How do you solve a problem like North Korea?

[Zechs Merquise]

Well I think they are, but even if they aren't, what about the condition of it's people? It seems disheartening to think we wouldn't even try to do anything about it. I know, many countries have their problems, we can't solve them all. But this seems like a pretty severe case.

 

The whole thing's just so dam saddening

 

The conditions for those people are appalling. The aren't allowed any freedoms we enjoy. But equally they are no threat to us. These people should be allowed to determine their own path, and until they rise up and change things themselves, we should not go in and forcibly alter things for them. Nations should determine their own destiny by the will of their people, not by the values of others looking in who think they know best.

 

I am struggling to see how anyone can take the side of a dictator, who has ideals that are of a communist past, that has been forgotten by the rest of the world which has moved on to better things

 

Agreed, but they do and that is their choice.

 

Isn't there a lot more inhuman stuff going on in North Korea than simply people not having mobile phones or internet?

 

Of course there is. all regimes like that end up suriving by brutalising their people to a degree. The very fact they aren't even allowed to read opinions contrary to those of their own masters says it all.

 

ipaul has spoken. Close the thread now.

 

Nintendo, you really do live in a dream world. Every single one of the communist regimes you clearly love so much had a lot less freedom than we enjoy here in Britain today. The fact is, if you lived in North Korea you would be posting on a Nintendo forum, or even playing Nintendo or even playing video games, or most likely even have access to software that wasn't approved by the government. In fact you wouldn't be allowed to go on the internet.

 

What's more, one of the defining things about why our system of governance is better than communism is the fact that here in Britain you can espouse communist ideals and question the system in which you live. In places like North Korea you can't espouse views that are contradictory to the 'opinion' of the state.

 

The reason you have the right to spout the garbage you do is because you live in a system which allows you to. Capitalism and democracy have their problems, any system of governance does. But at least they offer their people a wider degree of choice and freedom.

 

And before you say that communism is fantastic and was just not implemented correctly... pull the other one mate. Everywhere that communism has been implemented, from China, to North Korea, to Russia has had horrific human rights abuses and has always denied fundamental rights like freedom of choice, speech and expression.

 

AND SINCE THEN? Think you find it has improved since the transition period

 

Of course it has. I actually have friends who grew up behind the iron curtain. They now live and work here and they would be happy to tell you just how much worse off they were in those regimes than they are now.

[Diageo]

There was this whole thread a month or so ago...

Were you the person who was telling us about all the little changes he was going to do in his life?

The one where Sheikah tried to spit all over?

 

I was just asking, and it seems like you do follow your ideals. So well done to you.

[Nicktendo]

Nintendo, you really do live in a dream world. Every single one of the communist regimes you clearly love so much had a lot less freedom than we enjoy here in Britain today. The fact is, if you lived in North Korea you would be posting on a Nintendo forum, or even playing Nintendo or even playing video games, or most likely even have access to software that wasn't approved by the government. In fact you wouldn't be allowed to go on the internet.

 

What's more, one of the defining things about why our system of governance is better than communism is the fact that here in Britain you can espouse communist ideals and question the system in which you live. In places like North Korea you can't espouse views that are contradictory to the 'opinion' of the state.

 

The reason you have the right to spout the garbage you do is because you live in a system which allows you to. Capitalism and democracy have their problems, any system of governance does. But at least they offer their people a wider degree of choice and freedom.

 

And before you say that communism is fantastic and was just not implemented correctly... pull the other one mate. Everywhere that communism has been implemented, from China, to North Korea, to Russia has had horrific human rights abuses and has always denied fundamental rights like freedom of choice, speech and expression.

 

Of course it has. I actually have friends who grew up behind the iron curtain. They now live and work here and they would be happy to tell you just how much worse off they were in those regimes than they are now.

 

Typical ignorant response. Have you missed everything I've said about the Third World or is it just a load of garbage?

 

How do you think it's possible for you to live like this? All the stuff we consume doesn't just grow on trees. It comes at the expense of billions of people's unrewarded hard work and suffering. Just because you think I should shut up and appreciate what we have, doesn't mean I will, because quite frankly none of us deserve it, when the true price is realised.

