Axis of Evil now official

[Eddie Teach]

So your definition of a communist regime is that the governing classes live better than the average person?

And the state controls means of production. So NK is communist, China not so much.

[The Brain]

So your definition of a communist regime is that the governing classes live better than the average person?

Whew, he was only trolling.

[Razgovory]

So your definition of a communist regime is that the governing classes live better than the average person?

No, that's merely an observation.

[Gups]

One which applies AFAIK to every state in history and is therefore totally useless.

Wiggo's point is a fair one though. However when state and family are intinstinguishable (in a way they never were in the SU), it's hard to see how the means of pruduction are in public, let alone common, ownership.

[Barrister]

I still don't see how that's mutually exclusive with a communist regime.

You don't see how an ideology aimed at distributing wealth equally might conflict with a system of government aimed at transferring wealth to a small number?

The sole purpose of North Korean policy is to keep the Kim family in power and money. Any ideological label they choose to affix the to the regime is a sham. That they used to call themselves communist 40 years ago is as meaningless as that they still call themselves democratic today.

It sounds like by your definition, no government has ever been communist then.  USSR, PRC, eastern europe - all had the fundamental purpose of keeping the communist party in money and power.  North Korea is somewhat unusual in making leadership hereditary, but that's about it.  Communist officials had significant and substantial power, prestige and money in all communist governments.

[Razgovory]

One which applies AFAIK to every state in history and is therefore totally useless.

Wiggo's point is a fair one though. However when state and family are intinstinguishable (in a way they never were in the SU), it's hard to see how the means of pruduction are in public, let alone common, ownership.

You didn't ask me what my definition was.  You only asked "So your definition of a communist regime is that the governing classes live better than the average person?"  It was a dumb question, but I answered it.  I don't think the Kim family legally owns the country of North Korea.  And it seems unlikely that every member of the governing class is a also a member of the Kim family, so " when state and family are intinstinguishable" is not really applicable.  The family dominates the state, but that's not really any different then other communist regimes where one strong man rules.  We consider Cuba communist and the state is dominated by the Castro brothers.

[Gups]

I think in all communist regimes the governing class lives better then the average person.  That's how it works in practice.

Sounds like a definition of a communist regime to me.

[The Brain]

I think in all communist regimes the governing class lives better then the average person.  That's how it works in practice.

Sounds like a definition of a communist regime to me.

Is Gups on drugs?

[Razgovory]

I think in all communist regimes the governing class lives better then the average person.  That's how it works in practice.

Sounds like a definition of a communist regime to me.

Well, it's not.  It's an observation.

[Gups]

It sounds like by your definition, no government has ever been communist then.  USSR, PRC, eastern europe - all had the fundamental purpose of keeping the communist party in money and power.  North Korea is somewhat unusual in making leadership hereditary, but that's about it.  Communist officials had significant and substantial power, prestige and money in all communist governments.

If you ascribe to communism an ideological meaning - an equitable distribution of ownership - then no state has been communist and certainly not North Korea. One can argue as to whether its leaders tried or not.

If the definition of a communist state is to keep the communist party in power, then North Korea does not qualify. It does have similarities with Cuba but equally with Zimbabwe.

[Malthus]

I dunno, I find the Neo-Trotyskist thing silly as well.  I find it annoying that some people suggest that we shouldn't judge communism by communist states.  We judge monarchies but what they are in practice, not by some hypothetical kingdom ruled by a perfect individual divinely appointed.

I agree that North Korea is pretty scary. It's not a Russian Bear or a Chinese dragon, more a conrenered alley cat with some nasty claws. It won't destroy the west but it can give it a nasty kick in the balls.

But I agree with Tyr that it isn't a communist regime under any reasonable definition of that word. It is a kleptocracy pure and simple.

Heh, the best analogy I have heard for NK and its nukes is that it is like a smelly, diseased and deranged-looking bum on the subway who aggressively panhandles the other passengers by sticking a grenade in its mouth and threatening to pull the pin if it doesn't get some pocket change NOW. 

[garbon]

Different note - I can't believe it has been over 9 years!

[Ed Anger]

ugh

[Barrister]

It sounds like by your definition, no government has ever been communist then.  USSR, PRC, eastern europe - all had the fundamental purpose of keeping the communist party in money and power.  North Korea is somewhat unusual in making leadership hereditary, but that's about it.  Communist officials had significant and substantial power, prestige and money in all communist governments.

If you ascribe to communism an ideological meaning - an equitable distribution of ownership - then no state has been communist and certainly not North Korea. One can argue as to whether its leaders tried or not.

If the definition of a communist state is to keep the communist party in power, then North Korea does not qualify. It does have similarities with Cuba but equally with Zimbabwe.

Sounds an awful lot like communist apology - 'all those supposedly communist governments - well they weren't REAL communists'.

North Korea believes in government ownership of the means of production, is hostile to private markets (though there are some black markets which allow people to feed themselves), and government owns all the land.  This is consistent with communist governments around the world, from Cuba to the USSR to Maoist China.

That is also not true of Zimbabwe.  Zimbabwe has private ownership of land (though subject to arbitrary government seizure, it just gets handed over to another private owner).