Another Commi State that cant even feed itself aided by Capitalism success!

[Christians4LessGvt]

North Korea accepts food aid from South Korea 

Friday, 15 January 2010


North Korea has been reliant on foreign aid for years

North Korea has accepted an offer of food aid from South Korea, officials in Seoul have announced.

The offer of 10,000 tonnes of food was made in October, but no response has been given until now.

It will be the first official aid since relations soured two years ago. The UN said last year the North was very short of food following a disastrous harvest.

Meanwhile, a UN official said the North was handing out tougher punishments to citizens who tried to flee the country.

Analysts believe that harsher international sanctions imposed following the North's missile and nuclear tests last year have been hurting the country.

Aid reliant

The amount of food on offer is relatively insignificant, says the BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul, but its acceptance may be another sign that Pyongyang is looking to improve relations with the South.

President Lee stopped unconditional aid to the North after he took office in February 2008, linking aid to progress in nuclear disarmament.

Before then, Seoul had annually sent hundreds of thousands of tonnes of food aid to the North.

The country has been reliant on foreign aid to feed its people since a devastating famine killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 1990s.

The UN World Food Programme said last September that one-third of North Korean women and young children were malnourished and predicted a shortfall of almost 1.8 million tonnes of food in 2009.

Talks offer

Pyongyang pulled out of talks on ending its nuclear programme last April following widespread condemnation of a long-range missile launch.

International pressure grew following an underground nuclear test in May - which drew UN sanctions and further missile tests.

But in December, North Korea said it would work with the US to "narrow remaining differences," and earlier this week said it could return to talks on its nuclear disarmament in exchange for a peace treaty with the US and an end to sanctions.

The 1950-53 Korean War ended in a ceasefire, but not a peace treaty.

As the offer of aid was accepted, a special envoy appointed by the UN to examine North Korea's human rights record said a tougher approach by Pyongyang to people caught fleeing the North meant fewer refugees were making the attempt.

Vitit Muntarbhorn, a Thai law professor, described grave human rights violations, including a denial of basic rights such as access to food.

He spoke in Seoul following interviews with defectors and aid organisations which work in North Korea.

Mr Muntarbhorn, who is preparing to hand over to a successor, has never been allowed by North Korea to visit since taking up the post in 2004.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8461022.stm

South Korea while Commi North Korea Starves!

[Michael Tee]

Silly article.  Instead of focusing on your favourite whipping boy, North Korea, to prove the "failure" of communism, why not focus on "before and after" photos of, say, China, the U.S.S.R. or Cuba, to prove the overwhelming successes of communism?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Silly article.  Instead of focusing on your favourite whipping boy, North Korea, to prove the
"failure" of communism, why not focus on "before and after" photos of, say, China, the U.S.S.R.
or Cuba, to prove the overwhelming successes of communism?

Michael can you produce multiple examples in human history of communist countries with high standards of living?

[Plane]

Silly article.  Instead of focusing on your favourite whipping boy, North Korea, to prove the "failure" of communism, why not focus on "before and after" photos of, say, China, the U.S.S.R. or Cuba, to prove the overwhelming successes of communism?

That is pretty funny.

China had it biggest famines when it was most communistic.

Cuba did alright while it could be a leach on the USSR, it is running down without the aid.

The USSR is better now than it was when it still lived , nostalgia improves everything.

[Michael Tee]

<<Michael can you produce multiple examples in human history of communist countries with high standards of living?>>

Communism hasn't been around all that long, CU4.  Marx's Das Kapital was published in three volumes, 1867, 1885 and 1894 respectively, the last two volumes posthumously. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

So, capitalist economies have had more time in which to develop and iron out their kinks.

In the 1930s, the economy of the U.S.S.R. was the only industrialized economy to show double-digit GDP growth and outperform GDP growth in the U.S.A., Canada and Europe.  Of course, the devastation of WWII, coupled with the Cold War need to defend itself against Western encirclement and the U.S. nuclear monopoly put huge strains on the Soviet economy.  The one country that had not only escaped physical devastation but had profited immensely from WWII, the U.S.A., simultaneously threatened the Soviets militarily and used a lot of its WWII profits to rebuild anti-Soviet Western Europe, bankroll anti-Soviet governments and terrorist movements world-wide, till i the end, the U.S.S.R. was unable to recover from its WWII trauma on its own.