 

Communism might not be fantastic, but neither is capitalism, we just don't see how bad it is because we have the wool pulled over our eyes by the media. And it's great that you have friends from behind the iron curtain, it really is. Well done, I have lots of friends from there too, hell my girlfriend is from Latvia. But that's people who are here, in the UK, in Spain, France, Germany etc. Have you been to Eastern Europe? Have you been to Russia and seen the people that CAN'T get to the West, that can't escape the huge amount of damage the multi-nationals have inflicted on their society? Sure 20, 30 even 40% of the population may be better off, but most of them aren't, not even close. They are just another link in the chain of exploitation, some are similar to the West, some have taken on characteristics of the Third World.

 

Countries such as Poland and Lithuania have, admittedly, net benefited from the collapse, but what about Belarus, Estonia and Latvia? No jobs, no economy, a destroyed public sector, no social mobility and pure unrelenting poverty, so those that can just get the hell out, hence all your iron curtain buddies enjoying life in the EU.

 

The gap between rich and poor is only going to grow, and the ignorance of the minority who benefit will only allow it to grow further.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Nicktendo

[Emasher]

All countries develop at different rates though. Just because the people of a country are worse off financially now, or work in appalling conditions, ect. doesn't mean that country will always be that way, or will just get worse. Every civilization goes through phases like that. Europe was just as bad during the middle ages as many repressive dictatorships are today in terms of policies. Every civilization goes through phases in its development where working conditions aren't ideal. The worst thing we can do is to try and interfere with this when the country isn't a threat to us. We could choose not to buy goods made by the exploitation of workers in 3rd/2nd world countries, but in reality that's not going to solve anything. The chinese aren't suddenly going to start raising minimum wage because a few westerners aren't going to buy products from them. Those changes have to come from within the country itself. The Chinese workers will have to start demanding higher wages and better working conditions, just like North Koreans are going to have to start demanding their freedom, Just like the French and Americans stood up against Monarchs a few hundred years ago.

 

The reason the United States or any other Western country would invade North Korea would have nothing to do with Human rights. Nobody wants got get involved, interfere with the country's development, and then get blamed for the country being worse off because of it. The reason the west would get involved is the threat that the country poses to South Korea and Japan. Its very likely that the country has Nuclear weapons, and other WMDs. While it can't be 100% confirmed, there is enough evidence to suggest that the two nuclear weapons tests that North Korea claims to have Made in 2006 and 2009 could have easily been real. Its also very likely that they have Chemical weapons. We also know that they have the Missiles capable of using these weapons on South Korea and Japan. They also have a large amount of artillery pointed at Seoul that they they have announced they will use to destroy the city if any other country tries to invade North Korea.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Emasher

[Nicktendo]

The Chinese workers will have to start demanding higher wages and better working conditions, just like North Koreans are going to have to start demanding their freedom, Just like the French and Americans stood up against Monarchs a few hundred years ago.

 

That's a very valid point, and one which throws up a lot more questions. My take on it is that with the carrot of capitalism dangled in front of them, people will work hard and try to better themselves and their material life. The promise of a better life by working long hours in a sweatshop etc. is one which certainly drives many people to put up with the squalid living conditions on the promise of something better.

 

However, like we have seen in many countries, particularly America where this kind of system is more extreme and magnified, this is in fact a false promise. It is not an achievable goal for everyone, but instead a very small minority. This is why 40% of American's live below the poverty line, this is why 10% of the globe's population owns 95% of the wealth because the system has injustice built into it.

 

There is always someone who will work for less, and as the means of production must produce a profit, the global production base will shift (as it has done to India and China). So while these countries are 'emerging economies' they still have unimaginable living conditions for the vast majority of the population while a very small minority can improve their lives to Western standards. The knock on effect of this, of course, as we have seen in the UK with the mining industry and the US with the automotive industry, they get obliterated because it's cheaper to go somewhere else, so it plunges societies poorest in the West into poverty.

 

So now we have problems in the West, with right wing governments (extremes such as Thatcher and Regan in the 80s) making it next to impossible for society's poorest to make a living. This is why the huge rise in sink hole estates and subsequently gated communities emerged, further increasing the gap of rich and poor. What's ironic though is that pro-capitalists would argue that the system makes allowance for anyone to achieve anything if they work hard, but in reality is this achievable? How many people from working class area go to university, for example? Does it accurately reflect the ratio of working and middle class children in the country? Of course not, because real opportunity is impacted by birth, something which at home and abroad is a completely unjust result of a capitalist system.

