08/06/2009 07:12:54 PM EST

Dick Morris and North Korea

posted by saad

I have a couple of thoughts on Dick Morris's comments on the American reporters who just got released after spending a few weeks in captivity in North Korea.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
I noticed that he said something along the lines of, "maybe they should have to live with the consequences of their decision." First of all, the two reporters were not actually in North Korea when they were kidnapped. They were on the Chinese side of the border, and they were snatched by the North Koreans.

I'm not sure how this happened; I would have thought that both China and North Korea would have a lot of security along their border. So the reporters did not make the decision to go to North Korea. So they should not have to live with any consequences.

Secondly, it is the job of a reporter to report... sometimes from dangerous places. One of the problems with North Korea is that it exercises such tight control over the media that it is almost impossible for the rest of the world to know what in the world is going on in North Korea. There is tremendous suffering taking place there. Kids are starving.

And not just kids... everybody is starving (except for Kim Jong-il and a select few). But these reports will not get to the outside world unless reporters from the outside world are willing to go inside North Korea. Again, the two reporters had not gone inside North Korea but they still deserve praise for doing what a reporter is supposed to do.

If a reporter gets caught inside North Korea, it is wrong to blame the reporter (as Dick Morris did). Kim Jong-il and his cronies are to blame. They are the ones causing tremendous harm to millions of ordinary people in North Korea. And Kim is trying to prevent word from getting out.

Unless journalists can be given a guarantee that their government will come to their rescue in the event that they get caught inside North Korea, why would a journalist be willing to risk his/her life reporting on all the injustices that are taking place inside that country?

And if no journalist is willing to risk his/her life reporting from North Korea, then the North Korean people will continue to starve. Reporting creates awareness... and awareness (sometimes) brings change. I cannot figure out what is going on inside Dick Morris's mind.

< Beat your Conservative friends to the punch | Bush:Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog >
 Display:
Dick Morris and North Korea | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden)
Agreed again, Saad (none / 0)
Agreed, on all points.

Here's what's going through Morris' mind -

<republicanmode>
Cute female reporters released from NK through diplomacy of Democratic Administration, and visit by Democratic ex-President = Favorable publicity for Democrats = BAD BAD BAD OMG NO NO!

QUICK, think of something to criticize, shit shit shit there's nothing, SCREW IT, make something up!
</republicanmode>

by RedPossum on 08/06/2009 08:11:59 PM EST

So says the toe sucker? (none / 0)
"maybe they should have to live with the consequences of their decision."

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 08/06/2009 08:59:07 PM EST

what "journalists"? (none / 0)

i hope you are not naive enough to assume that american "journalists" were working in china, close enough to the north korean border, so that they could be easily kidnapped.

anyone with an above-retard-level i.q. would know that "journalist" is simply a cover for "cia-operative".

by neo on 08/06/2009 08:59:56 PM EST

hey neo (none / 0)
Hey

Cool how you can login from Pyongyang and mask your IP like that.

by RedPossum on 08/06/2009 09:10:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmm... (none / 0)
neo, you are either:

(a) kidding,
(b) a conspiracy theorist, or
(c) Kim Jong-il

I am going to pretend like your comment is a serious one... so I'll try my best to respond in a serious fashion.

Here goes:

North Korea is a rogue regime. Do you know what rogue regimes do to spies, neo? They kill them. They don't release them during a meeting with Bill Clinton. The 2 reporters worked for Current TV. Have you heard of Current TV, neo? They send reporters into closed societies (e.g. Iran) to see what regular guys and gals are up to.

The 2 reporters were not doing anything out of the ordinary. One of them is Laura Ling. She is the sister of Lisa Ling. Do you believe that Lisa Ling as a spy as well, neo? I remember seeing Lisa on Oprah a few years ago... she was talking about the time she visited a prison and saw a guy jerking off in his cell. Why did she visit the prison? Because that is what reporters do, neo. They report.

Did you know that Lisa Ling used to be on The View, neo? Maybe you think that the ladies of The View are spies too. Maybe you believe that Sherri Shepherd doesn't actually believe that the world is not round... maybe that's just her CIA persona talking.

