Communist govt ensured mandatory education everywhere. A shithole like Tajikistan has 99% literacy. Since the day Central Asia got separated, Islam has taken over. Also Central Asia has no history except invading and plundering others like thieves.
If NK had LKY instead of Kim, it would have been much better. Kim used dictatorship as an excuse for his personal benefit. Even China has restrictions on media and social media. It is necessary to keep outside threat away. China had selfless leaders since Mao's demise, that's the only difference.
S Korea has to listen to US' orders like a slave. They allow American soldiers and white sex tourists to harm their own women. It has no spine to say NO to US like China does. The problem is S Korea lacks autonomy and geopolitical power to never rely on anyone.
literally just ignored my points and brought up new ones. i'll dickslap these arguments as well.
literacy rates under the soviets were high, yes. but quality of education was uneven, ideologically driven, and often left students without critical thinking skills or practicalk knowledge outside the state framework.
modern tajikistan and other central asian countries maintain high literacy, but the ussr also destroyed local cultures, languages, and autonomous institutions. saying “communism gave them literacy” ignores the russification, repression, and famines that killed millions.
"central asia was taken over by islam". this is extremely simplistic and misleading. central Asia was never secularized in a stable way. soviet rule suppressed religion by force. post-soviet religious revival is natural and not evidence that the ussrs repression was justified
“If NK had LKY instead of Kim, it would have been much better. Kim used dictatorship for personal benefit". this is pure speculation. LKY existed in a specific context. a much different context than korea.
chinas internet censorship is about regime survival and controlling domestic narratives. not defense from external military or economic challenges. to say
restrictions are a selfless act of protection is a justification for oppression. there’s no evidence authoritarian control correlates reliably with national security in a free society. selfless leaders? deng, jiang, hu, and xi all consolidated power, suppressed dissent, and prioritized party control. “selfless” is a romanticized label. not a perfectly accurate label.
south korea has autonomy, controls its own policy, and negotiated status of forces agreements. the presence of US troops is a defensive measure agreed upon by the south korean government, not evidence of “slavery." maybe if there wasn't a nuclear armed power north headed by an egotistical manchild they wouldn't need foriegn military assets on their territory.
crimes committed by foreigners exist in all countries. they are not justifications for dismantling democratic institutions or framing the us-sk alliance as subjugation.
perhaps you're a little obsessed with white cock to add that last thing?
