8 ms·

I thought america WAS the aggressor? (Korea isn't really near the US), and it was quite apparent the US wanted satellite states near russia/china, to potentiall

• mikegagnon 13y ago
  "Brainwashing" isn't a precisely defined word. I believe the word is often used to describe persuasion via psychological vulnerabilities. In this sense, the article is correct in calling the technique a form of brainwashing.
  • dsrguru 13y ago
    Interestingly enough, it comes from the Chinese word 洗脑 (xǐnǎo), literally meaning to "wash brains", which was used to describe the 1984-like attempts Mao used to re-educate dissident intellectuals.
• seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Let me give you a tl;dr: the North Koreans started it by rolling over into South Korea, McAuthur went too close to the Yalu in the counter attack, Chinese entered the war, Truman fires McAuthur. Stalement ensues, borders preserved, Kim Jong Un has ex-girlfriend executed. The communists of the 50s were busy starving their own people in great leaps forwards, in the 60s they innovated on that with a cultural revolution; Mao finally dies; China didn't start to stabalize until Deng brought back capitalism.
  • RodericDay 13y ago
    I can't wait til I get to downvote
  • rayiner 13y ago
    I love the rationalization people have to use to explain China's economic success. If what Deng brought was capitalism, then Obama is an anarcho-libertarian.
    • clicks 13y ago
      What was behind China's economic success then? (not snark, genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts) As far as I know Deng did advocate a more open and free policy when it came to the markets, not in very concrete terms but certainly in veiled terms like "pragmatism" and "we must do whatever works" [1]. I'm not saying Deng made China a Randian libertarian's wet-dream but it seems he did push for free markets a little bit. [1] http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/leaders_thinkers_zedong_xiaoping.html http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/leaders_thinkers_zedong_xia...
      • tokenadult 13y ago
        What was behind China's economic success then? (not snark, genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts) Imitating the free-enterprise model of Hong Kong and Taiwan, decades after those territories had far outpaced China in prosperity. And one of the great advantages China has enjoyed in economic development, as compared to several other territories, is the large number of people who can communicate in local languages (various forms of Chinese) but who grew up without communist influences on their primary and secondary education. "Compatriots" from Taiwan and Hong Kong, and also "overseas Chinese" from many places in southeast Asia played a crucial role in boosting China's economic growth through direct investment after the beginnings of system reform in 1978. (Basis of knowledge: I began studying Chinese during the Cultural Revolution, and have met quite a few people from outside China who have invested over there, after investment began to be permitted.)
        • LiweiZ 13y ago
          Cost friendly labor market and the huge potential domestic consumer market itself.
      • rayiner 13y ago
        "Capitalism" means private ownership of capital. 30% of industrial and service sector assets in China are stated-owned: http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/state-owned-enterprises-in-china-how-big-are-they http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/state-owned-enter.... About 45% of the industrial sector is state-owned, down from 70% in 1999 (still more than two decades after Deng left office, and more than a decade after China's economic boom began). The profit share of the state owned enterprises is even higher: 43% of industrial and business profits in China yield from state owned enterprises: http://thediplomat.com/2013/06/19/reforming-chinas-state-owned-enterprises http://thediplomat.com/2013/06/19/reforming-chinas-state-own.... In a purely definitional sense, China is at best a hybrid economy now, and was a primarily communist economy long after its economy started booming. Even to the extent that China's economy is ostensibly privately owned, the government still exercises tremendous control. For example while the banks are joint stock companies, and thus reflect substantial private ownership of equity, the Chinese government still owns the majority of the shares in many of them giving them tremendous power over those banks. I don't think China can be fairly called a "capitalist" economy. It's a managed economy where the managers have allowed the free market to allocate resources at the lower levels, while the central government directs broader, longer-term economic objectives.
  • Volpe 13y ago
    Capitalism is part of the progression to communism. You have to have generated capital in order to distribute it. Marx saw communism as a progression from capitalism, not a genesis form of government in and of itself. China had the unfortunate luck of being left in ruins when it becoming "Communist". Deng rebooted the whole thing, it remains to be seen whether they will continue communism into the future. To call it "capitalism" is a bit rich (no pun), given all major industries are owned by the government (the people). The 50s they also brought health care to vast majority of the population. The 60s they increased literacy across the country by simplifying the language, and standardising education. Should we both just keep cherry picking information to paint our own narrative, or admit this isn't a black and white subject?
    • seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      I live in China, it is the most capatalistic country I have lived in. If there is any socialism left, it is quite hidden to me.
      • Volpe 13y ago
        It's a bit of a false dichotomy (as I tried to explain earliar). It isn't capitalism vs communism. Capitalism is a form of economy, communism is form of government. The mix of those, I believe china call it: "Socialism with chinese characteristics". The fact primary industry and exports are state owned is a big tick for: Communism. That's true, regardless what you see living there. (People making money and doing business is not anti-communism, it is where the money goes that makes it "communist"). Isn't the famous Deng quote: It doesn't matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches the mouse.
