People don’t flee countries they flee material conditions you idiot and those conditions in the DPRK were manufactured by imperialism.
During the Korean War, Amerikkka and it’s dogs dropped over 600,000 tons of bombs and napalm killing nearly 1 in 5 of the Korean population and deliberately destroying dams, power plants, factories, hospitals, railways everything. Whole cities were erased. Survivors had to literally live in caves. But sure, tell me more about how evil and brainwashed the country is from your insulated bubble.
Then came the 70+ years of sanctions, financial blockades, trade isolation, and permanent military threats. Pure medieval siege warfare. Starve them, isolate them, threaten them nonstop then act shocked when living standards take decades to recover. Pure liberal idiocy.
So yeah when you flatten a country, kill a massive chunk of its people, cut it off from global trade, and force it to pour scarce resources into nuclear deterrence, all while surrounding it with military bases and war games, living standards don’t magically bounce back and people take measures looking for better.
Defection numbers are also hyper distorted by South Korean cash payouts, intelligence pipelines, and rewards for sensational anti-DPRK stories. Meanwhile, millions flee US-backed capitalist hellholes every year but that’s just “economic migration.” Funny how that works when you’re a chauvinistic liberal trained to swallow propaganda by osmosis so long as it’s about us non-whites.
And spare me the minefield theatrics. The border is militarized because the US never signed a peace treaty. The war never ended. This is what permanent imperial aggression looks like.
Maybe you should actually look into a subject before speaking arrogantly from on high and please try to stop manufacturing consent 24/7 like it’s your day job.
To be honest I have been struggling to understand the relationship between the PRC and DPRK. I know geopolitics is difficult and that there have been a lot of mutual aid and cooperation between the two states, but I find it hard to explain stuff like this (from Wikipedia):
China condemned the 2006 North Korean nuclear test, as well as the subsequent nuclear tests in 2009, 2013, January 2016, September 2016 and 2017. China abstained during a 2017 United Nations Security Council vote about sanctions on North Korea, leading it to be approved.
You have to look at the PRC–DPRK relationship materially, not idealistically.
Under Chairman Mao, China sent hundreds of thousands of volunteers and stopped the imperialist destruction of DPRK. The DPRK exists today because of that intervention.
Since then, China has consistently acted as North Korea’s main economic and diplomatic backstop. It provides food, fuel, trade access, and blocks the worst attempts to strangle the DPRK through institutions like the United Nations Security Council. This is the real relationship: China prevents collapse, prevents regime change, and keeps a socialist buffer state alive on its border.
So why the condemnations and partial sanctions?
Because China operates inside a global system dominated by imperialism. It can’t act like a revolutionary state in 1950 anymore, it’s managing contradictions in a hostile world order. Publicly criticizing nuclear tests is damage control. It reassures surrounding states, reduces pressure on China itself, and limits excuses for more US missiles and troop deployments in East Asia. It’s diplomacy aimed outward, not a break with the DPRK.
From a dialectical standpoint, this is China balancing opposing forces: defending North Korea’s survival while avoiding direct confrontation with the imperialist bloc before conditions are ripe. China’s priorities are straightforward and material: no war on its border, no US-aligned Korea, no refugee catastrophe, and no regional destabilization that strengthens American military encirclement.
People get confused because they treat statements as policy. But Marxism teaches us to look at practice. In practice, China has never supported regime change, never cut off the DPRK, and never abandoned it economically. Condemnations are surface phenomena. The base reality is continued protection.
This isn’t betrayal. It’s socialist realpolitik under imperialist pressure.
China plays to the Western audience to maintain stability, buy time, and avoid escalation, while quietly ensuring the DPRK survives. That dual track is exactly what you’d expect from a state navigating uneven development and hostile global power relations.
People don’t flee countries they flee material conditions you idiot and those conditions in the DPRK were manufactured by imperialism.
During the Korean War, Amerikkka and it’s dogs dropped over 600,000 tons of bombs and napalm killing nearly 1 in 5 of the Korean population and deliberately destroying dams, power plants, factories, hospitals, railways everything. Whole cities were erased. Survivors had to literally live in caves. But sure, tell me more about how evil and brainwashed the country is from your insulated bubble.
Then came the 70+ years of sanctions, financial blockades, trade isolation, and permanent military threats. Pure medieval siege warfare. Starve them, isolate them, threaten them nonstop then act shocked when living standards take decades to recover. Pure liberal idiocy.
So yeah when you flatten a country, kill a massive chunk of its people, cut it off from global trade, and force it to pour scarce resources into nuclear deterrence, all while surrounding it with military bases and war games, living standards don’t magically bounce back and people take measures looking for better.
Defection numbers are also hyper distorted by South Korean cash payouts, intelligence pipelines, and rewards for sensational anti-DPRK stories. Meanwhile, millions flee US-backed capitalist hellholes every year but that’s just “economic migration.” Funny how that works when you’re a chauvinistic liberal trained to swallow propaganda by osmosis so long as it’s about us non-whites.
And spare me the minefield theatrics. The border is militarized because the US never signed a peace treaty. The war never ended. This is what permanent imperial aggression looks like.
Maybe you should actually look into a subject before speaking arrogantly from on high and please try to stop manufacturing consent 24/7 like it’s your day job.
To be honest I have been struggling to understand the relationship between the PRC and DPRK. I know geopolitics is difficult and that there have been a lot of mutual aid and cooperation between the two states, but I find it hard to explain stuff like this (from Wikipedia):
You have to look at the PRC–DPRK relationship materially, not idealistically.
Under Chairman Mao, China sent hundreds of thousands of volunteers and stopped the imperialist destruction of DPRK. The DPRK exists today because of that intervention.
Since then, China has consistently acted as North Korea’s main economic and diplomatic backstop. It provides food, fuel, trade access, and blocks the worst attempts to strangle the DPRK through institutions like the United Nations Security Council. This is the real relationship: China prevents collapse, prevents regime change, and keeps a socialist buffer state alive on its border.
So why the condemnations and partial sanctions?
Because China operates inside a global system dominated by imperialism. It can’t act like a revolutionary state in 1950 anymore, it’s managing contradictions in a hostile world order. Publicly criticizing nuclear tests is damage control. It reassures surrounding states, reduces pressure on China itself, and limits excuses for more US missiles and troop deployments in East Asia. It’s diplomacy aimed outward, not a break with the DPRK.
From a dialectical standpoint, this is China balancing opposing forces: defending North Korea’s survival while avoiding direct confrontation with the imperialist bloc before conditions are ripe. China’s priorities are straightforward and material: no war on its border, no US-aligned Korea, no refugee catastrophe, and no regional destabilization that strengthens American military encirclement.
People get confused because they treat statements as policy. But Marxism teaches us to look at practice. In practice, China has never supported regime change, never cut off the DPRK, and never abandoned it economically. Condemnations are surface phenomena. The base reality is continued protection.
This isn’t betrayal. It’s socialist realpolitik under imperialist pressure.
China plays to the Western audience to maintain stability, buy time, and avoid escalation, while quietly ensuring the DPRK survives. That dual track is exactly what you’d expect from a state navigating uneven development and hostile global power relations.