Marxism

[UniversalCommons]

If you wanted to go by a logical theory of valuation you go by energy which is measured in watts which can be converted into heat or work, and bits which can be converted into knowledge or information. Thus you have a valuation of energy and stored information or bit watt. Labor or work is essentially usage of energy and information to produce a particular end. Stored energy and information become a form of value. These are currently the two most valued commodities in a modern economy. "Socially necessary value" is an arbitrary value. There is less socially necessary labor in a machine made products. In fact there potentially could be none. If labor is replaced by capital lets say with automating a machine to remove metallic nodules from the sea floor. How do you measure the value of the socially necessary activity of collecting nodules by a machine or using automation to make plastic kitsch which is environmentally damaging and socially degrading. Some things should have negative "socially necessary value."

[Cisairse]

Sure, but that doesn't mean it has inherent meaning.

Currency itself doesn't have inherent meaning - it's a bunch of paper, polyester, and metal. What does have inherent meaning, though, is the power of buying and selling and the market. Get rid of currency, and you get rid of the market, which in turn leads to a collapse of the economy and a subsequent drain on the standards of living and the personal lives of many.

Your premise is valid but your inductive step is wrong. Therefore, your conclusion cannot be said to be valid.
The entire point of socialism is an economy structured without a market.

[Atheris]

Currency itself doesn't have inherent meaning - it's a bunch of paper, polyester, and metal. What does have inherent meaning, though, is the power of buying and selling and the market. Get rid of currency, and you get rid of the market, which in turn leads to a collapse of the economy and a subsequent drain on the standards of living and the personal lives of many.

Your premise is valid but your inductive step is wrong. Therefore, your conclusion cannot be said to be valid.
The entire point of socialism is an economy structured without a market.

And that's one of the reasons why socialism can not work. It's impossible to have an economy without a market. Money acts as a store of value - It is convenient to store wealth in form of money. For example - a man has 1000 eggs, its inconvenient to store this wealth as egg instead he can sell them and store them in form of money. Capital, and subsequently currency, acts as a medium of exchange - Money is used as a medium of exchange unlike barter there isn’t lack of coincidence of want. Thus money is freely acceptable to used as a medium of exchange. It acts as a measure of value - when you buy a product, it has a price, the price is nothing but the value of the product expressed in term of money. Goods can be easily expressed in term of money, It also makes economic calculation more easier. Money is also used for standard deferred payment. The modern day business is heavily dependent on credit; thus, money acts as a mean for standard deferred payment since the value of money doesn’t fluctuate often. Even if a barter system is used, that style of market and economy is outdated and only works with small societies, which is why when societies began centralizing and becoming more powerful, they began using coinage.

[Cisairse]

Your premise is valid but your inductive step is wrong. Therefore, your conclusion cannot be said to be valid.
The entire point of socialism is an economy structured without a market.

And that's one of the reasons why socialism can not work. It's impossible to have an economy without a market. Money acts as a store of value - It is convenient to store wealth in form of money. For example - a man has 1000 eggs, its inconvenient to store this wealth as egg instead he can sell them and store them in form of money. Capital, and subsequently currency, acts as a medium of exchange - Money is used as a medium of exchange unlike barter there isn’t lack of coincidence of want. Thus money is freely acceptable to used as a medium of exchange. It acts as a measure of value - when you buy a product, it has a price, the price is nothing but the value of the product expressed in term of money. Goods can be easily expressed in term of money, It also makes economic calculation more easier. Money is also used for standard deferred payment. The modern day business is heavily dependent on credit; thus, money acts as a mean for standard deferred payment since the value of money doesn’t fluctuate often. Even if a barter system is used, that style of market and economy is outdated and only works with small societies, which is why when societies began centralizing and becoming more powerful, they began using coinage.

And yet, non-market economies have worked just fine.

You're still looking at economics from the viewpoint of capitalism, which is a viewpoint with rigorously defined rules. But those rules are not followed, and indeed not relevant, if you look at economies from another viewpoint entirely. In other modes of production, there are different rules. You basically just described to me how capitalism works, and then implied "Therefore, this is how economics works." But those two are not synonyms. In studying socialism, economists study what the rules are of the socialist mode of production.

