supports my argument that the values are indeed universal.

As for the contradiction, I think that all cultures believe in basic rights for women (e.g. a woman's right to life). But non-Western cultures may disagree with the West on minor issues like whether a woman should be entitled to half her husband's money in the event of a divorce. This is to be expected since all cultures are different. But there are a few core values that we all believe in. And these core values (that we can all agree on) should be the ones that we promote (not impose).

As for Saudi Arabia, like I said, tyrants don't believe in the universal values. Whether it's the House of Saud or Kim Jong-il, the fact that they don't value freedom of religion does not mean that it's not a universal value. Universal values, while embraced by the majority, will always be opposed by a power-hungry minority.

As for the people in the camps in North Korea, just because they don't know that they could be living a better life does not mean that they would not enjoy living a better life. If they could be exposed to how we live in the West, I don't think they would reject it.

by saad on 08/07/2009 07:40:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Variations of liberalism (none / 0)
You're right about the fact that most Saudis do not believe that all religions are equal. Accepting all religions as equal would be the equivalent of accepting all religions as true (or valid). But I would imagine that nearly every person of faith sees his/her faith tradition as better than the rest. This does not imply that every person of faith would restrict other faith traditions from being practiced.

The Shah of Iran was overthrown by people who had different agendas. The clerics hated him because he was a secular Westernizer, and the leftists hated him because he was corrupt and repressive. The people supported Khomeini because he was able to voice what every felt about the Shah, but this does not mean that the people believed in Khomeini's idea of how Iran should be governed.

It is not just the youth in Iran that dislike the regime; even the generation that carried out the revolution are disappointed today by the lack of openness in Iran. I don't mean to say that liberalism in Iran is the same as liberalism in the West. But Iranians would have appreciated a little bit more academic freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, etc.

The people's support for Khomeini did not indicate that Iranians preferred a more closed society. After Khomeini assumed power, he changed; prior to the revolution, he had said that he would not enter politics, but after the revolution, he appointed himself Supreme Leader.

Khomeini's version of an Islamic Republic was different from his many of his associates' version (and his associates included Montazeri, Rafsanjani, and Mousavi). Indeed it seems Khomeini's vision differed from what the vast majority of Iranians want. The Shah was replaced by Khomeini because the people of Iran were led to believe (by Khomeini) that Iran would become a more open society after the revolution.

I think that restricting freedom of expression does not automatically make a government evil. Tyrannical perhaps (depending on the breadth of the restrictions), but not evil. But accumulating wealth at the expense of others cannot be considered ethical by the standards of even a non-Western culture. If the US is to blame for the low standard of living in North Korea, then there is no reason why Kim Jong-il should also not partake in the poverty. But instead, he lives a life of luxury while others starve. How does one justify his corruption?

by saad on 08/08/2009 08:06:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nothing to be proud of. (none / 0)
Am I the one assuming a whole lot? From the looks of it, you are the one who is assuming that the average North Korean is just fine and dandy with the way (s)he lives.

And although unfettered capitalism can lead to people accumulating wealth at the expense of others (e.g. the CEO's of various corporations in the US and their golden parachutes), that is not what capitalism is about. Capitalism is about encouraging entrepreneurship so that: (i) the entrepreneur gets a return on his investment, and (ii) the worker is paid a suitable wage for his labour. In North Korea, Kim Jong-il is getting everything and the workers are getting nothing. This isn't capitalism.

I am not criticizing North Korean culture (which is probably centuries old). I am critical of Stalinism in North Korea (which is less than a hundred years old). Stalinism - a 20th century ideology - should not be equated with ancient North Korean culture. So I am not judging North Korea by liberal Western standards. I am judging it by the standards that it has set for itself.

It claims to follow Marxism, does it not? But according to Marxist-Leninist thought, human progress is an important goal. Now, different people would have different ideas as to what constitutes progress, and they would come up with different ways of achieving progress. But progress has always been a goal of Marxist-Leninism. And although Stalinism is quite different from Marxist-Leninism, human progress has also been one of its goals.

Even Maoism has had progress as its goal. So if all 3 ideologies attach importance to the progress of human civilization, then it would seem to an outside observer (like myself) that North Korea is not abiding by its own ideology. If a government is going to claim to be Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist /Maoist, for goodness sake it should at least try to stay true to its principles.

Is North Korea progressing in any way, shape, or form? The Soviets defined progress as scientific and technological advancement. So even though they did things that hindered their country's progress (such as killing millions of intellectuals), progress was still their goal. And they were able to achieve it. Mao Zedong was interested in progress as well. So even though millions died in his Cultural Revolution, China was still able to progress.

