A Worker's Paradise

by Pundit Thu Mar 18, 2004 15:06

To think that the SP describe N Korea as a Workers State! The SP claim that the property is in the hands of the people! Nonsense! N Korea is a Feudal Regime where all of the "State" property is owned by the ruling Royal Kim Family and the Barons of the Ruling P{arty.

by SP member Thu Mar 18, 2004 16:12

You dishonestly imply that the SP is sympathetic to the regime in North Korea.

North Korea is a DEFORMED Workers State in the sense you have a state owned economy run undemocratically by a bureaucratic caste to enrich themselves. North Korea is without doubt one of the worst examples of Stalinism where unlike Cuba which is essentially the same you would be hard pressed to demonstrate the benifits of state planning in areas like healthcare or anything else in North Korea.

The SP believes that state ownership of the economy doesn't by itself amount to socialism however state ownership is a prerequisite to constructing a socialist society. Without state ownership you cannot have rational planning.

What flows from this is that a political revolution is needed in North Korea to oust the buraucracy and democratize the country.

Anybody who opposes the term DEFORMED workers state has to answer this question: What would be served by privitizing the economy? Who would benifit? You can't rule out such an eventuality, as has been demonstrated with China.

Rather than engaging in slander and distortion of the SPs position on the degenerated and deformed workers states you should take up in a serious fashion the points raised.

by Pundit Thu Mar 18, 2004 16:19

"North Korea is a DEFORMED Workers State in the sense you have a state owned economy run undemocratically by a bureaucratic caste to enrich themselves. "

Shame on you! It is no sort of Workers State!

"The SP believes that state ownership of the economy doesn't by itself amount to socialism however state ownership is a prerequisite to constructing a socialist society."

The State does not own the property. It is owned by the Ruling Royal Family the Kims and the Aristocracy of the Kims Party.

"Without state ownership you cannot have rational planning. "

Yeah right! The State decides that you only need one type and colour of jeans and they all come in x-large.



"What flows from this is that a political revolution is needed in North Korea to oust the buraucracy and democratize the country. "

The State never even acheived capitalism. A Socialist Revolution is required to overthrow the Feudal regime,

"Anybody who opposes the term DEFORMED workers state has to answer this question: What would be served by privitizing the economy?"

I havent called for privatisation. I call for Socialist Revolution to take the property out of the hands of the Feudal Aristocracy of Kim & company.

by Glasshouse watch Thu Mar 18, 2004 16:28

"What flows from this is that a political revolution is needed in North Korea to oust the buraucracy and democratize the country. "

Could read

What flows from this is that a political revolution is needed in the Socialist Party to oust the bureaucracy and democratise the party.

by Jenny Thu Mar 18, 2004 16:37

Only a cultist or a very sick person could suggest that North Korea is any kind of a Workers State. See this UN report /

About 70,000 children are still at mortal risk from severe malnutrition
The UN children's agency Unicef says efforts to save and improve the lives of North Korean children are working despite continued political isolation.
Unicef head Carol Bellamy said co-operation with the authorities has boosted immunisation and given better access to medicines and clean water. She said the new three-year programme was a "little breakthrough", which would attempt to bring "a little more reality" to the country's highly ideological school curriculum

But she said the country was still suffering serious economic decline.

Many youngsters remain extremely vulnerable to illness and deaths that are preventable, she added.

by A friend of anonymous trolls Thu Mar 18, 2004 17:30

It seems that anonymous trolling is preferred to serious debate here as usual.

The Trotskyist view of the Stalinist states is not a sympathetic one. It is a view that is virulently hostile to the Stalinist dictatorships. Trotskyists argue for workers in those countries to rise up in political revolution to break and sweep aside the bureaucracies which rule them with an iron fist.

For an anonymous troll (and that's judging from your other contributions to this site too) to try to claim that Trotskyists therefore sympathise with Stalinist dictatorships is vile.

I'm sure that this will result in some more anonymous and inflammatory lies.

by Joe Thu Mar 18, 2004 17:40

I think the trot line is being soft peddled here for obvious reasons (its ludicrous).

Saying that X state is a deformed/degenerate* workers state so that only a political revolution is needed is basically saying the problem is not the economy, it is the guys at the top. It also clearly implies that state X is better then its possible capitalist equivalent.