LTV is one of those rules. Marx's magnum opus delves deeply into those rules, and the rules of the capitalist mode of production, and where the limits of those rules lie. If you haven't read it yet, I highly encourage you do.

[UniversalCommons]

There are other ways to generate currency than markets. Currency can represent a variety of things from labor credits to watts to other measures of value. Market socialism approximates socialism by building in market values. This allows for smaller scale industry to happen as well as individual contributions to an economy. Centralized bureaucratic states are inefficient and often exclude people. They also often require the use of places like dachas to ensure people have enough food. Thus there is a move to state capitalism in China or market socialism in Yugoslavia. Quite a few of the socialist systems have had to modify how they work to fit either more communal property ownership with market elements, or some kind of planning focused on approximating the market. Pure socialist markets do not work. Mixed economies work like in Vietnam, because they fix the holes in how people act. Small farmers, new enterprises, and many other enterprises do not survive in non-market systems.

Pure socialism in an economic sense does not thrive. Mixed economies in some cases can do better than capitalism.

[Cisairse]

There are other ways to generate currency than markets. Currency can represent a variety of things from labor credits to watts to other measures of value. Market socialism approximates socialism by building in market values. This allows for smaller scale industry to happen as well as individual contributions to an economy. Centralized bureaucratic states are inefficient and often exclude people. They also often require the use of places like dachas to ensure people have enough food. Thus there is a move to state capitalism in China or market socialism in Yugoslavia. Quite a few of the socialist systems have had to modify how they work to fit either more communal property ownership with market elements, or some kind of planning focused on approximating the market. Pure socialist markets do not work. Mixed economies work like in Vietnam, because they fix the holes in how people act. Small farmers, new enterprises, and many other enterprises do not survive in non-market systems.

Pure socialism in an economic sense does not thrive. Mixed economies in some cases can do better than capitalism.

Pure socialism could work if it was actually pure; unfortunately, a global economy that is capitalism requires following capitalist rules w/r/t resource acquisition and trade, which means at some level you need a translator to translate between the language of socialism and the language of capitalism (ie elaborate command structures can allocate resources just fine in a single system, but when Mexico wants cash for its oil, it isn't going to accept anything other than cash).

[Duvniask]

Your premise is valid but your inductive step is wrong. Therefore, your conclusion cannot be said to be valid.
The entire point of socialism is an economy structured without a market.

And that's one of the reasons why socialism can not work. It's impossible to have an economy without a market. Money acts as a store of value - It is convenient to store wealth in form of money. For example - a man has 1000 eggs, its inconvenient to store this wealth as egg instead he can sell them and store them in form of money. Capital, and subsequently currency, acts as a medium of exchange - Money is used as a medium of exchange unlike barter there isn’t lack of coincidence of want. Thus money is freely acceptable to used as a medium of exchange. It acts as a measure of value - when you buy a product, it has a price, the price is nothing but the value of the product expressed in term of money. Goods can be easily expressed in term of money, It also makes economic calculation more easier. Money is also used for standard deferred payment. The modern day business is heavily dependent on credit; thus, money acts as a mean for standard deferred payment since the value of money doesn’t fluctuate often. Even if a barter system is used, that style of market and economy is outdated and only works with small societies, which is why when societies began centralizing and becoming more powerful, they began using coinage.

The entire premise of your post here is that society has to be based around market exchange in the first place; you're using the standards of bourgeois society to reject its negation. Indeed, you're arguing from a premise that says money is good because it can store value and act as a medium of exchange (thus assuming the value-form) and using that to conclude that the market is necessary, but that is circular logic. The market and the value-form are two-sides of the same coin.

[Gensokyo Soviet Fairies Republic]

Someone really doesn't get the point of analogy. They are not 1:1 comparisons. If refugees were a main source of info on Iraq, the same reasons would apply. I was not referring to present-day Iraq, I was referring to Iraq under Sadam Hussein as he gassed the Kurds in the 1980s.