        • ma2rten 13y ago
          Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order [...] Wikipedia
          • Volpe 13y ago
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• mynameishere 13y ago
  Also did the communists do a bad job... Compare West and East Germany. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Mainland China and Taiwan. And once you've done those comparisons ask yourself about what kind of job the communists have done. Many millions dead. Many more millions in poverty. That's the job they've done.
  • rxin 13y ago
    What about comparing mainland and Taiwan? I don't think there exists an obvious conclusion from this comparison if you look at status quo. If you are judging based on the situation before 2000s, I agree with you that there is an obvious conclusion.
    • tokenadult 13y ago
      Taiwan is still well ahead of the P.R.C. both in economic development and personal liberty.
      • DominikR 13y ago
        Of course they are, Taiwan is a small country that is supported by the only superpower left. (another example of such a country: Israel) Where do you think that the economic development of Taiwan would be if it wasn't backed by the US? And where do you think they will be in 20 years, with China constantly rising in power and influence. I don't think it's controversial to say that they'll probably be part of China, considering that there is even political support for that in Taiwan.
    • khuey 13y ago
      Per capita GDP in terms of PPP US: ~$50000 Taiwan: ~$39000 EU: ~$35000 China: ~$9000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP...
      • Volpe 13y ago
        That's right, lets take our Western-pro-US measuring stick out and measure china against it in order to show they are not as "successful". China's goal posts are not in the same spot as the US's.
• anologwintermut 13y ago
  America was in almost no way the aggressor. North Korea Invades South Korea on June 25th 1950. The UN, for probably the first,last, and only time, takes military action (at American behest and because the Russian's were boycotting the UN) led by a US General and primarily American troops. This force and the South Korean Army repel the North Koreans and drive into North Korea (which was suppose to hold open elections but didn't as part of unification), the Chinese enter the way as the UN forces approached (but did not cross) the Chinese boarder. EDIT: This is not to say that the UN forces crossing the 38th Parallel was the best idea or that they were not happy to occupy North Korea or that they didn't have ambitions to do so from the outset , but aggressor is really a misleading term when they did not fire the first shot.
  • w1ntermute 13y ago
    Nobody has explained to me why Korea was even divided up into the North and South in the first place. It should have been left to its own devices after the Japanese empire collapsed at the end of WW2. That is, the US/UN shouldn't have been occupying the South and the USSR/China shouldn't have been occupying the North. Seems to me that the fault should be assigned to all of those countries/organizations.
    • tokenadult 13y ago
      The problem at the time was the Allied Powers (the Western non-Axis powers and the Soviet Union) were not united about how to resolve the issue of the sovereignty of Korea after the end of World War II. Germany was divided, over in Europe, for much the same reason, but there wasn't an invasion across the line of control between the Soviet occupied zone and the Western occupied zone in Germany, as there was an invasion from North Korea to South Korea in 1950. Perhaps if Stalin's plan had succeeded in Korea, an invasion of western Europe would have followed.
      • stephengillie 13y ago
        To me, this sounds like "The neighbors were not united about which parent should get custody of the children when they divorced." I cannot fathom why we all would be involved in an internal dispute. And the USSRussia would have invaded western Europe...where the US & allies had set up many military bases? "Communism" was the "terrorism" of my parents' generation...
• Aloisius 13y ago
  > Also did the communists do a bad job in china? That is at most controversial... not "brain washed". Controversial? Good lord, Mao's Great Leap Forward killed between 23 and 42 million people in just a few years.
  • Volpe 13y ago
    Okay, so Mao could be argued to be a bad idea, but there was and has been a lot of communism since Mao. Could you say the same for Deng Xiaoping (also a communist)?
    • Aloisius 13y ago
      At the time of the Korean war, China was still in the Mao period. From any sane point of view at that time, communism was horrible for China. Post-Mao, well... Hua was a disaster and Deng was never a good communist. Mao himself accused Deng of being a capitalist and banished him to the countryside in the 60s. Once he finally gained power and brought back mild capitalism (really, market socialism), it still took 20 years for China to really get going.
      • Volpe 13y ago
        This is over simplistic and wrong. Mao used purging to get rid of others building power within the party. It had nothing to do with whether they were Communist (many good communists were purged). Sane points: Education, Health, both improved under communist rule.
    • philwelch 13y ago
      If you define "the communists" as "the Chinese communist party", then judging from China's development they've done a fine job. This was not quite true during the 1950's, when the head of the communists was Mao. It's also questionable to define the economic system of Deng's China as "communist" in the same way as Soviet Russia and, say, Cuba.
  • yetanotherphd 13y ago
    Only by a very loose definition of "kill" - that is, by looking at total population numbers. And overall, the communist regime saved many more people from starvation (you can also see this in the total population numbers). Starvation was common before communism (this is second hand "communist propaganda" from my father, probably originally from a similar source to the information the Korean POW's were given), but it wasn't concentrated into a few years like in the great leap forward.
• rmason 13y ago
  Here's a list of the worst cases of genocide in world history and Mao is on the very top of the list. http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html