A cuddly argument to make with relation to Cuba for a trot but when you start talking of North Korea it is a little embarrassing. Particularly as the other side of the Korean 'experiment' (an odd term for partition perhaps) does not appear to be worse, in any respect, than North Korea.

The other problem is it blows the lid off trot politics as it shows that the KEY concern is that the state owns the economy. Workers democracy is relegated to a good idea that should be introduced but not if you have to risk 'reintroducing capitalism'. And in practise even Lenin and Trotsky found workers democracy too risky a concept for these reasons, so its no more than the slogan of trots in opposition.

To those outside the one true church of lenin the whole argument appears very odd, an secular equivalent of the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' disputes of the middle ages. And then you haven't even seen the convoluted inter trot disputes as to whether state X is a 'degenerated workers state' or a 'deformed workers state'. Free subscription to indymedia for the first person to explain what the difference between these two terms is.

by Peter Boyle Thu Mar 18, 2004 17:51

The discussion I wanted to engender was not a discussion about the pros or cons of trotsyite positions or marxist leninist positions or indeed capitalist positions.

My point was the point at the very end of article.
How do we remove Kim from power?
How do the oppressed people of Korea be freed from the tyranny of Kim?

Talk will not do it.
Do not seriously suggest that talking with this psychotic will make him somehow benevolent.
He must be forcibly removed!
Either the UN has to vote for war against the regime of Kim ( it will not because China and Russia will use their vetoes) or unilaterally by some world power with the means ( military might) to do it.
China and Russia if they would veto a resolution to removed Kim they certainly wouldn't launch a war against him due to their historical connection.
How else then?
By marching in the street?
If Kim machine guns all opposition or herds them into slave camps he is hardly going to care if we people march in Dublin?
The only solution as I see it is for the US to be the spreadhead of the attack on Kim.
They have the will to fight tyrannies( Saddam Hussein) they have the military power and the will to suffer casualties ( more than 500 in Iraq to date).
This war has to be fought.
It must be fought.
The millions suffering under Kim must be free.
Someone has to do something!
NOW!

by Curious Thu Mar 18, 2004 18:15

Are you John or Peter Boyle? Make your mind up.

The Trots have a nerve talking about trolling when all that is happening is that the stupidity of their definitions of the North Korean State are being exposed.

by A friend of anonymous trolls Thu Mar 18, 2004 18:45 www.marxists.org

The Trotskyist analysis rests on two main points:

1) Capitalism has been abolished in these Stalinist states. The economy has been taken into public ownership. The capitalists have been expropriated and in a woefully undemocratic and distorted way planned production has been introduced.

Is anybody seriously going to argue that what exists in North Korea is "capitalism"? To do so destroys capitalism as an analytical term and turn it into a political swear word, something you call anything you don't like.

2) However, instead of a genuine workers democracy, these states are ruled by vicious bureaucratic dictatorships. These dictatorships are not reformable. They have to be broken through the working class rising up in a political revolution.

Kim Jong-il's North Korea is probably the most demented of the currently existing Stalinist dictatorships but it is hardly the worst one that has ever existed. Trotsky developed his theory, after all, to try to explain what was happening under Stalin in Russia!

The reason why Stalinist states are called "deformed" or "degenerated" is that a political revolution is needed to establish workers democracy. This isn't, as Joe would have it, some minor point, some point of criticism in an otherwise friendly analysis. It is absolutely central.

Trotskyists don't want to see capitalism restored in the Stalinist countries. The restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe has seen a catastrophic fall in living standards, employment and even life expectancy amongst workers in those countries. Everything that wasn't nailed down has been privatised. Why would we want to see any of this happen in, say, Cuba?

What we do want to see happen is the overthrow of the Stalinist dictatorships by the working class of those countries in a political revolution. The working classes of those countries could establish genuine workers democracies.