 

But all the time we are promised a better life. This is why you see people on benefits with huge TVs and Sky TV, people aspire to have it all but in reality it's completely unachievable for the vast majority of the population, in a society which is increasingly becoming "see it, want it". The promise of material success and wealth distracts people from improving their working conditions because they just focus on the next product they can buy in order to appear better off, even if it means taking out ridiculous loans which they can never pay back. This is the real result of capitalism, it is not fair, and not just for the vast majority, but as long as we can buy the next thing we'll be ok while the bankers waste all out tax money on their lavish lifestyles.

 

There is not enough anger amongst the poor and working class because the material life has bred it out of us. We are content to exist with the latest fads and things, moving from one to the next, working mundane jobs to fund a bland existence. 50% of people won't turn up to vote and none of us even bat an eyelid when we learn about where all the stuff we buy comes from. Some Third World people will eventually follow in our footsteps on a much, much more magnified scale (i.e. there will be much fewer upper/middle class compared to the West).

 

Capitalism is an evil virus, which has bred in society and humans and is removing everything that even makes us human. We are not living, we are just existing in a bland world where the rich are living it up and laughing at us all and the world's poorest are suffering more than ever.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Nicktendo

[Emasher]

Your figure of 40% is misleading. At any given time the US poverty rate is around 13% - 17%, the 40% figure is the amount of people who will be below the poverty line over a 10 year period, which is quite different. The fact is though, the poor population in the United States (and the rest of the world) have it WAY better than the poor population in other places throughout the world. There's a difference between relative poverty and absolute poverty.

 

The problem isn't just that people can't afford to go to college, it more that a lot of people who don't go to college decide not to work, and to just live on welfare (or benefits as you call it in the UK). If more people worked, opened their own businesses ect, and would work, and welfare was just used as a temporary thing to live through more desperate times, and for people who had legitimate reasons to not to work such as disabilities ect, you would probably see a larger portion of the population in the middle class, which is really the goal. I understand this is simply not possible with a weaker economy as is being experienced today, but its recovering now.

 

Is there really a problem with those in poverty living well though? There will always be people who don't have as much money as others, isn't the fact that they can still have a decent standard of living a good thing?

[Nicktendo]

Your figure of 40% is misleading. At any given time the US poverty rate is around 13% - 17%, the 40% figure is the amount of people who will be below the poverty line over a 10 year period, which is quite different. The fact is though, the poor population in the United States (and the rest of the world) have it WAY better than the poor population in other places throughout the world. There's a difference between relative poverty and absolute poverty.

 

That's because they live on the side of the globe that benefits from poverty. Their poverty relative to other people in the same country is still extreme.

 

The problem isn't just that people can't afford to go to college, it more that a lot of people who don't go to college decide not to work, and to just live on welfare (or benefits as you call it in the UK). If more people worked, opened their own businesses ect, and would work, and welfare was just used as a temporary thing to live through more desperate times, and for people who had legitimate reasons to not to work such as disabilities ect, you would probably see a larger portion of the population in the middle class, which is really the goal. I understand this is simply not possible with a weaker economy as is being experienced today, but its recovering now.

 

There's a newspaper over here called the Daily Mail, this sentence resembles a lot of things often found within it's pages.

 

Firstly, unemployment in the UK is about 3,000,000. I'm sure a good 97-99% of these people would absolutely love to work, problem is, there are no jobs and the government is making further public sector cuts which will produce more unemployment.

 

I'll furnish your statement about 'more people in the middle class' with the service industry. In 'developed' economies the service sector has all but replaced manufacturing and industry, and more than that it is largely unskilled labour and it is almost always minimum wage and in most cases acts as one person 'serving' another in hotels, restaurants etc - places of either business or luxury. The act of 'serving' another person provides clear roles of one person being in a dominant position over another, i.e. one party is paying for the service of another. In this situation class divides and boundaries are reinforced and even exaggerated as generally the servers cannot afford the service the servee is receiving, if you get me... They will not go away on business or rarely be able to afford to eat out regularly or pay for a service. So the idea of a working class will always exist in this system and sure some people in the service industry will be able to aspire to and achieve middle class status, many of the low or unskilled workers (for which there will always be a huge demand in developed economies) will not. And then of course every environment needs a cleaner... You see how deep this goes? No country will ever achieve a greater middle class than working class.