Neo, perhaps you have read about the CIA overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. American spies were able to engineer the overthrow by paying off Iranians to stage demonstrations against Mossadeq. What I'm trying to say is that you need people on the ground to actually do your dirty work for you. Do you really believe that a regular Joe in North Korea can be used to engineer Kim's overthrow?

First off, North Koreans are malnourished. As John McCain said in one of the Presidential debates, "The average South Korean is 3 inches taller than the average North Korean." You gotta be physically fit (kinda sorta) in order to topple Kim Jong-il, who has one of the largest armies in the world. Starving North Koreans toiling away in labour camps cannot be used to topple anybody.

Neo, are you not aware that if/when US spies get caught behind enemy lines, the US government disavows all knowledge of the mission that those spies had been sent on? The US government does not try to negotiate the release of its spies. Have you ever watched The Rock? Ed Harris plays General Frank Hummel, a disgruntled Marine of the Force Recon.

He is disgruntled because the US government sends elite teams that are highly trained in unconventional warfare (such as Army Special Forces, Green Berets, Delta Force, SEALs, Force Recon, etc.) to carry our black ops (or black operations) deep into enemy territory. This when these special operations units are sent into carry out acts of sabotage and/or reconnaissance... illegally.

Yeah, they're illegal... and that's why the US government cannot admit to sending them if they happen to get caught (e.g. US operations in southern China during the Vietnam War). And so the soldiers end up being killed. And their bodies are not returned. And so they're not able to get a proper military burial. And their families are told fairy tales about what happened to them. And they're paid little in compensation.

And this is why General Frank Hummel (played by Ed Harris) is mad. Anyway, he takes a bunch of hostages at Alcatraz island and threatens to fire VX nerve gas into the Bay Area unless the US government pays him a hundred million dollars in compensation for the families of the soldiers that died in the black ops under Hummel's command.

And Nicolas Cage (who plays a chemical weapons expert) and Sean Connery (who plays an aging SAS operative) are the only ones who can stop Hummel. It's a pretty cool movie. You should rent it. Getting back to the point, the US does not ask rogue regimes to hand over its operatives after they have been caught trying to overthrow the rogue regime.  

by saad on 08/06/2009 10:19:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
come on... (none / 0)
Post your source(s) saad. (see my other post)

by jimmyjames on 08/06/2009 10:28:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's where you went wrong. (none / 0)
I am going to pretend like your comment is a serious one

The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars. -Carl Sagan

by aidbo on 08/07/2009 03:43:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Post your source (none / 0)
Where did you confirm that they were not inside North Korea? Post the links if you are serious, otherwise, shut the fuck up... j/k.

Seriously, if they were in China, and were kidnapped, then why don't we see Clinton(s) and Obama negotiating with China about this violation of their border..?

If some foreigners were in the US and got kidnapped by the Mexican government, do you really think Obama would, or should, sit on the side and say "that's between you and Mexico"?

If what you are saying is true, then their unwillingness to help bolsters the concern that China is not our ally. This should be a huge concern considering they are buying up the US like its candy before Halloween.

by jimmyjames on 08/06/2009 10:26:17 PM EST

Just because... (none / 0)

North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship, does not mean that the journalists did not enter the country illegally. It is not difficult to do so, all you have to do is go to certain points along the Yalu River and cross. Untold thousands of NK's cross that river to escape to China and not only that there is a an import/export trade of contraband into the country via that route. Indeed, I remember a nuance in Hillary Clinton's statements regarding the journalists. When they were first arrested, the charge that they illegally entered was "ridiculous", but after a while Clinton changed tact, implicitly accepting that they did break the law by not questioning the validity of the charges--if I can remember the youtube clip or article I read that from I will post it. 


Saad you are making a lot of value-judgements that is based more on who and what you think is 'right' than what is legal. Just because you are a reporter does not mean you are immune to laws, whether you like it or not, North Korea does not allow entry of anyone unless specifically sanctioned. Reporters are just like anyone else, they have to respect the laws of the state they are reporting on, otherwise they are just as rogue as the regime they are reporting on. Sorry, but Morris I think is more right than wrong, if you break a law, especially if it was willfully done, you do deserve to face the consequences of your actions. These two ladies were damned lucky they had the connections they did...

by CanCan on 08/07/2009 12:05:08 AM EST

Journalists lack diplomatic immunity. (none / 2)
In a totalitarian regime, journalists are the first people sent to the reeducation camps.