Now I fully expect to see all of this distorted by later, mostly anonymous, posters. I expect to hear claims that we regard the Stalinist countries as "workers states" without including the all-important first part of the term ("degenerated" or "deformed") and without an explanation of what that actually means. But I would encourage anyone who is actually interested in what we have to say on this subject to start by reading Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed", which is available on the Marxist Internet Archive.

by karl popper Thu Mar 18, 2004 19:09

The crucial point that Trotskyism misses in its analysis of Stalinism is that the undemocratic and oppressive nature of ALL socialist states is not in fact something that is incidental to the state ownership of the economy. The two are inextricably connected. Once you abolish centres of power outside of the state; economic, cultural, political etc; it is inevitable that the regime will develop as have all socialist states. Hence "Stalinism" is misleading as it is Marxist Leninism that is at fault and not some aberrent strain that can be cured. None of that is to take away in any manner from the undoubted heroism and sacrifice of many dissident Marxists including trotskyists who have resisted and suffered at the hands of vile regimes like the Kims. But unfortunately, history and experience would tell us that all Marxist led revolutions will end in the same awfulness.

Also that is not to say that "history is over" and that the left is discredited. The struggle for human values which the left often leads is an ongoing one and it is noteable that one of the earliest critics of Marxist Leninism - Babel - identified the fact that the crucial thing in the workers movement was not some unknown and unknowable end result, but in fact the actual day to day reality of the struggle. A kind of zen socialism maybe!!

by Jenny Thu Mar 18, 2004 20:00

You are the Troll and you are obviously a cultist or you wouldnt be peddling such disgusting nonsense that any rational person would puke at. I repeat - onlly a sick person or cultist would think that there is anything about the North Korean state that is worth preserving. Thouands of children die every month while the trotskyites continue to say its a Workers state.

The blood of those children is on the hands of the SP and anyone else who cheers on North Korea as a workers state .

by a friend of anonymous trolls Thu Mar 18, 2004 20:27

Abuse in place of rational argument. I don't expect anything better than that here.

by NKVD Thu Mar 18, 2004 21:38

In the absence of democracy the barracudas like Stalin take over from the do-gooders.

It's always the way and has been amply demonstrated in the 20C. A workers state always ends in tyranny.

by Joe Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:14

1. Why do trots insist on using such long bloody pseudonyms when they post here.

2. Amusing how when to comes to the 'advantages' of so callled 'workers states' you switch (as usual) from talking about North Korea to talking about Cuba. A theory is not very good if you can only argue it for a single case without feeling sheepish. Go on, make the argument for North Korea being 'better' that South Korea and give us all a laugh.

3. Whatever economic label* you choose to give your so called 'workers states' the real point is that they are not 'workers states' but class societies where a minority boss class rules over the working class. Particularly obvious in relation to North Korea where the top boss job was handed directly from father to son. Prefixing with the label 'degenerate' or 'deformed' is really pretty irrelevant, the point is that you think these are 'workers states' in some form but the working class has even less economic or political control there that it does under western capitalism!

4. You say "The reason why Stalinist states are called "deformed" or "degenerated" is that a political revolution is needed to establish workers democrac" Err no, under trot theory this is NOTHING to do with the two different labels. The second is used for states where a genuine workers revolution is distorted by the party (Russia), the first where the partys rule is introduced at the point of a gun by an invading army (Poland). So the first label really blows the trot agenda, its possible, in other words to have a workers state where the workers NEVER had power and NEVER had a revolution. Rather the magical power on the Red Army in 1945 somehow turned Poland, East Germany, Czechlovkia etc into workers states!!!

5. What does this make Cuba anyway? [trots fight endlessly about this as it upsets the neat categories above. After all it never had a 'workers revolution' that degenerated nor was it 'deformed' by an invading Red Army]

6. The theoretical gobblydegook sketched above exists for one reason. Most of the stuff trots say was bad about Stalin et al was actually introduced by Lenin and Trotsky in the years between 1918 and 21 right down to the banning of organised dissent in the communist party. The gibberish above exists to explain why the same policies were necessary under L+T but bad under Stalin.