And don't try and cowardly sidestep the issue here. We are dealing with what's far-fetched given that you're literally here questioning what's even true.

But analogies need to be logically consistent and applicable or it is an erroneous analogy. Refugees are not a main source of info on Hussein’s Iraq, hypothetically or not. DPRK is the only nation in the world where internal info is gathered primarily from defectors.

We are dealing with what is reliably documented, and you’re here questioning why is that true and you have nothing to give why you saying is not far-fetched.

I don't care what you think you're referring to. You're employing the same tactics as a conspiracy theorist, cherry picking witness accounts in service to a narrative that North Korea is not that bad, whilst being incredibly wishy-washy about whether or not you actually think North Korea is a bad place.

What's well documented is extensive human rights abuses; arbitrary arrest, detention without trial, torture, execution, disappearances, no freedom of speech, limited freedom of movement and restriction of access to the outside world (per the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

-snip-

Again, no one here is doing conspiracism or cherry-picking accounts when the inconsistency of North Korean defectors is reliably well-documented which we have come to known, by actually referencing the works of experts who examine North Korea instead of cherrypicking random individuals.

The problem is that you are the one who is denying a well-documented phenomenon by experts because it is inconvenient to your narrative, and cowardly sidestepping the issue by resorting to an easier position to defend (i.e North Korean human rights) which actually no one denies and is already known by everyone.

For example, we have discussed about Felix Abt, a Swiss businessman in North Korea, but why would Felix Abt, who has lived in the DPRK for 7 years, would not be an expert, but people who had not even gone to North Korea to know what’s happening there are? Where is it that all these people who had not even stepped foot to DPRK gathering all their info?

You seem to not recognize the significance of growing skepticism over North Korean defectors when defectors are in most cases, the only source of info on DPRK, per Wikipedia:

Media coverage of North Korea (officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is hampered by an extreme lack of reliable information. There are a number of reasons for this lack of information. Access to North Korea by the outside news media is severely restricted by the North Korean government. There are very few full-time correspondents in the country. In the absence of on-the-spot reportage, a key source of information about North Korea is the testimony of defectors, but the defectors are not necessarily reliable for several reasons.

We also have already discussed about how South Korean agencies pay North Korean defectors with cash and financial incentives to come up with more "shocking", "emotional" and "saleable" stories that you conveniently ignore.

Irrelevant. It is a simple acknowledgement of the fact that the US is on confrontational terms with North Korea and South Korea views it as an existential threat.

This does not however mean that DPRK is an objectively geopolitical existential threat. US views Venezuela and Iran as existential threats, but is there validity in this reasoning?

The article provides no name and no source for this fisherman reportedly going back a 4th time (it begs the question of why he keeps leaving, too). The article also makes clear that these returnees are used for internal propaganda purposes, all whilst Kim Jong-un is also strengthening border security. North Korea is notoriously corrupt (the most common way of escaping was bribing the border guards), so the ability for some to luck out on receiving punishment is not unexpected.

While it might be true that this fisherman might be an odd case (as in he’s the only one we know who left and returned 4 times), North Korean defectors returning to North Korea are still a well-documented phenomenon.

And that while this is definitely true, the bare facts that a vibrant North Korean diaspora exists such as in China with North Korea sending guest workers to China. And in the same Business Insider article that NK defectors in South Korea regularly send cash and phone calls to their families in the North, and that KJU promises to send cash to defectors all paint a much more nuanced and complex picture of the North Korean diaspora than the popular narrative that “everyone who leaves North Korea gets shot”.

Yes, and who do you think they have contact to organize their tour with?

These angencies first have to obtain licenses to do tours, and they do so with state approved guides to state approved locations. You go where the North Korean government decides. Don't be a cheeky little liar and pretend this is somehow equivalent to any other guided tour, like the one I had when I visited Japan and we could just go wherever we wanted when we didn't have tour-guide time.

I never said you were restricted to Pyongyang only. I've seen a fair share of documentaries about traveling to North Korea. What's the fact of the matter is that Pyongyang is for the Elite, it's where the important people live, whilst the real squalor of the country is to be found elsewhere. The other places you are shown are just as carefully selected so as to not show too much of the bad stuff.

