Capitalism vs Socialism

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

It is obviously the OP's contention that the national pairings of North and South Korea, and their relative economic performance since the conclusion of the Korean War in 1953 do indeed have something to with one being communist and the other capitalist.

I would have to say that there is a certain logic to that argument.

Do you have any other explanations as to why per capita GDP in South Korea is about 20 times that of North Korea?

So? It's obviously my contention that they don't; that's why we didn't just agree with each other, fist-bump, and head off to be awesome in another thread.

It is quite simple to explain why NK is a mess. After the war it received huge support from the USSR, and it's entire economy was based on trade with other 'communist' nations. When they began to weaken, the economic demand fell and the aid stopped flowing. Their first leader died during that period, and his son began creating a huge military dictatorship to deter any attempts to overthrow him. Their behavior made relationships with the West even worse, stopping them from trading with, or receiving nearly enough aid, from them.

Reasons why Communist/Capitalist theory is not based on logic:
1/ North Korea grew faster after the war for a decade
2/ Two decades after the war NK was still on a par with SK
3/ The leader who turned SK around was a borderline military dictator (the next two were worse, but growth continued)
4/ Economic growth in SK during the 80s/90s/00s isn't out of whack with most other 'Asian Tiger' economies; because they all rode the boom in demand for imports from the West (a market NK couldn't access, but not because it was 'communist', China which was also 'communist' did).

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

So? It's obviously my contention that they don't; that's why we didn't just agree with each other, fist-bump, and head off to be awesome in another thread.

It is quite simple to explain why NK is a mess. After the war it received huge support from the USSR, and it's entire economy was based on trade with other 'communist' nations. When they began to weaken, the economic demand fell and the aid stopped flowing. Their first leader died during that period, and his son began creating a huge military dictatorship to deter any attempts to overthrow him. Their behavior made relationships with the West even worse, stopping them from trading with, or receiving nearly enough aid, from them.

Reasons why Communist/Capitalist theory is not based on logic:
1/ North Korea grew faster after the war for a decade
2/ Two decades after the war NK was still on a par with SK
3/ The leader who turned SK around was a borderline military dictator (the next two were worse, but growth continued)
4/ Economic growth in SK during the 80s/90s/00s isn't out of whack with most other 'Asian Tiger' economies; because they all rode the boom in demand for imports from the West (a market NK couldn't access, but not because it was 'communist', China which was also 'communist' did).

So basically you're saying that NK "grew faster after the war for a decade" because it "received huge support from the USSR", but then the "aid stopped flowing" and so the economy failed.

Are you trying to tell us that a communist economy will only work if it is in receipt of large amount of aid from a bigger communist economy? I suppose there is some merit to thar argument, after all it would explain why the Soviets eventually gave up on communism, they couldn't find a bigger communist economy to bail them out.:)

jjlandlord

The US bailed out quite a few countries after WWII, and helped Japan and South Korea as well in order to stave off communists.

Some countries suffer a lot (North Korea, Cuba) from being shut off by the West.

Of course, a capitalist system would be better at creating economic wealth (sharing it is another matter), but it is easy to hold a country's head under water then claim "see what communism does".

antrobus

jjlandlord wrote: »

The US bailed out quite a few countries after WWII, and helped Japan and South Korea as well in order to stave off communists.....

One of them was the UK.:)

jjlandlord wrote: »

...Some countries suffer a lot (North Korea, Cuba) from being shut off by the West.... ...

The DPRK has effectively shut itself off from the West. It's one of the basic tenets of Juche-oriented socialism, as I believe it's known. Cuba is not shut off by the West. It's only shut off by the USA; the rest of the West happily does business with Cuba. There is even one former Thatcherite minister now busy trying to revive the Cuban coffee industry.

jjlandlord wrote: »

...Of course, a capitalist system would be better at creating economic wealth (sharing it is another matter), but it is easy to hold a country's head under water then claim "see what communism does".

I don't think anybody ever held China's 'head under water'. The Chinese appear to have worked out for themselves that the State Capitalist model does not work. They have thus rejected the Bolshevik heresy and returned to the path of Marxist orthodoxy. Which is of course, that you have to let capitalism do its job.:)

Loughton_Monkey

You can get accurate, unbiased, and objective news about North Korea here....

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

jjlandlord

antrobus wrote: »

Cuba is not shut off by the West. It's only shut off by the USA; the rest of the West happily does business with Cuba. There is even one former Thatcherite minister now busy trying to revive the Cuban coffee industry.

I don't think anybody ever held China's 'head under water'.

OK, now you appear of being of a little bad faith...
That's the issue with such 'debate', it's politics and ideology.

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

Are you trying to tell us that a communist economy will only work if it is in receipt of large amount of aid from a bigger communist economy?

I'm not trying to tell you anything. You've picked a position and you'll make up all the straw men you think you need to argue for that side, rather than maturely discuss it (or god forbid reconsider your view).

Some more reasonable contributors might be willing to consider alternative perspectives, and I am happy that I have challenged Generali's original premise that SK's modern wealth compared to NK's is due to NK being communist.

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

It's one of the basic tenets of Juche-oriented socialism, as I believe it's known.

If Kim had called his policies Juche-oriented democratic capitalism, would that make them an example of a failed capitalist state in your opinion I assume you think NK is a democratic republic as well, it's in the name after all :rotfl:

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You can get accurate, unbiased, and objective news about North Korea here....

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

Almost as funny as the Daily Mash.

antrobus

jjlandlord wrote: »

OK, now you appear of being of a little bad faith...
That's the issue with such 'debate', it's politics and ideology.

I'm afraid I have no idea of what you are on about.