---

* The "economic label* question is one trots argue about all day and night. In reality its only relevant if you believe that all truth is written in Das Kapital in a similar fashion to how others believe that all truth exists in the bible or quoran. To everyone else the factual existance of a boss class and a working class makes the taxonomy argument a side show which obscures rather then reveals.

by Jim Monaghan Fri Mar 19, 2004 14:47

Both the SP (plus other Trotskyists) and other correspondents are agreed about regime change. Presumably by the Koreans themselves not by the USA.Trotskyists would not want the assets of North Korea to be handed over from the Kims to Cheney and his pals which is what happened and is happening in Iraq. So what is the problem? There is a touch of the "life of Brian" about this debate. Questions about support for the evil Kims should be directed at their local support club, The Workers Party. Even the CPI appear to have distanced themselves from it.

by karl popper Fri Mar 19, 2004 15:30

Maybe some of this is akin to Life of Brian polemics but there is an important issue to do with the question as to whether totalitarianism and Marxist-Leninism are inextricably linked. Trotskyists deny that they are and contend that it is possible to use Leninist methods and to create healthy socialist socieites. I and others here contend that it is not. It is a debate that has been largely ignored by the revolutionary left since the collapse of "Stalinism".

by hs - sp Fri Mar 19, 2004 16:35

I've come across here. But just to make it clear in non leftie language. The socialist party does not support the government of north korea and believes it should be overthrown by the people of north korea.
(now you can get back to balancing angels on pins)

by Badman Fri Mar 19, 2004 16:50

The line of the trotskyists that they support a workers revolution in North Korea is simply a line that avoids reality. History has shown again and again that the only remotely likely outcomes to the North Korean regime is the continuation of Kim's dictatorship or the restoration of capitalism.

The real question is, in the event of the threat of a restoration of capitalism, would people support the Kim regime as the worse of two evils? I think that this is what the Trotskyist critics are getting at. Historically when push comes to shove, the trots have weighed in on the side of the state dictatorships against the threat of capitalist restoration (as the dictatorships are at least some sort of workers state). I think that any sane person would have absolutely nothing to do with the Kim regime and would certainly not defend it against capitalism.

To answer the original question posted: there is nothing we can do. The particular deadlock that is created by a stalinist dictatorship set against a capitalist world has historically been completely impervious to any attempts to build up an internal opposition in the stalinist state. All we can do is wait for the regime to crumble from the twin forces of its own glaring failure and the external pressure from the capitalist block. In the absence of a large, democratic revolutionary movement in the capitalist world, the only progress that can be made is to capitalism and that will happen without the intervention of leftists (or despite the intervention of the trots).

by Two pack Fri Mar 19, 2004 17:18

"Questions about support for the evil Kims should be directed at their local support club, The Workers Party."

Typical Trot evasion. The WP are completely irrelevant so what they think doesn't matter a jot. How about answering the very valid points that Joe and Badman raise. Talking of supporters club, have you resigned from the provie and/or planet of the irps club yourself?

by What? Fri Mar 19, 2004 18:43

Sorry Badman, historical genius but:
"Historically when push comes to shove, the trots have weighed in on the side of the state dictatorships against the threat of capitalist restoration".
My historical knowledge may be limited, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trotsky get assasinated by someone over his opposition to a little thing called Stalinism?? And am I not right in saying there are various strands of Trotskyism- some of whom do not support such states as Cuba today?
Sorry maybe I'm wrong- you seem to be the expert

by Badman Fri Mar 19, 2004 19:24

You seem to have quoted me without understanding it. The icepick is neither here nor there. I asserted that historically trotskyists have defended stalinism against the threat of capitalist restoration. I believe that the icepicked one himself had a slogan that went something like this "Defend the gains of the Bolshevik revolution against the imperialists, for a second revolution against the bureaucracy" - I'm paraphrasing here by the way.

You somehow interpreted my comment as meaning that Trots supported Stalin. What it actually says is that Trots supported Stalin over capitalism as they believe(d) that it represents some type of 'gain' over capitalism. I think that you'll find that I am historically accurate here. I hope you appreciate the history and reading lesson.

Anyway, enough dodging about. The question remains: If North Korea was faced with the option of a continuation of Kim's reign or a return to capitalism, which one would you support?

by Peter Boyle Fri Mar 19, 2004 19:40

while you fucking fools are talking Koreans are dying.
Kim MUST GO NOW!
The North Korean people are in no position to remove Kim from power.
The superpowers muist do it for them!
We must plead with them to help the people of North Korea.

However from what i know of the anti-war movement they are so anti-war they would rather leave the North Koreans to their faith than fight and win against a heinous dictator.

Echoes of Iraq?

by Badman Fri Mar 19, 2004 19:50

While you are cursing Koreans are dying, can't you see what an eejit of a hypocrite you are? All you can do on a website is talk - there is no button that we can press that says "Nuke North Korea" on it. Not only are you just talking, you are not even proposing that people do anything!