Consider this an object lesson for socialists.

by Hugh Everett on 08/07/2009 07:05:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay... (none / 0)
Am I being asked to defend a reporter's right to tell the truth about a rogue regime (not to mention a reporter's right to life, and a reporter's right not to be imprisoned by the rogue regime for telling the truth about the rogue regime)? Is Stalinism in vogue these days?

I think it was former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who said that sovereignty has its limits, and he wasn't exactly a neo-conservative. I am fairly non-interventionist, but I partially agree with Christopher Hitchens when he said that a country loses its sovereignty when (i) it commits genocide, (ii) it sponsors terrorism, and (iii) when it proliferates nukes. I disagree with Hitchens on the last one, but I agree with the first two.

If a rogue regime does not observe internationally agreed upon laws, then it really should not be shocked when members of the international community do not respect its laws either. On a side note, I think that when people are starving, respecting laws should be the last thing on our minds.

As for which side of the border the reporters were on, it seems that there's a possibility that the two actually had crossed into North Korea (illegally). But that still doesn't make their actions wrong. Non-interventionism is not very progressive when millions are going hungry every night.  

by saad on 08/07/2009 04:22:43 AM EST

The point about 'living with the consequences' was (none / 0)
based on them choosing to take the risk. Your original attack on Dick Morris, countered that by saying they did not choose to enter the country... now you concede they might have, but continue whining like you think good intentions justify everything.

Choices sometimes have consequences and Dick Morris appears to think that saving those girls is going to have greater consequences. I am not psychic, but will speculate further that when he says it will bolster this rogue regime, he is demonstrating that he is against them, and that includes what they do to those people.

What if he is right? And now that the journalists are gone all of those millions of starving people are saying "They just came and took the two girls and left us here to starve." And if you are now saying 'non-interventionism is not very progressive' then why stop there? Why not invade them and take out the corrupt leader? Now that a reason to take action is completely off the table, we can be sure nothing will be done to help the 'millions going hungry every night' in the near future. And the US apologizing for these girls (which you maintain were doing the right thing - so why should anyone apologize for it?) in front of the international community may very well be interpreted as weakness, and a vulnerability that can be exploited further - only time will tell if Morris was correct.

by jimmyjames on 08/07/2009 02:30:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
X (none / 0)

"I think it was former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who said that sovereignty has its limits, and he wasn't exactly a neo-conservative. I am fairly non-interventionist, but I partially agree with Christopher Hitchens when he said that a country loses its sovereignty when (i) it commits genocide, (ii) it sponsors terrorism, and (iii) when it proliferates nukes. I disagree with Hitchens on the last one, but I agree with the first two."


That is a very slippery slope towards a 'human rights imperialism', the fact is that you have a very particular notion of what is right and what is wrong, because you are politically and ethically articulated from a liberal-Western discourse. Not everyone in the world agrees with the values you hold dear, to many people sovereignty of the nation-state is greater than the individual rights you support. Not everyone sees themselves as individuals as we do here in the West and this is where you get into real problems about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. The real question becomes, who decides what allows a state to lose its sovereignty? For instance on the issue of 'terrorism', terrorism for who? Will we hold any of the UNSC P5 members accountable for their support for 'terrorism'? 


Genocide is the only one of the three criteria that Hitchen's lays out when a state's sovereignty can be forfeited according to the UN Charter. Is North Korea engaging in a genocide? No, not according to the definition of genocide, which is a purposeful mass murder of a particular group of people for political ends. North Korea argues that the people are starving because of American-led sanctions on the country that deny the country access to international markets and dependent on aid. So, its not so cut and dry as it may seem to you. 


"If a rogue regime does not observe internationally agreed upon laws, then it really should not be shocked when members of the international community do not respect its laws either."


How far does this go? The US certainly did not respect international law, should people be breaking American laws willy-nilly because of it? It would be chaos, the US should be sanctioned for its invasion of Iraq for causing the international system to go into a state of systemic confusion and chaos, but internally you need order. International law and domestic law are not commensurate as you want them to be. The purpose of state sovereignty is for states to determine their own laws in accordance with their own values and experiences; if you happen to dislike one states set of laws then advocate for it to change but nothing more, especially not what Hitchen's wants to do, a global human rights war.  


