It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Kim Il-sung a fake communist?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
This is a conspiracy in Communist/Socialist circles. So I wanted to make a discussion about it. My friends who are socialist and I were discussing the history of Communist revolutionaries. They brought up Mao Zedong, Lenin and others. With them criticizing Joesph Stalin for the murder of peasants. I recalled reading and watching video of Kim Il-Sung being criticized for not being a real communist because of the luxury he indulged himself in after the Korean War started. Which was really interesting to see it coming from Chinese diplomats for North Korea since it's founding. That's when it came to me that Kim Il-Sung used Commusim influence from the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Even today of seeing Korean politics differ from Communist and Socialist politics. Even the People's Republic of China which is Capitalist now still try's to cling to it's weak Communist roots. This is my personal opinion. What are your thoughts on Kim Il-Sung being a fake Communist?




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Heh...has there ever been a "Real Communist" leader? Has there ever been "Real Communism" existing anywhere in the world? I don't think so.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
There has never really been a real communist leader they have all been about punishing the masses and reaping the benefits of complete control for themselves. Thats the problem with communism its only human to be greedy and communism caters for the greediest. At least with capitalism there is room for competition of power.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I do agree with the both of you. What me and my friends had on mind is that he used Communism for support against the American backed South. Even though the Soviets were already in Korea before the U.S.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Most "Communist" leaders have been anything but. Mostly they have used the veneer and terminology of Communist ideals as a smokescreen for their totalitarian dictatorial rule. Mao, Stalin, etc. They used the ideology and economic principles as a kind of new religion to control the masses. Ironic, since Marx railed against religion - but one dogmatic ideology replaced another, and was held to with the same sort of fervent beliefs as have been Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judiasm...etc., etc. Same thing in a different form.

I do think Lenin actually believed in what he was doing and it's pretty clear that at the time of his death he was trying to make changes in the system to make it more workable. Lenin really did live a very austere lifestyle, taking up residence in a very small, simple apartment within the Kremlin and forgoing luxuries and such. That's not to say Lenin didn't use extreme brutality in establishing his government - all I'm saying is that I think for him it was probably an ends justify the means situation. But, that brutality is what brought Stalin to the fore within his administration. Stalin was a useful kind of person when you run a government that way, and so he rose to ever more power and influene, until by the time of Lenin's death, he was really already very much in control of things (even if others didn't necessarily know it).

So, are the Kims of Korea true Communists? Well, they've always all lived in luxury - Kim Jong Il's son was infamously arrested trying to sneak into Japan to go to Disney World, there - something he'd apparently done before. They have kidnapped South Korean actors to perform privately for them, they import all manner of Western goods and luxuries - foods, liquors, etc., meanwhile their people live in desperate poverty, often going through terrible bouts of starvation. So, are they Communists? No, not even remotely. They are dictators who care only for their own well being and power - very, very far from the Communist ideal.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Kim il-Sung was insane. Not as bad as the others though. He is my president and I love him



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Its a dead end argument really with the answer being no . Stalin choose Kim ii-Sung as his hand picked leader for North Korea because he considered him to be ideologically reliable enough to lead North Korea . Kim played along with being backed by Stalin for a period of time because he figured that Moscow was further away then Beijing.
Later on while in power from an academic stand point Kim didn't practice Communism but the level of state control in North Korea remains the same if not greater then was practised in the Soviet Union . Once again in the real world it is a dead end topic because tyranny is tyranny no matter what flag it flies under .

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Just as in EVERY collectivist government in history, tyrants always get into power.

They use their UTOPIAN plans to implement their power, that is why they always end in a tyrant in power.

The excuse that collectivists use, is that only if THEY were the one to implement it, it would be better.

Narcissist always comes to mind in that regard.

The all encompassing, if only I had the power to enforce the new regime.

Kind of reminds me of those that wish someone had the dictatorial powers to implement the scheme.

Sound familiar? Woody Allen anyone?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join