This is true but this peculiarity is due to the fact that all Western tours to DPRK are handled by again, the same private agencies. The treatment with Chinese and South Korean tourists (which were previously allowed) are different.

And well, you shouldn’t have presented your words to imply that tourists are restricted to Pyongpyang. To be fair this is true for most of the world also, North Korea is a developing country so much of the wealth tends to be concentrated in its capital.

And again, this point is moot as North Korea does not deny their detrimental economic conditions. This is simply how tourism works, do you know slums that are tourist spots?

They can drive to places like Luo, which is near the border. This is not equivalent to me going next door to Germany and being able to drive anywhere in the country. I am able to go to the shittiest little half-abandoned village in Eastern Germany and no one will wag their finger at me and tell me no. There is no such freedom of movement for visitors to North Korea.

Chinese tourists though are allowed more places than Luo. There are trains that go from China to DPRK.

They are awfully inconsistent in their stance.

"Social and economic rights hold an important position in the issue of human rights, as it is related with creative and material life of the people aimed at taming the nature. The entire people of the DPRK are fully provided with rights to economic activities and life and enjoy a genuine material and economic life." -Report of the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies, p. 79 (published by the Korea Central News Agency)

Nothing here is inconsistent with the DPRK narrative. The DPRK admits of their difficult economic situations, what else would be their reason for lifting the current sanctions on them but the fact that is economically toiling on them and that they lack fuel to run their power plants?

Most of these North Korean workers in Russia work at construction sites or logging camps in remote parts of Eastern Siberia where they're largely cut-off from the outside world anyway. To be sure, some actually get to experience what life is like there, but they are consistently under the watch of state minders, who ensure they don't run off. It's also been common practice to select married men with children so as to lessen the chances of escape (family being made into hostages or a bargaining chip).

Do you know of logging camps that are not cut off from the outside world? Shane Smith from Vice made a documentary on that logging camps, and they are not difficult to access – that is simply how Siberia is. Nonetheless, there is a vibrant North Korean diaspora of foreign workers working in various jobs.

It's a case of widespread black market activity that many people have access to some kind of foreign media, but it is still quite illegal.

The recent concert was part of the thaw in diplomacy, it's not indicative of general Party attitudes toward foreign media.

It is. When was the last time that you have heard of Red Velvet’s concert in Pyongyang? Also, this might be anecdotal, but Moranbong Band looks more like your typical K-POP or J-POP girl group than any previous North Korean ensemble.

Jesus fucking Christ. I'm not denying that there are people who want to go back to North Korea, because they miss their family, or think their life was somehow easier to cope with (we humans prefer what we're used to). It's not inconsistent logic. Tankies are the ones ignoring all the accounts from people who do indeed think that North Korea is a brutal hellhole. You've been sowing doubt constantly this entire time. "They're inconsistent", "they're making things up". What do you actually hope to accomplish by saying this? Are you saying North Korea is not a dictatorship, that it does not repress its citizens? If not, I have no idea why you're so dedicated to sowing the seeds of doubt. I never once claimed everything that comes out of North Korean defectors is a true depiction. I said it is part of an extensive account of conditions in the country, also backed up by actual analysts and experts in the field.

-snip-

No one (not even Tankies) denies the North Korean defectors’ testimonies of economic hardships experienced in North Korea.

However, you are the one who is misrepresenting everything the entire time, ironically talking about conspiracy theorists while denying the work of North Korea experts and analysts in the field on the inconsistency and unreliability of North Korean defectors’ testimonies and demographics, misrepresenting these as the claims of random people or what have you.

The inability of North Korean defectors to survive and struggle in South Korea is also well-documented. That lots of North Korean defectors try to return, or have successfully returned to North Korea is also well-documented, as per this link:

Traumatic events are not the only reason why North Koreans experience difficulty adjusting to the new way of living. Woo Teak-jeon conducted interviews with 32 North Korean defectors living in South Korea and found that other adjustment difficulties that are not related to PTSD occur due to such factors as the defector's suspiciousness, their way of thinking, prejudice of the new society, and unfamiliar sets of values.