"As for which side of the border the reporters were on, it seems that there's a possibility that the two actually had crossed into North Korea (illegally). But that still doesn't make their actions wrong."


Yes, because you are disrespecting the laws of another state. It does not matter if you dislike the state, it is still their laws. It is the basic notion of the rule of law that applies here, everyone is subject to the rule of law no matter how illegitimate it may seem, because it is the law that keeps society functioning. These two women, if they did enter illegally and it seems they did, should have been punished for their crimes. Remember, Socrates could have escaped the death penalty for his crimes, but he did not because he understood that he lived by the law and now he must suffer under it. Now if you intend to break the law that is ok, you are able to do so, but that comes with a very hefty price that you must be wiling to pay if you are going to break that law. 

by CanCan on 08/07/2009 03:19:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
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 ]
Contradiction... (none / 0)

Do you notice the contradiction in your argument?


Proposition 1: 


"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)."


Proposition 2:


"I understand your point about not everyone agreeing with the Western notion of individual rights/freedoms...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."


Human rights is not some neutral discourse that you suppose it is, you would have to ignore the complex sociological, historical, class, and cultural elements that went into the human rights discourse. Human rights, as they currently conceived, are Western, liberal and capitalistic. Human rights is a form of cultural imperialism because once you use the term 'universal', anything away from that 'universal' value is either good or evil. If we agree that human rights are a result of Western notions of what is right and wrong, then it becomes a form of cultural imperialism akin to the liberal imperialism of J.S. Mill, 'civilize the barbarians'. Yet human rights are not universal, they are particular to a certain culture and epoch in history. Ergo, it is inherently a imposition on the 'other' of our 'superior' values. You must understand that when you use the term 'universal right' it must be seen as a universal right, meaning it must be accepted and conformed to everywhere. Women, according to the UDHR, are equal under the law as a human right; ergo, it is a 'universal value' according to the UDHR. Once the term 'universal' is put into the picture, you instantly de-politicize it. Human rights ARE NOT outside of the political, and this is what I object to here. Human rights must be defended and advocated through a political discourse, not a imposition of 'universal' values. 


"Lets just start with one basic universal value: religious freedom. The freedom to worship freely is a universal value, in my opinion."


You state that religious freedom is a 'basic' universal value? Not in Saudi Arabia. There is no 'universal values' without qualifications, and some qualifications that we in the West would find it difficult to accept. I mean in principle almost all states would agree that religious freedom is a right, but what they mean by that could vary widely. For instance, one could say, "well we aren't dogmatic, they can variations", but the question becomes how far does one have to go before they no longer adhere to the 'spirit' of the right. Here is where the political comes in and particularistic values. 


"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?"


You assume something here, that the people in the camps assume they don't deserve to be in the camp. North Koreans aren't articulated like we are, they are to sacrifice everything to the state (more fascism than socialism) and the Dear Leader, they aren't individualists like we are here.  Now, since I reject that there is an 'essential human nature', people can be articulated in many different ways and react very differently through time and context. North Koreans, even according to defectors from the country, are still loyal to the regime. Why? They literally do not know anything other than the regime, and when the regime hammers the same lines in your head your whole life, it becomes the truth. Think about it, who do the North Korean's blame for their mal-nourishment? The regime, or the United States? According to the regime, its the perpetual war against the North Korean people by the United States that is causing all this harm not the 'valiant' regime protecting the sovereignty of the state. Sounds like when Bush said they attacked us because they 'hate our values' and not because of US imperialism in the Muslim world. 


by CanCan on 08/07/2009 07:01:35 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 ]
x (none / 0)

Islam did not have a conception of human rights because it was not universal, not everyone was equal under Islamic law; ergo, not everyone was considered an equal human. What distinguishes human rights is that all people are subject to it, regardless of status or position. If I were a dhimma in the Khalifa I would not be given all those rights that Muslims enjoy and I'd be forced to pay the Jizyah tax simply for being a dhimma. Women were considered to be half a man, as evidenced by the fact that two women's testimony is equal to one male's.  Secondly, capitalism did not exist in Arabia, traditional merchant trade did. Capitalism is, by Marx's definition, the exploitation of labour by depriving them of the means of production forcing them to sell their labour power to those who own capital for the accumulation of the surplus into the hands of the few with that accumulation being reinvested to continue the cycle accumulation again. This did not exist in Arabia at any time prior to European imperialism in the region. What you cite is not capitalism or human rights, it is, arguably, at best, the origins of liberalism. 