We judge progress not just by the methods involved, but also by the results. Castro has undertaken many policies that have hindered Cuba's progress. But look at the results. Cuba has been able to create a good education system and a good health care system. I'm not sure what to say about the Khmer Rouge because we did not get to see the long-term results of their policies in Cambodia. But Pol Pot, like Mao, was anti-intellectual. They both imprisoned and/or killed scholars... as did Kim Il-sung and his son, Kim Jong-il. But Mao, Stalin, and Castro were still able to achieve progress in spite of their anti-progress actions.

But North Korea has not been able to achieve progress. I am not criticizing North Korean culture, nor am I criticizing Marxist-Leninism. I am not assessing North Korean progress within a Western liberal framework. I am assessing North Korean progress within its own Communist framework. We in the West would define progress as economic progress, social progress, technological accomplishments. But that bar is set too high, and so we cannot judge North Korea according to the Western criteria. I'm just saying that North Korea has little to be proud of, regardless of what criteria we judge it by.  

by saad on 08/08/2009 01:51:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Self-defence? (none / 0)
Ah, I see. So North Korea has progressed in self-defence. Just because it hasn't been attacked yet you believe it is secure from an invasion. During the period between 1991 and 2003, Iraq wasn't invaded either. There were occasional air strikes but no invasion. Did this mean that Iraq had also progressed in self-defence between 1991 and 2003? Was Iraq secure from invasion between 1991 and 2003? From what I have witnessed 2003 until now, Iraq had not progressed very much in self-defence. Iran has not been invaded yet, and neither has Sudan. But I'm not sure how much either of them has progressed in self-defence.

I'm not denying that capitalism can be unfair. Exploitation takes place all over the world, has been taking place all over the world for centuries, and will probably continue to take place all over the world. And this is why governments in the West establish a minimum wage, and workers form unions to protect their interests. Are there any labour unions in North Korea? What's the minimum wage like over there? You cannot compare the exploitation that takes place in a capitalist system to what goes on in the communist system in North Korea without taking into account the tremendous differences in both systems.

Based on my interpretation of what you said, I was under the impression that you had accused me of cultural imperialism. So I wanted to set the record straight by saying that I do not believe that Western culture is superior to ancient North Korean culture; however, Western political and economic thought is undoubtedly superior to Communism. The proof is in the pudding. Communism didn't work. I never said that I was against the North Korean way of doing things. I was against the Communist way of doing things. This not cultural imperialism because Communism originated in the West, not Asia.  

by saad on 08/08/2009 05:25:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Total cop out. (none / 0)
You're right. Exploitation that occurs in a capitalist system is not that much different from exploitation that occurs in a communist system. But the difference still exists, even if it is minute. The capitalist system does provide a little bit more freedom than the communist system. With regards to the minimum wage and unions, one would have to blame short-sighted government policies and special interests, not capitalism.

Arguing that genuine communism never existed is like saying genuine capitalism has never existed. Both capitalist and communist political/economic theorists have had their ideas distorted throughout the last century. But the only way in which we can measure which ideas worked best is to look at the evidence. At one time, about a third of the world was communist, was it not? It seems that most of the countries that used to be communist (aside from Cuba and North Korea) have decided to embrace free-market capitalism. Even China, under the leadership of Den Xiaoping, initiated some major economic reforms in the 1980's because it had had enough of communism.

We haven't seen very many formerly capitalist countries turn communist. The evolution has been fairly uniform around the world (i.e. communist to capitalist). So could you please explain to me how virtually every country that tried communism got it wrong? Did none of them pay attention to what Marx said actually said? To argue that every communist government misunderstood Marx's writing is a total cop out.  

by saad on 08/08/2009 06:06:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Extreme cases. (none / 0)
You are taking the most extreme cases of capitalism and presenting them as proof that capitalism equals exploitation. Pinochet and Suharto were extremists. The US has a capitalist system, its human rights record is pretty incredible, and it doesn't kill millions of its own citizens to maintain its capitalist system. The US does treat the citizens of the developing world poorly, but then so do the leaders of those developing countries.

I agree with Naomi Klein's assertion that neo-liberals have pushed for de-regulation whenever there has been a major crisis. This has happened around the world and in the US (e.g. 9/11, Katrina). But again, you are using a straw man so that you can attack capitalism better. Guys like Milton Friedman and Francis Fukuyama were extremists; they were ideologues. Being in favour of capitalism and being in favour of fair trade and workers' rights are not mutually exclusive.

The exploitation and other negative effects of capitalism can be mitigated by enacting policies that protect the worker while still maintaining a system where everyone has the freedom to prosper. Overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with a communist one is not the answer. Planned economies lead to inefficiency since the workers do not have the incentive to work hard. And this causes economic stagnation.

And creating a classless society is very difficult, if not impossible. The state bureaucrats will almost always become the new appropriators of the surplus. We see similar outcomes in every nation regardless of whether the nation is socialist or capitalist. Under the communist systems, it's the state bureaucrats. Under the capitalist system, it's the corporations.

by saad on 08/08/2009 07:04:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Dick Morris and North Korea | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)