Now China is using Cheap(er) Labor - North Korean chattel which is cheaper than Chinese!

[ShivaFan]

So just as the Democratic establishment such as Hillary Clinton or the Republican establishment such as Jeb Bush, who are fronts for the cheap labor agenda and mouthpieces for hording in illiterate foreigners as cheap labor from Mexico and South of the border, so too the Chinese communist government is looking for even cheaper labor than Chinese themselves in China if one can even imagine such a thing considering the sellouts in the US who export industry and jobs to China to take advantage of almost slave wages of the suppressed masses in China. But now these same sellouts can take advantage of even CHEAPER slaves - North Korean slaves as cheap(er) labor in China itself, the communists in China now starting to horde in their own CHEAP labor from North Korea!

Well, well, birds of a feather!

See link:

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/05/19/2016051901138.html

Quote:

"N.Koreans Toil for Global Clothing Labels in China"

"North Korean workers are toiling for Chinese factories that make clothes for global labels like Ralph Lauren and Burberry, Radio Free Asia reported Wednesday."

"... employing cheap North Korean workers, who are typically not free to come and go and see almost none of their wages."

Socialism sucks. But the game is the same BOTTOM LINE. Well, well, I guess I better get my "Nixon in China" tarot cards out and do a reading on which stock will go up or down on the Shanghai! Norkie is cheaper in China than Chinese, every good communist knows that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why are you blathering about socialism and communism with this? That's capitalism. You should be proud of your entrepreneurial brethren as they have found a way to maximize profit for the shareholders! It's all for business! How dare you shame them, dirty commie hippie! Are you saying you support regulation and worker's rights?!

 

[Altfish]

Capitalism at its best (worse)

 

[ShivaFan]

The most abusive monopoly and exploiter of labor is European communism which is a form of imperialism that is foreign to China and devastating Chinese culture with foreign ideations. The worst exemplar of the darker side of crony capitalism is communists in power which "communists" plural with an "s" doesn't mean the people but the aristocracy of communist centralized monopoly that now seeks even cheaper labor in China than the Chinese themselves. So perhaps the "s" is too broad, considering how much power is concentrated into so few hands.

 

[Altfish]

Just wait, the likes of Trump and Romney will be moving their businesses out there.

 

[Augustus]

The 'free trade zones' are open to international companies, not just the Chinese. Until recently, South Korea through companies like Hyundai was the biggest investor before they pulled out for political reasons.

They have been operating these for the past 20 years, so it isn't really a new thing.

Deregulated 'free trade zones' are a common feature across the developing world to allow the exploitation of cheap labour by international companies and corporations.

 

[AsianActivist]

The entire nation of China is a criminal enterprise.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism at its best (worse)

This could ironically be the case, since working in China could be vastly better than working in N Korea.
The reason that N Korean labor is so cheap is due to their very inefficient economy, ie, socialism.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

such is the way the free market and progress is supposed to raise all boats in the tide...

 

[Revoltingest]

North Korea is a state with central planning but no democratic workers control. It is inherently not socialist economically. It's merely state controlled capitalism. Not to mention North Korea has slowly been transitioning to market economics.

Oh, dear.....dictionary wars again.
The state owns the means of production (no private companies).
So it's socialism, & perhaps the purest example in the world.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Communism is essentally capitalism for the govt alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. The property is still private it's just that it is controlled by the state and not the bourgeoisie. It's not "purest" example of the word in any sense (Unless you count those appropriated Merriam Webster definitions you seem to be thinking of.)

"Socialism as a political system is defined by democratic and social control of the means of production by the workers for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit, based fundamentally on the abolition of private property relations." ~From /r/socialism.

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[7]"
~Wikipedia

These definitions will apply to literally any communist theorist you will find and are the most widely used definitions by socialists.
I would ask you to find literally one socialist on this forum who would consider what you wrote socialism.

Perhaps it is wiser to use the definition proposed by the people who believe in the ideology instead of slamming your own down and using it to refute their beliefs?