 

Also, How much money do you think it costs to set up a business, and make it both economically viable against large corporations and profitable?

 

Is there really a problem with those in poverty living well though? There will always be people who don't have as much money as others, isn't the fact that they can still have a decent standard of living a good thing?

 

Ok, have you been to Downtown L.A, Detroit, New Orleans, New York, East London.. etc. etc. Do you think the poorest people in those place have a decent standard of living, or have they just been forgotten about, and have the rich built gated communities to ignore the problems?

[Emasher]

I'm not saying all people refuse to work out of laziness as I'm guessing the daily mail does. The Governments in the west should be promoting small businesses ect and trying to create jobs ect. Looking back on it, I worded what I said poorly. There are also a lot of jobs available in the Military, the Police force, the Fire department, and other public services with decent pay that people just don't want to do though.

 

My father, along with tons of relatives have started successful small businesses. They've all been quite successful, and have come from a range of different situations. Its easily possible for the ordinary person to start a business, as long as they have some sort of skill/talent (not necisarily an expensive education either). There are tons of people who waste their time in school. They don't do any work, they disrupt classes, and generally become unpleasant people. They end up wasting all their money on drugs rather than saving for when they need it, and then end up causing all sorts of problems for society as adults, because they refused to learn anything when they had the opportunity. If they had spent their time in school actually paying attention, actually learning things, and getting decent grades, they probably would have ended up with employable skills, instead of having to work as a janitor. Most schools today offer tons of programs that allow students to become employable without a university education. Some even have programs where students can learn a trade instead of taking elective classes.

[Nicktendo]

I'm not saying all people refuse to work out of laziness as I'm guessing the daily mail does. The Governments in the west should be promoting small businesses ect and trying to create jobs ect. Looking back on it, I worded what I said poorly. There are also a lot of jobs available in the Military, the Police force, the Fire department, and other public services with decent pay that people just don't want to do though.

 

My father, along with tons of relatives have started successful small businesses. They've all been quite successful, and have come from a range of different situations. Its easily possible for the ordinary person to start a business, as long as they have some sort of skill/talent (not necisarily an expensive education either). There are tons of people who waste their time in school. They don't do any work, they disrupt classes, and generally become unpleasant people. They end up wasting all their money on drugs rather than saving for when they need it, and then end up causing all sorts of problems for society as adults, because they refused to learn anything when they had the opportunity. If they had spent their time in school actually paying attention, actually learning things, and getting decent grades, they probably would have ended up with employable skills, instead of having to work as a janitor. Most schools today offer tons of programs that allow students to become employable without a university education. Some even have programs where students can learn a trade instead of taking elective classes.

 

I agree with everything you say, but pose this question to you: Why do these children mess about in school which leads to them becoming unproductive members of society?

 

I can guarantee you 9 times out of 10 it is because the have a poor, difficult and unstable home life which often will be caused by economic and social segregation or exclusion.

[Emasher]

It seems almost the opposite from my experience. There are tons of poorer people I know who get very little support from home who do amazingly in school, whereas there are tons of people who come from good homes who do absolutly nothing in school.

[Nicktendo]

It seems almost the opposite from my experience. There are tons of poorer people I know who get very little support from home who do amazingly in school, whereas there are tons of people who come from good homes who do absolutly nothing in school.

 

Not in my experience, at my school the poorest people were generally the ones who messed about, didn't care and are now sat at home on benefits with kids. Only 17 people out of 150 went to university and every single one of them, except for one was what could be considered middle class.

[The fish]

Funnily enough, I was talking to a Czech friend of mine about the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe when she was little, and the current resurgence of support of Communism there - the Communist Party is the third largest in seat-terms. People in these countries who want Communism back are either those who were the party faithful, and were reasonably well off, or the younger generation, who have no memory of what life was like. Yes, I will agree that everyone had a job under communism. Yes, pensions were secure. Yes, healthcare was universal and free. Yes, everyone had a place to live. These are the positives, and are true.

