Thread:4th of Augustball/@comment-38190122-20200311185625/@comment-34423308-20200420182629

"And isn't South Korea successful only because of its connections with Japan, Taiwan, US and EU? Wouldn't it collapse just as badly as North Korean economy if not more would it be isolated from those countries or if those countries' economies would collapse themselves?"

well, yes - a large part of the explosion was also driven by external forces, as Wikipedia states "External factors include the enormous economic and technical assistance provided by the Western countries, particularly Japan (see Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea) and the United States, access to Western and Japanese markets, and the acquisition of foreign currency by Korean migrant workers in the early stages of economic growth," in all fairness however, the North Korean economy is hardly self-reliant, either. the vast majority of DPRK exports and imports are reliant on China. economics, especially today, are quite entangled. as South Korea would take massive hits should the American or East Asian markets collapse, North Korea would as well should China's economy collapse or should the PRC stop propping up the regime. in fact, this situation occurred before, as stated - "The collapse of the Eastern Bloc from 1989 to 1991, particularly North Korea's principal source of support, the Soviet Union, forced the North Korean economy to realign its foreign economic relations, including increased economic exchanges with South Korea."

"I don't know any evidence of DPRK being particularly corrupt..." as for that, Transparency International ranks the DPRK as one of the lowest nations in terms of governmental corruption - tied with Somalia and Afghanistan, I believe. recent years have seen some improvement, but numerous accounts by defectors who have been through prison camps, served as guards, or administrators have attested towards the nation's draconian justice system - including continued deprivation of human rights. even North Korea's state-run media admitted corruption as an issue at one point - as said "North Korea's state media admitted widespread corruption in North Korea, when laying out the accusations against Jang Sung-taek after his execution in December 2013. The statement mentions bribery, deviation of materials, selling resources and land, securing funds and squandering money for private use by organizations under his control.[3]"

"As I explained, relatively low standards of living in DPRK are a consequence of the path they have chosen and their restriction of freedoms is caused by them being under a constant political, economical and informational siege by a big chunk of the rest of the world as well as simply because of DPRK's totalitarian nature." while yes - the draconian nature of North Korea's system is in part due to being under threat from numerous political enemies, it still is dehumanizing nevertheless. and even then - it's for the survival of the regime rather than the people as a whole. they only keep the people alive so they can work and run the economy, and essentially bar them from other necessities.

if North Korea isn't as deprecated as "propaganda" would have one believe it so, why is the state so staunchly secretive? why are reporters hardly allowed to peer into the common people's lives rather than the elite society that exists in the capital region? and how does one explain the numerous accounts by defectors and refugees that trickle out from North Korea even to this day?

"Totalitarianism is needed because it is a way to effectively change human society for good, it eliminates crime and it shapes people to be more in line with virtues, at least virtues of the time, which often benefits them and actually makes their lives ultimately freer and healthier."

I appreciate that general view on governance, however - politics and governance isn't that simple. in previous arguments, you mentioned how democracy makes the government vulnerable to the flawed nature of those who vote.

in totalitarian regimes, it instead concentrates such unto the government itself, allowing those in power to impose their will onto the populace. a few times, this has been used for beneficial purposes - again, Tito and Singapore are shining examples - but more often than not, having so much control into not only public life but private life as well is dangerous. it allows minorities to be persecuted - in numerous current totalitarian regimes, I would be persecuted because I'd be an ethnic minority or a political minority or a homosexual. there is no coincidence that many genocides have been under totalitarian regimes. the phrase " if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is inherently flawed. privacy is a fundamental right (at least up to an extent), and even if you've nothing to hide, an entity or state still can distort public images, place arbitrary and immoral standards, and defame a person's reputation simply because they have the power to do so and it would benefit the state's power.