I notice a big problem in discussing socialism......it has a very slippery ad hoc definition.
When praising it, avowed socialists will cite Scandinavian countries, despite their thriving capitalist economies.
When defending it, they deny N Korea, Cuba, USSR, & old PRC as examples, noting that complexities of Marx's work exclude them.
Some even say that socialism has never been practiced, yet praise it in absence of any consequent evidence it's even possible.
It appears to me that effectively, the term "socialism" refers to any system which supports & treats people well.
All the dictionaries are wrong.
Even Wikipedia is wrong.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea
....for referring to N Korea as "socialist".

What percentage of N Korea industry/business is privately owned & managed?

I may as well start refuting Nazi germany and proclaiming them libertarian.

Oddly, I've dealt with posters who think libertarians support Nazis.
(Because they're so big on liberty, eh?
I never understood why.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Scandinavia has no socialism.

I agree.....woo hoo!

People who think this are the same people who think taxes=socialism.

I'm in favor of taxes, but not socialism.
So again....woo hoo!

As I think we established earlier in this thread socialism cannot have private property.

Some personal property would qualify, but not ownership of the "means of production".

Cuba and Lenin's Russia had socialism for brief periods under central planning. It also arguably existed in catalonia and for the diggers.
NK, the USSR, and Maoist China all had a Dictatorship of the Proletariat however that is merely one step in communist theory towards socialism, not the only requirement of it.
There was recently a pro-dprk demonstration by South Koreans in Toronto (total whackjobs, I know) and even THEY acknowledged NK was not a socialist state.
Well the only system which does treat everyone well is a socialist (meaning the definitions I used above) system. However I do not cite any system which is doing alright as socialist because it is plainly wrong.

I maintain that a welfare state fueled by capitalism is the best.
With greater relative productivity, more resources for benefits are available.

A bunch of liberals call themselves socialist because they have fallen prey to thinking anti-establishment is somehow anti-capitalism or that taxes are socialism when it isn't.

Dang.....I like the way you think.

I honestly think that saying libertarians are Nazi's is about as truthful about what you said about NK's "socialism" above.

No, libertarians are far from Nazis, since we're very big on personal liberty.
Nazis are quite authoritarian.
But N Korea does fit the definition of "socialism" quite well, if one considers the government as the "community as a whole", which they appear to claim.
The leadership personality cult would make the definition fit less, but that's why I consider them the "purest example", rather than "pure".

I would really urge you to read the communist manifesto and/or capital. It would allow you to make your points against socialism much more consistent.

I don't want to start using a non-standard arcane historical definition.
Instead, I recommend that self identified socialists use the definition that everyone else (except for their conservative foes, who use the term for demonization) uses.
It appears that most of them are OK with capitalism, but want more regulation, & a generous welfare state.
In that sense, I'm on their side.....but with lower taxes, smaller government, & the welfare system having incentives to be productive in the private sector.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No.
Communism is the goal of a stateless and classless society.
You seem to be referring to the state of NK which is state controlled capitalism, but they are not socialist.

Looking at China with it's elite classes, vibrant trade, and abundance of advertisements, do you regard China as a communist country?

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism as theorized by Karl, Friedrich, Vladamir, Peter and many more are far from what NK and the Stalinist USSR had because they were very big on worker control over the means of production.
Mr Kim is quite command economy.
It boggles my mind you don't see how what the two comparisons above are the same.

It's easy to explain....
You're using historical definitions, I'm using a modern one.
I'm not alone in seeing N Korea is socialist.
But I've already acknowledged how it differs somewhat, the community has some disconnect with the leadership which represents it.

I have honestly not a clue what you mean by this.
As I said above, you are forcing your definition upon us.

If I use the definition commonly used by most people, & found in dictionaries, to call it "forcing" is odd.

Gross.

Huh?

You don't want to use the definition of the most influential and most followed socialist theorists to ever exist? Oh alright.

I only use the definition which is most common,
& is generally applied to N Korea, eg, Wikipedia.

But whatever label one applies to their economic system,
my point was that greener pastures lie in China.