 

There are, however problems: all these things were awful quality. Modern medical techniques and newer medicine are only now starting to catch up with the Western World. Whilst there were many, many times as many jobs in agriculture as there are today, they were detrimental to production to the point that grain had to be imported from the USA. Everyone got paid and got a pension, but they were tiny, and you couldn't do anything with it. There were no luxury goods beyond TV's 20 years behind the West, and highly unreliable cars. Even if you saved, and saved and saved, you could never go on holiday anywhere outside the Soviet sphere of influence. There was no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, hardly any liberty at all. They were democratic states, yes, but you didn't vote for which party you wanted, you voted for which Communist you wanted.

 

These are just some of the things those who support Communism forget. Capitalism is flawed, yes, and true democracy is awful, but both are better than anything else we've tried. Until the third way is embraced on a wider scale (so far it's only worked in the Nordic Model, with small populations in developed countries), we're better off sticking with Capitalism with socialist elements.

[Frank]

I think it's fair to say that N. Korea is far from perfect. I think I saw some piece of film on it, I think it was from Oprah :p, and she sent a woman, Lisa Ling I think, over to N.Korea.

While I appreciate that they have successfully detached themselves from places like the crazy USA, and are doing there own thing, they still have many problems.

From the piece of film that I saw, they worship their previous leader like a God, I think. And many of them are starving and very poor.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong as I haven't seen that clip in ages.

 

I love how political N-E can be!

[Jonnas]

I pretty much agree with The fish.

No, capitalism isn't perfect, and the model adapted in the USA has many obvious flaws, but so do former (and current) communist governments around the world. And I'd rather stay with the side that respects freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

 

That said, I do realize communist/socialist governments and freedom of speech/choice aren't mutually interchangeable, but how often do we get both? And effectively, at that?

[Nicktendo]

Funnily enough, I was talking to a Czech friend of mine about the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe when she was little, and the current resurgence of support of Communism there - the Communist Party is the third largest in seat-terms. People in these countries who want Communism back are either those who were the party faithful, and were reasonably well off, or the younger generation, who have no memory of what life was like. Yes, I will agree that everyone had a job under communism. Yes, pensions were secure. Yes, healthcare was universal and free. Yes, everyone had a place to live. These are the positives, and are true.

 

There are, however problems: all these things were awful quality. Modern medical techniques and newer medicine are only now starting to catch up with the Western World. Whilst there were many, many times as many jobs in agriculture as there are today, they were detrimental to production to the point that grain had to be imported from the USA. Everyone got paid and got a pension, but they were tiny, and you couldn't do anything with it. There were no luxury goods beyond TV's 20 years behind the West, and highly unreliable cars. Even if you saved, and saved and saved, you could never go on holiday anywhere outside the Soviet sphere of influence. There was no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, hardly any liberty at all. They were democratic states, yes, but you didn't vote for which party you wanted, you voted for which Communist you wanted.

 

These are just some of the things those who support Communism forget. Capitalism is flawed, yes, and true democracy is awful, but both are better than anything else we've tried. Until the third way is embraced on a wider scale (so far it's only worked in the Nordic Model, with small populations in developed countries), we're better off sticking with Capitalism with socialist elements.

 

I will certainly agree, that from a western perspective the social democracy seen in Scandinavia is the best example of capitalism the world has thus far embraced, though as you pointed out they are small countries with tiny populations, is it possible for this to work on a larger scale? What about the Arctic oil reserves of Norway and Sweden, how much influence does this have, when many central European countries don't enjoy such luxuries? Is this also a reason why they, particularly Norway opted out of the EU, because they want to control and protect the wealth they own in terms of natural resources which outweighs that of their neighbours, as well as the comparative strength of their economy (Norway is bloody expensive)?