I assume from the deranged tone of your last comment that you would support the US invasion of north Korea to save the North Koreans from dying. Considering the fact that this would almost certainly cause the quick deaths of millions of North and South Koreans, the demolition of both capital cities and the possible nuking of a few Japanese cities, I have no choice but to assume that you are a moron.

At least they will be free corpses, eh Peter?

Take your head out of your ass, stop the steroids injections and repeat after me "deep blue sea, deep blue sea..."

by Peter Boyle Fri Mar 19, 2004 23:54

Millions of North Koreans have already died!
nukes are already pointed at Seoul and Tokyo and threatening millions of lives!
Who has HIS finger on the "NUKE KOREA" button?
KIM JONG IL DOES!
Aren't you alarmed?
Aren't you outraged?
Don't you want this situation to STOP?

IS IT DERANGED TO ASK THE FUCKING QUESTION???

by NKVD Sat Mar 20, 2004 06:40

It's amazing how deranged the loony Left become when it's pointed out to them that every attempt to implement Marxism has ended up in failure, murder and repression.

Face it, Marxism is an evil creed. It belongs in the dustbin of history along with Fascism.

by Guido Sat Mar 20, 2004 07:56 guidoke at ilema dot net

"This announcement came in the middle of the worst part of the North Korean famine (1995-1998). John Tkacik Jr., a Heritage Foundation research fellow, notes, "The very legitimacy of 'Dear Leader' Kim Jong Il's regime rests on the so called 'Songun' or 'Army First' policy that Kim personally articulated....This terrifying ideology has made serfs of North Korea's civilian population. They are subservient to a war machine — a move transparently designed by their 'Dear Leader' to ensure loyalty and the support of the military."

Since when is somebody from a right-wing think tank a valable source?

"John Tkacik is a Heritage Foundation China scholar and a signatory to the Project for the New American Century's 2002 letter to President Bush on Hong Kong, which warned of increasing "central Chinese government control over key levers of power" in Hong Kong. "

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/tkacik/tkacik.php

by Guido Sat Mar 20, 2004 08:19

Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/


Don't Make Concessions To North Korea
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed022504a.cfm

"U.S. Department of State Director of Policy Planning Mitchell B. Reiss will deliver remarks on North Korea’s Legacy of Missed Opportunities at the Heritage Foundation."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/30362.htm

by Herman Sat Mar 20, 2004 13:40

The present terrifying ideology has made serfs of the USA's civilian population. They are subservient to a war machine — a move transparently designed by their 'Dear Leader' to ensure loyalty and the support of the military.

by NKVD Sat Mar 20, 2004 14:45

There are just as many people exercising their right to publicly criticise the US govt as there ever were.

Now, if you said that the US govt was locking them up in forced labour camps,conducting experiments on them, like they do in North Korea....

by karl popper Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:20

The only people who beleive that there is any equivalence between the treatment of dissent in the US and North Korea are the extremes of the neo-nazi right and the lunatic left. Only yesterday, there were anti-war protests in all major US cities. In November the US will have elections. None of this is possible in North Korea, and none of it was ever possible in ANY socialist state.

That does not mean that the US state and US capitalism is above criticism. Of course it is not, but at least there remains the possiblity to criticise and change.

by Facts Sun Mar 21, 2004 19:29

"none of it was ever possible in ANY socialist state"

Factually incorrect. From 1917 to the early 1920s the soviets in Russia were democratic bodies that had regular elections and whose members were subject to recall.

by Rimbaud Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:38

During the Civil War democratic elections to the Soviets were stopped. Strikes were banned. Labour was militarised. Unions became tools of the State. This all happened under Lenin and Trotsky.

by karl popper Mon Mar 22, 2004 15:28

You are wasting your time. Trotskyists do not want to accept the truth about the Soviet Union BEFORE Stalin because it makes nonsense of their world view. It has nothing to do with the truth. It's an article of faith. A dogma as central to the trotskyist "faith" as transubstantiation to Roman Catholocism.