However, the total number is thought to be higher. A former South Korean MP estimated that in 2012 about 100 defectors returned to North Korea via China.[95] In 2015, it was reported that about 700[96] defectors living in South Korea are unaccounted for and have possibly fled to China or Southeast Asia in hopes of returning to North Korea.[94] In one case, a double defector re-entered North Korea four times.[93]

In 2013, a re-defector was charged by South Korea upon return.[98] In 2016, defector Kim Ryon-hui's request to return to North Korea was denied by the South Korean government.[99][100] In June 2017, Chun Hye-sung, a defector who had been a guest on several South Korean TV shows using the name Lim Ji-hyun, returned to the North. In July 2017, a man who had defected to the South and then returned to the North was arrested under the National Security Act when he entered the South again.[101] In 2018 a defector was arrested in South Korea and charged with sending rice to North Korean secret police prior to an attempted return.

We are not cherrypicking on the basis of one person, but basing on demographic and statistic studies, that a majority of North Korean defectors struggle and find it hard to adjust in South Korea, and therefore causing a sizeable percentage of North Korean defectors to return or want to return.

If you have sources and studies that I am just cherrypicking data and that it’s just one crazy old woman who wants to return to North Korea, then feel free to link so.

And the cherry on top is your suggestion that people wouldn't want to go back to a dictatorship. That's hardly true. People will go back to abusive parents out of fear just the same. People want the comfort of the familiar, their usual routines. People want security, and part of that is community (the very thing they have left behind when they make a mad dash for South Korea; family, friends, co-workers, schoolmates).

Again, you are basing this analogies on the assumption that I am cherrypicking data here. The fact that a lot of North Korean defectors return to North Korea, as evidenced in studies and accounts, runs counter to the popular narratives about North Korea.

The fact that DPRK defectors frequently go to South Korea and then return back is peculiar and runs counter to most humanitarian crises observed, such as Darfur, the Hmong or WWII Jews. To the point that NK expert Andrei Lankov contends the use of the term “defectors” and instead prefers that they be simply called “economic migrants”.

Per your own The Diplomat article, North Korea is referred to as society governed by a Confucian-styled "Mandate of Heaven":
“If no meaningful economic and social reforms are carried out the people may withdraw the ‘mandate of heaven’ (outlined by Confucius),” Abt explained when asked to clarify whether he believes the leadership takes care of its citizens in accordance with their wishes. “The rulers know that and they seem to follow, albeit very slowly and cautiously, Vietnam’s and China’s examples.”

The principle of "Mandate of Heaven" concerns the legitimacy of Kings and Emperors, being legitimate in their rule if they govern "justly" (to whatever acceptable extent) and perform the correct rites. Thing is, such rulers have nothing to do with socialism. It's applicable to societies where much power is vested in a political hierarchy, not the participatory democracy of socialism.

The thing is no one is seriously claiming that DPRK is still following Confucianism as in the same form as Qing China, and what Felix Abt simply says is that Confucianism is still part of the political culture, as evidenced elsewhere i.e Japan and S. Korea.

Are you going to say that in a participatory democracy/socialism, old traditions would suddenly be gone?

Fucking Christ. Yeah, "human rights abuses" like lack of housing, not like torture, arbitrary detention, forced labor camps, punishment without trial... Yeah, housing, that's the kind of human right's abuses North Korea has to deal with! Give me a break.

They "accept" recommendations and then do nothing about it. The things they reject almost all had to with visits to the country (see: Position of the DPRK on the recommendations received during its first cycle UPR). The aforementioned report also could not receive access to the country. Hmm, I wonder why North Korea wouldn't want human rights investigators to have access . I'm really struggling to think of a reason here. Actually getting people on the ground to come and have a look at things as they truly are. However could that be a problem!

Per human rights abuses in North Korea, there is a peer-review paper detailing human rights abuses and examining the UN Inquiry’s claims.

