|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| soviet_man wrote: |
59 years and still counting Wangja. |
That's a lot of time to practice. Have they got it right yet? Are collective farms a success?
And I suppose in this case we measure success not by a simple profit and loss account but by how well they provide food for the nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| soviet_man wrote: |
59 years and still counting Wangja. |
That's a lot of time to practice. Have they got it right yet? Are collective farms a success?
And I suppose in this case we measure success not by a simple profit and .
loss account but by how well they provide food for the nation. |
The answer to that seems pretty clear.
| Quote: |
But what Pyongyang won't admit is that the impact of natural disaster would have been much less on a rational farm system following sensible policies. For a start, the goal of self-sufficiency - never met - was mad, in a land 80 percent mountainous. In old Korea, the south, itself not exactly flat, was the ricebowl. Just as crazy was the means, which focused on boosting output of the two main grain crops, maize and rice, at the expense of everything else: other grains, fruit, vegetables, root crops, pulses, and livestock.
Foreign aid workers, who only got access after 1995, reckon this unbalanced diet was already breeding malnutrition by the 1980s. It also harmed the land, in two ways. Overdosing on inorganic fertilizer at first raised yields, but again by the 1980s had exhausted the soil. So the emphasis switched to terracing ever-higher up hillsides: a crazy place to try to grow maize, exacerbating already severe deforestation. Needless to say, farmers who owned their land and sold to market would never have been so dumb. It takes collectivized agriculture, its goals imposed as edicts from on high, to mess up as big-time as this. |
http://www.atimes.com/koreas/CE23Dg02.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sonofthedarkstranger
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, good article. I like the part where the N Korean deputy minister admits that his people are starving.
| Quote: |
| On May 15, Choe Su-hon, one of Pyongyang's nine deputy foreign ministers, quantified the grim truth at a Unicef conference in Beijing. Almost a quarter of a million people - 220,000 to be exact - died of famine between 1995 and 1998. As a result, and also due to medical shortages, average life expectancy fell from 73.2 in 1993 to 66.8 in 1999. Showing who exactly bore the brunt, infant mortality (under 5s) almost doubled from 27 to 48 per 1,000 people. Choe also gave data on a related disaster: his country's wider health care crisis. In 1994, 86 percent of people had access to save drinking water; by 1996, only 53 percent did. And the rate of vaccination against polio and measles fell from 90 percent in 1990 to just 50 percent by 1997. |
Straight from the horses mouth.
A "generalization" and a "myth?" Noone's fooled.
soviet_man? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That's a lot of time to practice. Have they got it right yet? |
Yes. If it were so reviled and hated, it would have ceased decades ago.
| Quote: |
| Are collective farms a success? |
A 100% state controlled collective farm is functional and successful.
| Quote: |
| And I suppose in this case we measure success not by a simple profit and loss account but by how well they provide food for the nation. |
If people are profiting - the system is not socialist.
| Quote: |
| But what Pyongyang won't admit is that the impact of natural disaster would have been much less on a rational farm system following sensible policies. |
A state farm is 100% responsible to the state.
A private farm is not responsible to anyone, if their crops fail.
That in it itself, is not a "sensible policy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sonofthedarkstranger
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes. If it were so reviled and hated, it would have ceased decades ago. |
That would follow if and only if the people had any say in the matter. But they don't have a voice, do they?
| Quote: |
| A 100% state controlled collective farm is functional and successful. |
Depends on how you define success. For you, I suspect it would mean state ownership and control as an ends in itself. For me, the measure is whether or not people can eat. I would happily embrace communism if it filled people's bellies. It doesn't, so i don't.
| Quote: |
| If people are profiting - the system is not socialist. |
If people are eating - the system is not communist.
| Quote: |
A state farm is 100% responsible to the state.
A private farm is not responsible to anyone, if their crops fail.
That in it itself, is not a "sensible policy". |
So ideology trumps practicality and reality once again... 
Read the article. North and South korea were both hit by disastrous weather. Noone died hungry in the South. In the North, hundreds of thousands died, and that's just the official line. Juche is a delusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Soviet Man, as mentioned by sonofthedarkstranger, are you defining success in collective farming in North Korea purely in terms of following socialist ideology correctly (i.e., it's a collective farm, therefore it's a success) or do you actually consider the notion of farming to have some bearing on the situation (i.e., a farm that is poorly planned and generally useless is considered to be a failure)?
Most people think a successful ideology should have something to be successful about--abstract concepts that don't pan out just don't cut it. It would, however, explain why these types of socialist theory are so poorly regarded outside of coffee houses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Soviet Man, as mentioned by sonofthedarkstranger, are you defining success in collective farming in North Korea purely in terms of following socialist ideology correctly (i.e., it's a collective farm, therefore it's a success) or do you actually consider the notion of farming to have some bearing on the situation (i.e., a farm that is poorly planned and generally useless is considered to be a failure)? |
I think I can safely say that a system (capitalism) can be judged to have "failed" when over 75% of the world live in poverty.
5 Billion people are hungry, not because there isn't enough food to feed everyone in the world - but because capitalism keeps food beyond their financial means.
Justifying capitalism because it is *not communism* DOES NOT give it any greater legitimacy than defending it merely for dogmatic reasons.
In the case of the DPRK, if there were popular opposition to the DPRK leadership, there would be a coup and the DPRK state would collapse. But there isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
funplanet
Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Location: The new Bucheon!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Capitalism is not the cause of hunger nor poverty in large parts of the world...take off your rose glasses, sovietman...
Capitalism is the most liberating system the world has ever seen.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:54 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
In response to Fun,
We had slaves because of capitalism.