"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)."


What is  'basic rights for women'? You cannot simply say that as a given, because it is not. Non-Western cultures believe that female circumcision is an integral part of their culture, what then? In Islam, like I mentioned, under Shari'a law a women is not equal to a man. Women weren't allowed to vote in Switzerland until the 1970s! These are not minor issues, I can say, "ya I support human rights" all I want, doesn't mean I do in the sense that you do. Again, how you interpret "human rights" is the crux of the problem that you ignore completely and assume that everyone in the world agrees...they do not. The right to life is not even a universal value, reference executions in the US. 


"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."


Wrong, you are assuming a lot here. You assume that the people of Saudi Arabia or North Korea see the world the way you do. I do not think that most Saudi's think that all religions are equal, nor do I think they disagree with many of the laws of the Saudi regime. Remember, the Shah of Iran, who was a Westernizer, was overthrown and replaced by an Islamic republic. The problem with human rights is that when someone disagrees with them, they become 'evil' or in your case a 'tyrant'. I think, you are the one who may be the real intolerant, tyrannical one. 


"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."


I could say the same thing about our society...I do not think our society is great, far from it. The point I am making is, you are essentializing our life as the best life, and that is cultural imperialism par excellence by a priori denying the validity of the 'other' culture as inherently 'tyrannical' and inferior since they reject human rights. Yet you at the same time deny you do that, that is the contradiction. 

by CanCan on 08/08/2009 02:01:22 AM 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 ]
Assumption parade continues... (none / 0)

"This does not imply that every person of faith would restrict other faith traditions from being practiced."


No, but in Saudi Arabia it does and in many other Islamic countries. We see in Indonesia constant clashes between Muslims and Christians. When you believe that your religion is the only true religion, this form of totalitarianism is common. Likewise, the way you believe that human rights is the only legitimate form by which a state should organize its society is another form of totalitarianism, a nicer one for sure, but one that even you admitted would justify imperialism and war. 


"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."


I know that the revolution did not start with Khomeini, it was largely a leftist reaction. But the people of Iran did vote in the elections after the overthrow of the Shah for the country to become an Islamic republic. Regardless of Khomeini the man, the people of Iran throughout the years have not gotten rid of the regime and have consistently legitimized it. The protesters on the streets do not necessarily want to get rid of the regime per se, but rather want to moderate it, to liberalize it more. Indeed, the legitimacy of the current regime is highlighted by the fact that people still take the election seriously. In addition, it is very possible that Ahmad. could have won that election, which shows that the '79 revolution still has resonance. Certainly, a portion of Iranians want liberalization, but a large percentage do not want it. 


'But accumulating wealth at the expense of others cannot be considered ethical by the standards of even a non-Western culture."


What the hell do you think capitalism is? 


"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?"


Do you think the average Korean knows how he lives? You assume a whole lot in your arguments...

by CanCan on 08/08/2009 12:24:02 PM 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 ]
Sloppy emotions... (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."


Where did I say that, more ASSumptions? According to defectors from North Korea, people do not see the regime as illegitimate, it is not because they are stupid or that they are happy about their situation; it is that they are articulated by the regime and therefore they see the world through the lens of the regime's discourses. The fault of North Korea's poverty is due to external forces and it seems the people buy it. Indeed, when they distribute food aid in NK and it says "from the USA" the regime articulates that to the people are tribute that the American's are paying to the regime! The only real threat to the regime is China's example of economic success, as more North Koreans see or hear about China they may begin to turn on the regime and that is not even a guarantee. 


"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."


Capitalism is, again, by definition the denial of people of the means of production through primitive accumulation forcing them into a position of weakness against the owners of capital, every form of capitalism is like this. Capitalism, in order to exist, must deny workers the full recompense of their work in order for profit to exist, ergo exploitation. Millions of workers all over the world are paid little more than what it takes to feed themselves on a daily basis, this is a 'suitable wage'? You may defend that sort of system, I don't. You are looking at the world through a REALLY partial lens, your life isn't the life of most people, sorry if I am bursting that bubble. 