Of course North Korea would not accept what UN says, but this means that they admitted that some of it might have relevance.

[Duvniask]

I'm not denying or ignoring anything about defector accounts having internal inconsistencies. Fucking Christ. You on the other hand sure are "denying the work of North Korea experts and analysts in the field" when it comes to serious human rights violations that aren't merely about lack of food provision or housing, but brutal and intentional state repression.

You refuse to go beyond this diatribe about defector accounts being inconsistent, you refuse to actually engage with any of my points beyond that, such as how a consistent pattern of human rights abuses has emerged in spite of these inadequacies in information. Your linked paper is concerned with the right to food, and how this is impacted by hardliner reactions that result in sanctions, which is wholly different from matters of civil and political rights.

Tell me something, because you ignored this little question of mine. Do you support North Korea or not?

[UniversalCommons]

There are other ways to generate currency than markets. Currency can represent a variety of things from labor credits to watts to other measures of value. Market socialism approximates socialism by building in market values. This allows for smaller scale industry to happen as well as individual contributions to an economy. Centralized bureaucratic states are inefficient and often exclude people. They also often require the use of places like dachas to ensure people have enough food. Thus there is a move to state capitalism in China or market socialism in Yugoslavia. Quite a few of the socialist systems have had to modify how they work to fit either more communal property ownership with market elements, or some kind of planning focused on approximating the market. Pure socialist markets do not work. Mixed economies work like in Vietnam, because they fix the holes in how people act. Small farmers, new enterprises, and many other enterprises do not survive in non-market systems.

Pure socialism in an economic sense does not thrive. Mixed economies in some cases can do better than capitalism.

Pure socialism could work if it was actually pure; unfortunately, a global economy that is capitalism requires following capitalist rules w/r/t resource acquisition and trade, which means at some level you need a translator to translate between the language of socialism and the language of capitalism (ie elaborate command structures can allocate resources just fine in a single system, but when Mexico wants cash for its oil, it isn't going to accept anything other than cash).

Even with pure socialism, there have to be mechanisms for determining pricing, command economy pricing tends not to be accurate. This is how you end up with black markets and grey markets, even with a labor based system there has be an accurate way to measure actual values that is not determined by a bureaucrat divorced from the transaction. Command economies are based on central planning which can quite inefficient. This is not because of capitalism, but because of the bureaucratic nature of central planning. Elaborate command structures do not work. They are premised not on how people act, but how the central committee wants a person to act. They are tools of control. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/co ... conomy.asp Secondly if all economic activity is in control of the party, it creates disincentives for people to produce either for themselves, or for other people. The only source of goods comes from monopoly production from a single source limiting the variety of goods available. Even cooperative systems based on small shops are better than command economies, there is some internal competition between cooperatives as well as some incentives to do well in a cooperative system. Even with a command econommy, the soviet union for example still provide allotments where people could grow their own food for example, but not put it on the market.

Ownership is a big incentive for production. Common ownership like employee ownership through stocks or shared ownership outproduces single ownership. When there is little direct ownership in a society, production and innovation fail. Closely held and employee owned firms outproduce firms by 2.4% year over year. This is an argument for greater cooperative formation and employee incentives. https://www.nceo.org/articles/research- ... erformance It also partially explains owns how a market socialism economy with strong employee ownershop base and small shops with a greater prevalence of ownership over employees can potentially outproduce a capitalist system based mainly on salaries. One of the massive disincentives which happens with central planning is everyone is essentially an employee of the state and gets a bureaucrat determined salary or payout no matter what they do or how they perform.

Ironically, turning over production to central planning does not increase ownership by workers, it turns over production to a central party.

[Gensokyo Soviet Fairies Republic]

I'm not denying or ignoring anything about defector accounts having internal inconsistencies. Fucking Christ. You on the other hand sure are "denying the work of North Korea experts and analysts in the field" when it comes to serious human rights violations that aren't merely about lack of food provision or housing, but brutal and intentional state repression.

You refuse to go beyond this diatribe about defector accounts being inconsistent, you refuse to actually engage with any of my points beyond that, such as how a consistent pattern of human rights abuses has emerged in spite of these inadequacies in information?