As for Cuba, here's what Wikipedia says of Cuban economic progress:

<<In the 1950s, Cuba had a one-crop, backward economy whose domestic market was constricted and whose population was characterized by chronic unemployment and deep poverty. The country has made significant progress since the Revolution, with its rate of economic growth exceeding the rest of Latin America[4] Cubans receive low housing and transportation costs, free education and health care, and food subsidies.[5]>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba

This is a disputed entry, but it actually corresponds pretty well with our recollections of our own two trips to Cuba, the last being in the year of the Third Party Congress, which IIRC was in 1986.  We have traveled around in Havana and Eastern Cuba, by horseback in the Sierra Maestra mountains of Granma (formerly Oriente) Province, by hitch-hiking and extensively by bus all around Havana and its suburbs.  We've been invited by pure happenstance into Cuban homes, talked to truck drivers at random, particularly during our hitch-hiking travels and there is no question in our minds that the average Cuban enjoyed a huge rise in his standard of living after the Revolution.  It was also apparent to us that as "poorly" as the average Cuban lived by North American standards, they were way ahead of the Mexicans and the Jamaicans, two other countries in the region where we had some experience of the lives of the people.

The U.S. and Canada are blessed by nature with abundant riches, including the soil itself, and you obviously aren't going to have Communist revolutions occurring in the wealthiest countries of the world, even though Marx had predicted that communist revolution would break out first in the most developed capitalist nations.  (He sure got THAT wrong.)    However, it makes no sense to compare the life-styles of the "rich and famous" in the Western countries with communist nations, unless you're also prepared to examine the lifestyles of the bottom end of the capitalist societies, not only in the most prosperous capitalist countries like the U.S.A. but also the less prosperous ones like, say South Korea or Taiwan, or if you want to make Cuba your whipping boy, then compare the bottom end of the socioeconomic ladder of (a) Cuba and (b) Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador and other capitalist nations in the region.

I would say if you have any questions about how well or how badly the Communist Revolution has left the average Cuban, ignore the barrage of crap churned out by the corporate-owned MSM and go there yourself to see.


http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1989/04/zimbalist.html

[Michael Tee]

<<China had it biggest famines when it was most communistic.>>

China has had famines for 4,000 years, and only now under communism has famine been abolished completely.

<<Cuba did alright while it could be a leach on the USSR, it is running down without the aid.>>

Please explain how Cuba was a "leech" on the USSR.  Please explain how it's "running down" now - - they're exporting doctors and health care.

<<The USSR is better now than it was when it still lived . . . >>

Better for whom?  For its workers, who don't get paid?  For its pensioners, who don't get paid either?  Or for the new class of capitalist "biznissmen" who are ripping the guts out of the country?

[sirs]

<<Michael can you produce multiple examples in human history of communist countries with high standards of living?>>

As for Cuba, here's what Wikipedia says of Cuban economic progress:

<<In the 1950s, Cuba had a one-crop, backward economy whose domestic market was constricted and whose population was characterized by chronic unemployment and deep poverty. The country has made significant progress since the Revolution, with its rate of economic growth exceeding the rest of Latin America[4] Cubans receive low housing and transportation costs, free education and health care, and food subsidies.[5]>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba

This is a disputed entry

And what's not in dispute is that it's citizens remain under the rule of a dictator, with a mere fraction of the freedoms this country's citizens enjoy

[Xavier_Onassis]

The disaster that is North Korea cannot be blamed on Communist ideology, but on the absolutist monarchy that North Korea had had imposed on it by Kim and his father, neither of whom is even mildly competent to run anything.

[Plane]

The disaster that is North Korea cannot be blamed on Communist ideology, but on the absolutist monarchy that North Korea had had imposed on it by Kim and his father, neither of whom is even mildly competent to run anything.

Ah ? But the absoluteist Monarch who is not much of a Communist , why did he deserve so much Chineese support?

[Plane]

<<China had it biggest famines when it was most communistic.>>

China has had famines for 4,000 years, and only now under communism has famine been abolished completely.

Don't miss the little details , such as they never had so bad a famine before in all their history as the 59-60 famine.

<<Cuba did alright while it could be a leach on the USSR, it is running down without the aid.>>

Please explain how Cuba was a "leech" on the USSR.  Please explain how it's "running down" now - - they're exporting doctors and health care.

Please describe Isreals dependance on US aid moneys and then useing the same standards describe the aid the USSR gave to Cuba..

<<The USSR is better now than it was when it still lived . . . >>

Better for whom?  For its workers, who don't get paid?  For its pensioners, who don't get paid either?  Or for the new class of capitalist "biznissmen" who are ripping the guts out of the country?

Better for the worker who gets paid for working now, better for the people in general that none of them are shackled against acheiveing their best potential. The  "biznissmen " you cokmplain of ,were not honest men when they were members of the KGB either .

Iif the USSR promised their Pensioners a liveing after retirement  what did they do to keep the promise? I fear that our government has promised our pentioners more than it will be possible to pay or do also.

