Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • No New News Here

    Posted by James R. Rummel on October 20th, 2006 (All posts by )

    The teaser to the news article reads “NORTH KOREANS FACE WINTER WITHOUT ADEQUATE FOOD”.

    Can someone please tell me how this is different from the last 20 years?

    There are times when the only reasonable response to a tragic situation is by laughing. It is for that reason I would like to share with you the following news item.



    9 Responses to “No New News Here”

    1. ArtD0dger Says:

      Thank Marx for Soylent Nork.

    2. Phillip Moss Says:

      Hi, James. This is Phillip Moss. I hope that all is well, and would enjoy hearing from you.

      (Chicagoboyz: If off-topic comments like this are inappropriate for this forum, please accept my apology).

    3. Shawn Says:

      You’re right, that is exactly the same as its been the last 20 years, if not 50. North Korea is just the hot topic these days. They spend all their money trying to build nukes.

    4. Elephant State Says:

      I’m blown away that the North Koreans haven’t overthrown the government, or at least tried. If the US government conspired to starve us year in and year out, we would have torn the place down. Yet, I don’t hear of any violent dissent. Perhaps this is covered up by the NK government – who really knows?

    5. Jonathan Says:

      The NK govt has had 50+ years to perfect its social control. Popular rebellion there is almost impossible, as was the case in Iraq under Saddam Hussein and is currently the case in Cuba. You can’t overthrow the govt when the govt controls all communication and almost all resources and punishes dissent mercilessly. If Kim goes it’s going to be at the hands of his army or an outside govt.

    6. Steven Den Beste Says:

      What’s different this time is that no one is going to help NK with its economic collapse and food shortage.

      Elephant State, you’ve been listening to too much Marxist dogma. The Proletariat doesn’t rise in revolution. Revolution is a sport of the Bourgeois, who often claim to do it in the name of the Proletariat, and who will try to recruit cannon fodder from the Proletariat.

      Nations which have been ground into complete misery by utter incompetency and brutality of their leaders don’t have revolutions.

      Revolutionaries are those who have stuff and are afraid they’ll lose it. People who have nothing don’t lead revolutions.

    7. Ginny Says:

      Steven den Beste is perceptive (no surprise), not that it is a happy perception. Part of the complete misery is relieved by the image of the beloved leader that has been inserted far into the NK consciousness. Given a revolution, how hard will it be to cleanse minds of that image? How much of the passivity VDH complains about among the Iraqis is the loss of that image of Saddam with nothing to replace it?

    8. Steven Den Beste Says:

      A lot of people don’t realize that about revolution. Look at a list of famous revolutionary leaders, even Communist revolutionaries, and every single one of them is well educated and a member of the middle class (if not even more well off).

      The idea that the Proletariat can and will rise in revolution is one of the great myths of Marxism which is widely believed, and yet completely and utterly wrong.

    9. Ginny Says:

      Sorry about how it sounded, I was really trying to be complimentary. I meant it wasn’t a surprise you were perceptive – I’m never surprised how unperceptive Marxist interpretations are (especially about human nature).

      So these same kinds of guys keep saying how Jefferson believed in the proletariat and Adams in the aristocracy. People who actually are part of the proletariat don’t idealize it, for one thing.