To Soviet, what was the Soviet Union doing to combat world poverty?
To make it clear, I'm not saying Communism is a bad idea, BUT it failed when practically applied. The whole system essentially trusts in one party to do what it's supposed to. This failed miserably.
I do hate to say it, but capitalism is superior. Multi-party politics wins over single.
On the other hand, the more parties, the better.
Here is where democracy comes in.
THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY.
There are only republics.
I think it would be a sad day if proper government were ever declared "finished". It will always be a work in progress.
Howvere, a step in the right direction is not for people who don't have democracy to be talking crap about how they're spreading democracy around the globe.
The collapse of the Soviet Union should have been a great opportunity for us to improve our own system, but that's not the case. We're always focusing upon someone else to prove we're better.
That's very kindergarten, but, sadly, that's where we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| soviet_man wrote: |
I think I can safely say that a system (capitalism) can be judged to have "failed" when over 75% of the world live in poverty.
5 Billion people are hungry, not because there isn't enough food to feed everyone in the world - but because capitalism keeps food beyond their financial means.
. |
And are you including 20 million North Koreans in your "capitalism creates hunger" stats???
and are your socialist pals in China in that 5 million?
Capitalism is not "everything but communism". It's a system of exchange, that needs the rule of law and oversight. How many South Koreans are starving??? Japanese???? North Americans??? Europeans???
SovietMan...ur seriously funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Capitalism is the most liberating system the world has ever seen.... |
Maybe it is for the top 5% of the world's population: the rich, the powerful, the highly educated, the urbanized, the ruling class, the elite - but NOT the majority. The majority can't feed themselves. The majority live in desperate poverty. The majority earn less than $2 US a day.
| Quote: |
| To Soviet, what was the Soviet Union doing to combat world poverty? |
Smashing capitalism.
| Quote: |
| To make it clear, I'm not saying Communism is a bad idea, BUT it failed when practically applied. The whole system essentially trusts in one party to do what it's supposed to. This failed miserably. |
The alternative, capitalism, has as its basis: chance, greed and overconsumption. It creates a constant cycle of creating economic winners and losers, resulting in endless conflict and war.
| Quote: |
| I do hate to say it, but capitalism is superior. Multi-party politics wins over single. On the other hand, the more parties, the better. |
You can have 20 different parties, packaged 20 different ways - but it makes absolutely no difference if all of them do exactly the same thing: upholding capitalism. Multi-party states do not equate to greater democracy.
| Quote: |
| And are you including 20 million North Koreans in your "capitalism creates hunger" stats??? and are your socialist pals in China in that 5 million? |
Yes and No. Because there are incidents of poverty in every country in the world. Out of 190 countries, all but 6 or 7 are capitalist. The lower 3/4 of countries, have gambled everything on capitalism, and are clearly losing.
| Quote: |
| Capitalism is not "everything but communism". It's a system of exchange, that needs the rule of law and oversight. How many South Koreans are starving??? Japanese???? North Americans??? Europeans??? SovietMan...ur seriously funny. |
The problem for South Korea, Japan, North America, Europe and other similar states, is that capitalism will offer no political or economic tools to resolve the upcoming crisis' of the future:
fossil fuel shortages
global warming
exhaustion of natural resources
desertification
climate change
The reality for capitalism, is that endless exploitation of scarce resources will one day result in major (and probably irreversible) consequences for the entire planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I asked you this once before, but I will try again. If you think the North is so crash hot, what are you doing here in the South. I for one will gladly sponsor your one way ticket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I asked you this once before, but I will try again. If you think the North is so crash hot, what are you doing here in the South. I for one will gladly sponsor your one way ticket. |
Jaganath69, I answered that exact same question four times in the thread: "N. Korea denounces United States for human rights abuses" just last week. See that for my answer.
But more broadly, it is not as if your ex-ISO comrades didn't have quite exotic positions on issues such as North Korea, the Soviet Union and Cuba. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cthulhu
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| soviet_man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Soviet Man, as mentioned by sonofthedarkstranger, are you defining success in collective farming in North Korea purely in terms of following socialist ideology correctly (i.e., it's a collective farm, therefore it's a success) or do you actually consider the notion of farming to have some bearing on the situation (i.e., a farm that is poorly planned and generally useless is considered to be a failure)? |
I think I can safely say that a system (capitalism) can be judged to have "failed" when over 75% of the world live in poverty.
5 Billion people are hungry, not because there isn't enough food to feed everyone in the world - but because capitalism keeps food beyond their financial means.
Justifying capitalism because it is *not communism* DOES NOT give it any greater legitimacy than defending it merely for dogmatic reasons.
In the case of the DPRK, if there were popular opposition to the DPRK leadership, there would be a coup and the DPRK state would collapse. But there isn't. |
You harp on the evils of capitalism while you haven't provided a viable alternative.
You give us communism, yet Eastern Europe was quite clear in voicing its displeasure with communism and show no signs wanting to go back. The Soviet Union--the symbol and bastion of communism--failed utterly and was forced to change not by the force of arms but by the collapse of its economic system.
The DRPK is barely surviving without the largesse of the Soviets and Chinese, showing the much touted concept of Juche (self-reliance) to be its own contradiction. The only other country coming near to it in its odd interpretation of socialism was Romania, and we all know what happened there. It's only a tight control over the people (enough to make Orwell cringe) that is preventing a coup from happening, not because the leadership in Pyongyang is giving its people any reason to hope for the future. What other nation would put up with such an incompetent leadership that allows widespread starvation and economic failure?
The irony is that you mention capitalism leading to starvation around the world when in the case of your vaunted DRPK it is precisely capitalism that is sending those precious rice shipments along. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