 

While I agree with you to a certain extent, there are many factors that allow this kind of development to be enjoyed in Northern Europe, however, the same problems still exist. Imports are still heavily relied on from Third World countries in the form of clothing, electronics and consumables. So while everyone in Norway, Sweden and Denmark can enjoy a just and equal right to existence, the chain of exploitation is still not broken and without the reliance on the Third World this system would simply not work. Would these countries be able to sustain themselves in terms of agricultural production without relying on imports of grain etc? While the populations are small in comparison to Mainland Europe, is the available land sufficient and of a high enough quality to sustain existence for that number of people> If the production of goods remained localised within the boarders of Scandinavia the picture would be quite different, the concentrated level of competition would negatively impact on the quality of life for many citizens. So while you may be correct that we're better off as a Western society sticking to capitalism with socialist elements, as I've pointed out above and in posts before, many more people are not.

 

With regard to Eastern Europe, it's a difficult issue to dissect. We've all acknowledged that there were many problems, in my dissertation on the Soviet Union I concluded that it was essentially corrupt from the outset, was developed from a base of almost nothing, constantly shifted the goal posts in terms of ideology (Stalin to Khrushchev, to Brezhnev and back again with Gorbachev) and struggled to exist due to competition and particularly the arms race with the West.

 

All these factors, especially the final point meant that a hell of a lot of time, money and effort was being directed towards the defence of the system. The arms race economically crippled the Union, as did hefty import duties when production of food slowed, this is one (but certainly not the only) reason why life was so difficult, and eventually the West was able to price the Union out of existence. This is the reason why medicine was underdeveloped (even though it was possible to buy expensive imports), why food stocks were poor etc etc. This was another reason why holidaying outside the Union was impossible, because while you could enjoy an average quality of life inside of it, it was extremely expensive (in comparison) to go outside, again all to do with the West's dominant economic position and base. Think of it now like a lowly paid worker from Romania or Bulgaria (not in the EU) going on holiday to Scandinavia, simple economics dictates it as equally difficult (I couldn't afford to eat in a restaurant when I went to Norway - £50 for 2 pizzas and 2 drinks )

 

With regards to luxury goods, they're luxury for a reason. They are not needed in the sense that you can't live without them, so why is it important to have them? Because everyone else does? Because the enjoyment they bring is better than you get from other things or non-luxury goods? Is it because it says something about you if you own them? Would these luxury goods be produced cheaply, using Third World labour, or is it economically viable to produce them in the West, using fair and just means of production? I'm not picking, I'm genuinely intrigued as to what would be classed as a 'luxury good' and what it would add to someone's quality of life. Does everyone need a HDTV or a car that's faster than someone else's?

Edited September 26, 2010 by Nicktendo

[Emasher]

My question though is what would happen to all these people if they didn't have jobs in these factories? If we look at China for instance, consider how large the population is. These people can't all farm. If they weren't employed by the factories, you would most likely have a huge number of people starving and out of work. Why do you think they went to work in the factories in the first place?

[The fish]

Think of it now like a lowly paid worker from Romania or Bulgaria (not in the EU) going on holiday to Scandinavia

 

I'll reply to the rest in full when I have the time, but this particular bit bothered me. Y'what?

[Nicktendo]

I'll reply to the rest in full when I have the time, but this particular bit bothered me. Y'what?

 

Sorry, I was incorrectly under the impression that they were both not part of the EU and it seems they are... how embarrassing.

 

The point I was incorrectly getting at was that non-EU members of Europe didn't have minimum wage requirements, but this was also wrong... However, it seems the minimum wage in most countries is still incredibly low...

 

http://www.fedee.com/minwage.html

 

What I was trying to say was lowly paid people from Poorer EU or non-EU (ex-communist) member states would not be able to travel to Western Europe in a similar manner to when communism was still a presence in Europe, because they wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

And Emasher, the population Boom experienced in the East is a result of large-scale urbanisation and population migration as a result of the demand for cheap labour, just like in the West when the production was based here. It happened in the UK and America as well. Urbanisation and population booms are linked and are a direct result of capitalism. The people went to work in factories on the promise of a better life - i.e. money to buy food, instead of growing it which is not guaranteed to yield a successful season of crops.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Nicktendo

[Emasher]

Sure, but from what I've read it seems like most of the people are better off working in factories then they were working on farms. Its also not the fault of the west that people decided to have more children. My point was more talking about today though. With the current population, there just wouldn't be enough work for that many people without the factories.