by Chris Mon Mar 22, 2004 17:07 derryfield at yahoo dot com

I agree that there are serious differences between the two.
However, there is one major similarity: in both states there is no opportunity for dissenters to particpipate in the institutions of power.
In NK there is the Workers Party, while in the US you have twice as many selections: Democrat or Republican. Suggesting in both cases that the elites of both countries desire too maintain a lock on power.
To illustrate further, members of the US Congress have a higher rate of return than for example members of the Chinese National People's Congress.
There is indeed the possibility of change in the US on a theoretical level.
However, it is virtually impossible to alter the US Constitution which is why the US is still governed in 2004 under the same framework that it was in 1789.

by karlpopper Mon Mar 22, 2004 20:27

There is no comparision between the political systems in the US and in NK. NK is a totalitarian state in which not only is there no organised dissent but where it is probably impossible to have even a one to one conversation on anything without inviting surveillance and possible punsihment. When the truth emerges as to what happened there over the past 60 years it will make even some of the very worst horror stories pall in comparison.

The US has many faults but it is ridiculous to claim that it does not tolerate dissent. Nor is it true to say that there is no difference between the two main parties. There is as much as there is between FF and FG/Labour; between New Labour and Tories or any other western party system.

But apart from that, the state and the ruling elite does not insist upon suppressing all views that do not support it. Even a cursory look at US culture will reveal that much. Look at Saturday when there were demos in every major city in the US against the war. That will have an effect. Do you honestly think that would be possible in NK, or in Cuba for that matter?

All of this reminds me of something that Solzhenitsyn once wrote about comparing the flaws in capitalist democracies - and there are many many of them - with the absolute denial of freedom and dignity in totalitarian regimes whether of the left or the right.

The only flimsy rationale Stalinists ever had for Marxist totalitarianism was that it was materially more progressive than capitalism. The history of the 2oth century proved that to be a horrendous lie. NK proves the ongoing foction of that. Not only the people of NK treated like slaves to be murdered, tortured and raped by the Kims and their gang. They also live in abject poverty and hundreds of thousands have starved to death. It is a monstrosity.

by Chris Thu Mar 25, 2004 00:19 derryfield at yahoo dot com

With due respect

There are always comparisons to be made between political systems which is why comparative politics is such a great field.

I dont argue that the US and NK have broadly similar systems
However, there is a key similarities and that is access to power for dissenters. I dont claim that the US doesn't tolerate dissent. However, with the existing electoral system and 51 separate sets of electoral laws there is no level playing field for political parties and as a consequence no level playing field for alternative political, social, and economic ideas to compete.
Therefore, while the US does tolerate dissent it makes it virtually impossible for dissenters to have any influence.
Even with different political systems what is held in common between both NK and the US is that both systems function, in vastly different ways, to prevent access to power by alternative, or mass, movements.

To suggest that there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans is indeed inaccurate in the area of domestic politics. Although with a total absence of party discipline the difference tends to be between individuals rather than both groups as a whole.
Foreign affairs however there isn't a serious difference. Some will claim that a Democrat wouldn't have led the country into war with Iraq unlike Bush. I dont argue with that though I would argue that most potential Republican presidents wouldn't have either.

The extent of difference between the three major parties in Ireland is an interesting one.
Though given that the Republic has a PR electoral system parties that do not conform to the three have a far better opportunity to gain access to political power. There are at least seven political parties and more than a dozen independents in the Dail. Compare that to the Congress.

by Fally Thu Mar 25, 2004 03:27

N Korea is what Ireland would be like if the SWP ever got into power.

Hell on earth.

by Fally Thu Mar 25, 2004 03:27

N Korea is what Ireland would be like if the SWP ever got into power.

Hell on earth.

by we do hell on earth. - "infernal angels and monsters of grace" Thu Apr 22, 2004 16:45 camp X graduates club.

really shocked.

by Kim Kong Thu Apr 22, 2004 16:59

North Korea is labelled a communist country however the north korean establishment adhere to a different philosophy called i think juce. this is in their opinion an advance on marixt leninist structures of society. Blaming socialists for the tragedy that is NK is like blaming the catholic church for Jerry Jones.

The US have more responsibility for the state of NK, their isolation, their poverty and their senseless militarism. Some of you assholes should take a visit to your local library and read a book or two before you spew your righteous bullshit.

by Niall P Thu Apr 22, 2004 17:02

It's always America's fault, of course/ Nothing to do with that fat twat Kim and his mickey-mouse communist government.