Because you do not seem to realize the ramifications of the well-documented phenomenon of the unreliability and inconsistencies of North Korean defectors in regards to the fact that North Korean defectors are a main source of info on North Korea, which tendencies are increased by South Korean government intervention.

Where do you think the UN Human Rights inquiry got their information on human rights abuses? On North Korean defectors. Are all information from those North Korean defectors reliable? No.

The UN Commission on Inquiry literally says:

Owing to its lack of access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the commission obtained first-hand testimony through public hearings that were transparent, observed due process and protected victims and witnesses. More than 80 witnesses and experts testified publicly and provided information of great specificity, detail and relevance, in ways that often required a significant degree of courage.

And this is a red flag that the UN gets a lot of its information on North Korea on unreliable information. While undoubtedly there are human rights abuses in North Korea, a lot of those might be exaggerated, a lot of those are not as severe as they are frequently portrayed or might not even exist.

Shin Dong-hyuk for example was a main source of info on North Korean prison camps and was one of the sources of the UN Human Rights inquiry on the matter. However, both North Korea experts and former defectors have found holes in his narrative:

A Russian-born Korean specialist Andrei Lankov commented that "some suspicions had been confirmed when Shin suddenly admitted what many had hitherto suspected", described Harden's book as unreliable, and noted that defectors faced considerable psychological pressure to embroider their stories.[37][38] Some defectors said his testimony is "completely lies".[39] A former member of South Korea's National Intelligence Service said Shin had never lived in a "prison camp".[40] The writer Simon Winchester commented that the "authority" of the UN Commission of Inquiry report was "somewhat challenged" by this revelation.[41]

Your linked paper is concerned with the right to food, and how this is impacted by hardliner reactions that result in sanctions, which is wholly different from matters of civil and political rights.

Economic rights, like getting food is also a big part of human rights. The claim that DPRK was violating the “right to food” was a big part of the UN Commission of Inquiry report. The peer-reviewed paper reported that based on statistical information, this is not true.

Tell me something, because you ignored this little question of mine. Do you support North Korea or not?

Critically – I do not support North Korea in everything that they do, but we shouldn’t also dogshit them for everything that they do.

I believe I already have told you reasons why.

[Northern Davincia]

Mao’s bloody Great Leap Forward and falsified USSR state sponsored statistical date. I’m assuming you have now admitted that you believer the USSR and early Communist China to be an example of real Communism and Marxism. Or better yet, transitioning Marxism. Do you promote the values of these nations?

If you think those hijacked transitionary states were/are communist in the slightest, to need to read a few books on the communist ideology.

Why does the majority of communist movements become "hijacked"?

[Cisairse]

If you think those hijacked transitionary states were/are communist in the slightest, to need to read a few books on the communist ideology.

Why does the majority of communist movements become "hijacked"?

Generally either due to foreign intervention or imbalances of force within civil wars.

IE same reason French Revolution got hijacked.

[Atheris]

Mao’s bloody Great Leap Forward and falsified USSR state sponsored statistical date. I’m assuming you have now admitted that you believer the USSR and early Communist China to be an example of real Communism and Marxism. Or better yet, transitioning Marxism. Do you promote the values of these nations?

If you think those hijacked transitionary states were/are communist in the slightest, to need to read a few books on the communist ideology.

Using a "no true Scotsman" fallacy isn't a good look.

If you're allowed to say that the USSR wasn't a truly communist state, then I'm allowed to say that the USA isn't a truly capitalist state, because it doesn't uphold every part of capitalist theory.

[Fauzjhia]

If you think those hijacked transitionary states were/are communist in the slightest, to need to read a few books on the communist ideology.

Why does the majority of communist movements become "hijacked"?

i swear, someone must read my comment on the disbelief of (socialists) elite in democracy, and platonicism.
the leading socialists believe democracy to be a fool traps, because the idiots masses would constantly vote against their own interests.

[Northern Davincia]

Why does the majority of communist movements become "hijacked"?