[Nicktendo]

Sure, but from what I've read it seems like most of the people are better off working in factories then they were working on farms. Its also not the fault of the west that people decided to have more children. My point was more talking about today though. With the current population, there just wouldn't be enough work for that many people without the factories.

 

But where does the blame lie for the need for the factories?

 

Of course, you are 100% correct that without the factories there would be no work, so does that mean they are just best left to get on with it?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

This is probably the most interesting thread I have ever read on N-Europe. I get many new insights into the world of economy, and especially Nicktendo's words leave a deep impression on me. I shall continue to follow this thread with utmost interest!

[The Lillster]

This is probably the most interesting thread I have ever read on N-Europe. I get many new insights into the world of economy, and especially Nicktendo's words leave a deep impression on me. I shall continue to follow this thread with utmost interest!

 

I agree Danny B.

 

I normally don't have the energy to read long posts, but this is really interesting.

[Diageo]

I guess we just sit here and watch while the knowledgeable go at it with pitchforks.

[Emasher]

But where does the blame lie for the need for the factories?

 

Of course, you are 100% correct that without the factories there would be no work, so does that mean they are just best left to get on with it?

 

But what exactly is wrong with the factories if it doesn't lower the standard of living for people? The overpopulation itself can't really be blamed on the people who built the factories.

[Nicktendo]

But what exactly is wrong with the factories if it doesn't lower the standard of living for people? The overpopulation itself can't really be blamed on the people who built the factories.

 

Overall, I would argue that it does. People often have to carry out difficult, dangerous or extremely monotonous work, for an ungodly amount of hours to make a basic wage and support a family, and if they can't do it alone then their children will go to work as well. The cities are overcrowded, polluted, often without clean water and sanitation, Bangladesh perhaps being the most extreme example and the opportunity for education or escape is minimal.

 

Again, if the opportunity (thanks to globalisation and 'time-space compression' - theory by David Harvey) hadn't arisen to sustain a production and manufacturing base on the other side of the world, the factories, cities and population size would not exist...

 

Take a look at this map,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg

 

Population density is highest in the West, in Asia and in Western Africa. This would accurately reflect regions of production and consumption. The West, where production used to be located, already achieved a high population density as the producers and consumers. During the colonial period, the extraction of natural resources from across the globe (especially India, Western Africa, South East Asia and the Caribbean) began to shift the areas of production, so many colonial rulers settled there and established regions of capitalist wealth - We see them today as Singapore, the United States and Hong Kong.

 

Also, as a little side note, the demographic transition model...

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

 

A four stage model representing the development of a population, now requires a fifth stage because social democracies in Scandinavia are bucking the trend. The birth rate has dipped below the death rate, and the population of these countries is shrinking. Is the fact that it they are an 'advanced capitalism' social democracy playing any role in this?

 

In the past Century, with the collapse of European and American production, these bases of colonial wealth and the surrounding regions began growing. The new found capital these regions enjoyed, due to the extraction of natural resources now formed a base for consumption and demand of goods to satisfy the colonial and subsequent ex-colonial settlers. As these places embraced production, which was cheaper than importing from back home, the West gradually realised with the age of globalisation that it would be cheaper to use labour in these already established regions.

 

The end of WW2 and the American occupation of Japan played a key role in places like South Korea and Taiwan becoming advanced capitalist democracies almost overnight. India and the subcontinent was not so lucky. China was protected by the Soviet Union, it is only since 1979 and the death of Mao have they fully embraced capitalism in an almost hypocritical way. They have the economic hardship of capitalism and the human rights issues associated with communist governments...

 

So now you have an enormous production base of around 3 billion people. If, and it is a big if, the capitalist system is successful and we see development in these countries which mimics the West, where will the production base shift? Or if it doesn't who will be the producers? Will there be a rich/poor divide...? I would argue there would have to be. Can the world sustain another 3 billion people?

 

The world needs to sit down and have a serious talk about which direction it wants to go in. "Development" in my view, should not be how we measure ourselves as human beings.

 

Final point on this, at Uni a lot of my friends used to give me a hard time for being a communist. One of my lecturers pointed out to me, that while they shared similar views and values, the word communist had become so dirty in the West that we should refer to ourselves as humanists