[Michael Tee]

<<Don't miss the little details , such as they never had so bad a famine before in all their history as the 59-60 famine.>>

Your problem is you don't really know how many people died in the last Chinese famine since the outflow of information at the time was severely restricted, so it's not possible to make numerical comparisons.  The last famine before Mao's famine was the famine of 1944, in which 4 million people were killed.  Communism was not a culprit.  The earlier famines don't have accurate death stats either.  These things go back 4,000 years.  Anyway, there have been no further famines in China and the pace and scope of their development is the true measure of communism's benefits, not that the last, and only the last, of China's 4,000 years of famine happened while the communists were trying to remake the nation.

<<Please describe Isreals dependance on US aid moneys and then useing the same standards describe the aid the USSR gave to Cuba..>>

The USSR's "aid" consisted of purchasing the Cuban sugar crop at world market prices after the U.S., Cuba's natural customer, had boycotted it.  The US aid money is given to them for allegedly civilian uses, but in fact by relieving the Israeli government of the need to provide the equivalent amount of social services, permits it to spend the money saved on other purposes, specifically, weapons.  The Israelis used to get $3 billion a year, and a further $3 billion was given to Egypt, primarily to keep it as a reliable US-ZioNazi ally, the $3 billion I understand was recently reduced to $2 billion and the Egyptians still get $3 billion.

How much the USSR "aided" Cuba besides buying its annual sugar crop at world market prices, I have no idea, but since you were the one who said that Cuba "leeched" off the Russians, I guess you have some specific numbers in mind.


<<[Russia after the fall of communism is etter for the worker who gets paid for working now. . . >>

LOL.  Therein lies the problem.  You realize of course that many Russian workers AREN'T "working now" whereas before, there was full employment?   

<<better for the people in general that none of them are shackled against acheiveing their best potential. >>

No, huh?  Maybe you can tell me how the son of an unemployed worker is not "shackled against achieving his best potential" when his father has no money, there is no more universal right to free JK to grad school education, and he himself is about to join the ranks of the unemployed?  Maybe you can tell me how a pensioner is going to achieve his best potential when instead of retiring peacefully to study art and literature as he always intended, he now has to pick up passengers in his private automobile on his way to and from his night job at the airport to make a few extra rubles to put food on the table and avoid getting kicked out of an apartment formerly owned by the state and provided to its pensioners?  (My wife and I met this guy  when we were in Moscow - - forced out of retirement into a night job baggage handling at the airport and lucky to get it too, a former Aeroflot pilot.) 

You're like most conservatives - - you don't know what you're talking about but you can spout a lot of theory which is nothing but bullshit propaganda and you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how your fucked-up Cold War theorizing plays out in the actual lives of real people.

<<The  "biznissmen " you cokmplain of ,were not honest men when they were members of the KGB either.>>

They weren't billionaires then, they weren't even "biznissmen" so who gave a shit if they were honest or not?  Today, freed from communist constraints on profit and ownership, they have managed, thanks to the blessing of capitalism, to acquire billions of dollars in assets, the rightful owners of which were the Russian people.  This obviously leaves the Russian state and its people, billions of dollars poorer.

<<Iif the USSR promised their Pensioners a liveing after retirement  what did they do to keep the promise? >>

Well, plane, I would suspect that they kept their promise and paid the pension.  This guy was very specific about when his pension payments stopped - - that was AFTER the fall of communism, not before.

<<I fear that our government has promised our pentioners more than it will be possible to pay or do also.>>

Those of us who live in the real world are aware that such "fears" have been voiced for decades but have never come to fruition.  Never will come to fruition.  When your "fears" of a US pension DO come to fruition, you can then chalk it up to one more failure of capitalism, because the USSR under communism, DESPITE the utter devastation of WWII, never had to default on a pension payment in its entire history.  And of course if they DON'T come to fruition, then they don't mean a God-damn thing, do they?

[Plane]

<<Iif the USSR promised their Pensioners a liveing after retirement  what did they do to keep the promise? >>

Well, plane, I would suspect that they kept their promise and paid the pension.  This guy was very specific about when his pension payments stopped - - that was AFTER the fall of communism, not before.

<<I fear that our government has promised our pentioners more than it will be possible to pay or do also.>>

Those of us who live in the real world are aware that such "fears" have been voiced for decades but have never come to fruition.  Never will come to fruition.  When your "fears" of a US pension DO come to fruition, you can then chalk it up to one more failure of capitalism, because the USSR under communism, DESPITE the utter devastation of WWII, never had to default on a pension payment in its entire history.  And of course if they DON'T come to fruition, then they don't mean a God-damn thing, do they?

Lets review the Clinton "surplus" which co incides with the demographic phenominon of the "baby boom" reaching its peak earnings . If the Social Security recipts were not given over to the general fund there would be no surplus even then.

Social Security recipts are falling and have been since that tiem , unless we have another baby boom they will continue to fall.

While Bresnev was still in charge the Russians began to have Birth rates below replacement.

No system you could possibly promise is going to sustain with too few paying in.