Generally either due to foreign intervention or imbalances of force within civil wars.

IE same reason French Revolution got hijacked.

Foreign intervention, as in external military pressure, or foreign backing of "not real communists"?

[Cisairse]

Why does the majority of communist movements become "hijacked"?

i swear, someone must read my comment on the disbelief of (socialists) elite in democracy, and platonicism.
the leading socialists believe democracy to be a fool traps, because the idiots masses would constantly vote against their own interests.

Well MLs believe this, not "socialists" as a whole.

[Atheris]

Why does the majority of communist movements become "hijacked"?

i swear, someone must read my comment on the disbelief of (socialists) elite in democracy, and platonicism.
the leading socialists believe democracy to be a fool traps, because the idiots masses would constantly vote against their own interests.

I'd vote against the Communist Party not because I'm "voting against my own interests", but because communism is ideologically opposed to my beliefs.

[Cisairse]

i swear, someone must read my comment on the disbelief of (socialists) elite in democracy, and platonicism.
the leading socialists believe democracy to be a fool traps, because the idiots masses would constantly vote against their own interests.

I'd vote against the Communist Party not because I'm "voting against my own interests", but because communism is ideologically opposed to my beliefs.

I'm confused why you think your beliefs are ideologically aligned with your own interests.

[Northern Davincia]

Why does the majority of communist movements become "hijacked"?

i swear, someone must read my comment on the disbelief of (socialists) elite in democracy, and platonicism.
the leading socialists believe democracy to be a fool traps, because the idiots masses would constantly vote against their own interests.

This is true toward bourgeois democracy, not democracy itself.

[Northern Davincia]

I'd vote against the Communist Party not because I'm "voting against my own interests", but because communism is ideologically opposed to my beliefs.

I'm confused why you think your beliefs are ideologically aligned with your own interests.

To believe otherwise is to suggest you know more about his interests than he does.

[Atheris]

I'd vote against the Communist Party not because I'm "voting against my own interests", but because communism is ideologically opposed to my beliefs.

I'm confused why you think your beliefs are ideologically aligned with your own interests.

Because I prefer to live in a functioning, capitalist society that gives me the opportunity to forward my position and social stature and economic position in my country rather than a one-party totalitarian dictatorship that controls where I work, what living conditions I get, and directly counteracts my liberty.

[Fauzjhia]

i swear, someone must read my comment on the disbelief of (socialists) elite in democracy, and platonicism.
the leading socialists believe democracy to be a fool traps, because the idiots masses would constantly vote against their own interests.

This is true toward bourgeois democracy, not democracy itself.

this is Plato opinion of Democracy. The Idiots people killed socrates because he was asking too many questions, they are obviously too dumb to be allowed to vote on important policies, only those who take time to think, the philosophers, should be allowed to vote on important policies.

obviously the marxists-leninists claims to be thoses philosophers, just like the priests from catholic church claimed it. I really doubt Plato though about ideological or religious group when he was thinking about philosophers, but this is what happened.

[Sannyamathland]

Now let me make this very clea.What Lenin did was actually the best way thing to do.MArxism remains just a vague socio-eco-political theory with no proper political solution.I personally believe that what Lenin did was absolutely perfect and what Stalin did was also absolutely correct.Without Stalin and Lenin ,Marx remains incomplete.Now now,if u go by the example of North Korea,then I have to say that you are a brainless hater of Communism.Without these two titans it would be impossible for us to have a communist state.And I am tired of typing so much,so if u need to argue further,just pm me.Adios !

[Atheris]

This is true toward bourgeois democracy, not democracy itself.

this is Plato opinion of Democracy. The Idiots people killed socrates because he was asking too many questions, they are obviously too dumb to be allowed to vote on important policies, only those who take time to think, the philosophers, should be allowed to vote on important policies.

obviously the marxists-leninists claims to be thoses philosophers, just like the priests from catholic church claimed it. I really doubt Plato though about ideological or religious group when he was thinking about philosophers, but this is what happened.

The liberal democracies of Europe and the United States are vastly different from the authoritarian plutocracies of Athenean Greece.