"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. "


What the hell are you blabbing on about? 


"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."


Yes it claims to be a Marxist state, but its official ideology is of Juche. It emphasizes 'self-reliance'  and extreme Korean nationalism with a jealous guarding of its sovereignty. Something that is quite different from the traditional discourses of the left. Ergo, North Korea has progressed, in self-defence, it has progressed on its own accord since it is militarily self-sufficient and is for all intents and purposes secure from invasion or attack. Learn about NK a little more before you start talking about it please...

by CanCan on 08/08/2009 03:22:19 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 ]
Genius... (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."

Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons, it did not possess potential ICBM capability, it did not threaten a major capitalist centre (Seoul) with utter destruction and it did have Tokyo within its nuclear cross hairs. If NK goes to war, the world economy would descend into a deep depression, Iraq was a shell of a country after 1991. The only thing that saved Iraq was invasion was opposition from the other UNSC and some form of respect for international law by the US. North Korean soldiers are very fanatical, and the NK regime has turned NK into a virtual bunker. What was the cost of this self-defence? Starvation for millions and the lack of development in the general economy, However, it would be a mistake to assume that this is the way NK always was, until the 1980s NK was economically more successful than SK. It was with the collapse of the USSR, coupled with a massive flood in the mid-1990s that the country went down the shit-hole. The NK's see the threat to the survival of the regime coming from outside, not inside because they pretty much have the people under their control and if that fails they still have the military under their control where real power lies. The rest of your argument was incoherent.

"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."

Why do you think capitalism only exists in the West? And yes in the West we have seen decades long campaign by the government the corporate sector to freeze minimum wage so that it barely covers basic costs to one individual--indeed the minimum wage today is much lower than it was in 1970--and unions have been busted in the West by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s. The exploitation of workers in North Korea is akin to the exploitation of workers in sweat shops in the capitalist world. As a socialist state NK does have a minimum wage, it has unions, etc. Merely having them does not mean they are effective, and that goes for NK and capitalist states as well. The difference between a NK factory and Indonesian sweat shop isn't as great, if anything at least the NK has some guaranteed access to some form of healthcare and education for their children. Its ironic, you agree capitalism is a system of exploitation, yet are ok with it. I see how far your commitment to human freedom goes...

"Western political and economic thought is undoubtedly superior to Communism. The proof is in the pudding. Communism didn't work."

Ya because communism never existed brainiac...if you actually knew what Marx said about socialism and communism you wouldn't make such an inane comment.

by CanCan on 08/08/2009 05:39:49 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 ]
...x (none / 0)
It is not a cop-out to be historically and theoretically accurate.

"But the difference still exists, even if it is minute. The capitalist system does provide a little bit more freedom than the communist system."

What freedom, the freedom to starve? Capitalism isn't liberalism, so what freedom are you talking about? Explain, what is the difference? Chile under Pinochet was the arch-capitalist state and it had a worse human rights record than almost any socialist state in existence. Suharto in Indonesia to 'save capitalism' killed over 1.5 million people, so please tell me what is this "greater" freedom of capitalism?

"With regards to the minimum wage and unions, one would have to blame short-sighted government policies and special interests, not capitalism."

No, to pure capitalism the minimum wage and unions are distortions to the 'market'. Minimum wage and unionization only came about with worker struggle, and there has been a sustained campaign against both by capital since the 1980s. I really do not know where you are basing your theoretical basis from...I don't think you are basing it on anything apart from a Fukuyamist "End of History" nonsense that has been disproved by China and other illiberal powers.

"Arguing that genuine communism never existed is like saying genuine capitalism has never existed."

No, wrong. Communism is a very specific system where there is a global revolution against capital to create a state-less, classless, conflict-free society. That certainly never happened and many Marxists would argue that what occurred in the USSR was, to Marxist definitions, state-capitalism with the state bureaucrats becoming the new appropriators of the surplus. I know, high school gave you a certain impression of "communism" but I suggest before you start blabbing you pick up a book. "Genuine capitalism" doesn't exist. The only constant in capitalism is that it is constantly reforming itself, the only essential thing about capitalism is accumulation.

"At one time, about a third of the world was communist, was it not? "

No, their goal was communism but none of them claimed to have reached communism, because by definition it is not possible to have a communist system without a global revolution.