If the Soviets had spent less on buying sugar at far above market price from Cuba and  profitless imperialistic adventureing and rediculous defense outlays , they might have made not only a higher standard of liveing , but also a sustainable one.

After all what Nation ever held more mineral and timber resorces than the Soviet Union did?

WWII was very hard on the Soviets , but it was the weakness they inflicted on themselves that slowed recovery, after all they weree not harmed more than Japan , which grew to the second largest economy in the world with much less raw materiel in what ' two decades?

By te way , Japan is haveing a demographic problem for pentioners too..

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ah ? But the absoluteist Monarch who is not much of a Communist , why did he deserve so much Chineese support?

================================================
Maybe he didn't deserve support, but the Chinese only had other two choices: endorse the US-imposed dictatorship in the South, or imitate the Japanese by trying to turn Korea into a Chinese province or a puppet state. So supporting Kim, who did have a lot of support in the 1940's, was the logical choice.

The price paid for Cuban sugar by the Soviets was a drop in the bucket. The USSR helped Cuba by selling them oil at below the world price, but the USSR could not sell it at the world price, anyway. It was a mutual benefit to both countries at the time.

The Soviet's worst mistake by far was trying to take over Afghanistan.


 

[Michael Tee]

<<Lets review the Clinton "surplus" which co incides with the demographic phenominon of the "baby boom" reaching its peak earnings . If the Social Security recipts were not given over to the general fund there would be no surplus even then.

<<Social Security recipts are falling and have been since that tiem , unless we have another baby boom they will continue to fall.

<<While Bresnev was still in charge the Russians began to have Birth rates below replacement.

<<No system you could possibly promise is going to sustain with too few paying in.>>

I think maybe your problem lies in the fact that you are balancing future disasters, predicted for years but never having occurred yet, with actual disasters that have already occurred.  For example, to "prove" the failure of communism, you totally ignore the present and extremely obvious failures of capitalism in present-day Russia (where a nation that formerly, even after the total devastation of WWII,  paid all its pensioners and employed all its workers is now struggling AS WE SPEAK with unpaid pensions, unemployed workers, employed workers who aren't getting paid, and actually reversing life expectancy, all thanks to the replacement of a functioning communist system with the "blessings" of capitalism) and against that, try to balance the "fact" that at some point in the future, the USSR would have failed to pay its pensioners.

Huh?  In the real world, you can't do that plane.  Faced with obvious undeniable facts on the ground CLEARLY indicating the total inferiority of capitalism to communism, you try to weasel out of it by postulating (speculating) that, well, in the hypothetical future, Russia's pension system "would have" failed.  Actual facts are rebutted by unproven assumptions and ludicrous predictions.

I don't know what to say to you, plane, except that if that is the way that you choose to reason, it is not convincing to me, or, I suspect, to any other logical and rational human being.

Another fallacy in your reasoning is of course the assumption that America can't make up shortfalls in pension receipts by taxing the rich more.  Or even by imposing wealth and succession taxes.  The distribution of wealth in the country is excessively over-balanced, and needs to be rectified.  What better excuse than the shortfalls in Social Security revenues?

<<If the Soviets had spent less on buying sugar at far above market price from Cuba and  profitless imperialistic adventureing and rediculous defense outlays , they might have made not only a higher standard of liveing , but also a sustainable one.>>

Well, I am sure you will find this to be very disillusioning, but the Soviets did in fact have a reasonable standard of living, which they needed to balance against their reasonable costs of self-defence and their obligations to defend their socialist brothers in other lands from fascist American aggression.  Far from blowing the farm on "imperialistic adventures" their failure was one of cowardice and not adventurism in at least two major Cold War conflicts:  Cuba and Viet Nam. 

<<After all what Nation ever held more mineral and timber resorces than the Soviet Union did?>>

They were rich in natural resources but so was the U.S.A. and so is Canada.  The fact is that no nation is independently wealthy any more and that was true even in 1945.  We all depended to some extent on trade.  In terms of human resources, no other nation had been as devastated as the U.S.S.R. by the end of WWII, which obviously was somewhat of a counterbalance to their mineral and forest wealth.

<<WWII was very hard on the Soviets , but it was the weakness they inflicted on themselves that slowed recovery, after all they weree not harmed more than Japan , which grew to the second largest economy in the world with much less raw materiel in what ' two decades?>>

An impressive accomplishment in its own right, but I'm not taking anything away from the credit due to the Japanese people by saying that to the same degree as U.S. foreign policy was aimed at helping Japan rebuild, without the need for any military at all, it was simultaneously trying to stunt the USSR's recovery by any means possible, military included.

<<By te way , Japan is haveing a demographic problem for pentioners too..>>

By the way, tax the rich works in Japan same as it works in America.

[Plane]

By the way, tax the rich works in Japan same as it works in America.

The top 20% of American earners pay 95% of the governments cost.

How much further can we go and still have a working economy?