"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."

"Free-market capitalism"? I do not think so, they have HUGE government intervention in the economy where large parts of the economy are under state control. For example, there is no private property in China. Free market capitalism, far from. They have adopted capitalism yes, but not the type of capitalism you imagine. Do not forget that in Latin America socialism is coming back with nationalizations becoming more frequent. Belarus did not liberalize its economy after the collapse of the USSR, its still fairly socialist.

"We haven't seen very many formerly capitalist countries turn communist. "

Venezuela comes to mind, Bolivia, Chile in the 1970s. They aren't turning "communist" but certainly socialist. I think I should quote Naomi Klein about this myth you present that there has been an "evolution" towards the market:

“The dirty secret of the neo-liberal era is that these ideas [developmentalism, socialism, etc.] were
never defeated in a great battle of ideas, nor were they voted down in elections. They were shocked out of the way at key political junctures” (542).  

Read the "Shock Doctrine"

by CanCan on 08/08/2009 06:33:11 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 ]
Uncle Milton (none / 0)

"You are taking the most extreme cases of capitalism and presenting them as proof that capitalism equals exploitation"


No, what I used them was to highlight that capitalism is not a system of "more freedom" that you claim it is, nothing else. You still haven't explained your statements from before. 


"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."


Your ignorance of American history and the development of the American capitalist state SHINES in this quote. Go on make a mockery of yourself further please...


"The US does treat the citizens of the developing world poorly, but then so do the leaders of those developing countries."


So wait, as long as the US doesn't engage in political genocide at home, but does so abroad its not so bad? As long as it doens't overthrow democratically elected leaders at home, its ok because the 'other' people in the world don't know better? Is this SERIOUSLY an argument? Wow...seriously, your apologetics for mass murder, torture, dictatorship and exploitation is unforgivable. 


"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."


Neoliberalism is part of capitalism, it is a stage of capitalist development.  The real straw man here is what you present, that there is a "pure capitalism" an ideal capitalism that universally agreed upon. Again, since capitalism is a constantly changing system, we must evaluate it by how it is applied at a given time. There is no "pure" capitalism by which we can measure capitalism by, because of the ideological divisions over what "pure capitalism" is. The only constant in capitalism is accumulation, that is it. I am more than justified to judge capitalism on its particular epochs in order to protect accumulation for the bourgeois classes from challenges from the left. You are the one who sounds like a neoliberal here, "there is no better system than capitalism and liberal-democracy" is straight out of the neoliberal playbook...but I doubt you can even sense the irony in your own arguments. 


"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."


Uh-huh, thats quite the ideological, neoliberal argument you make, kudos. I could retort that capitalism also does this by denying workers the ability to control the means of production and alienating them from their work.  And I don't want you to talk about the USSR, et al. because I concede they were basically state-capitalist states. However, 'stagnation' will come anyways with the limits of the Earth's capacity to sustain constant capitalist exploitation of man and material. The question is, will we do it on our terms and ameliorate the costs of the end of accumulation or will nature stop us, literally, dead in our tracks. 


"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."


Well, I agree with you that antagonism will not disappear with capitalism,. However, greater individual freedom and greater social dividends will come about from the socialization of the economy. We have this double standard, we allow people to vote in politics because that is a "right", yet when it comes to the economy inequality reigns supreme. This distinction in the long-run cannot be sustained, and the notion of equality, which has been the driving force of democracy will, eventually make its way into the economy as the final bastion of privilege. Lastly, democratic socialism would help to avoid the bureaucratic mess of the former Soviet Union. Radical pluralism is what I advocate to avoid that very situation. 


by CanCan on 08/08/2009 08:06:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
a newwwww ken tx name can can (none / 0)
what is this about "connections" they were captured and we negotiated their release.  There is no way in the world dick morris is correct on any level.  that is like saying that colonel was correct when he inferred that the captured US soldier in afghanistan should be killed.  its the same kind of irresponsible foolishness that is sinking your party.  you care more about agreeing with people on your side than reality. dont ever think you are getting my vote or any other independents vote with this foolishness.  If anything this shows they feel deep down.

by terrill on 08/07/2009 06:15:23 AM EST

Dick Morris and North Korea | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: