sources
on the dprk
- right to housing and retirement, multi-party peoples democracy: constitution of the dprk
- power checks and balances: infographic: why the us is a dictatorship and the dprk isnt.
- welfare economy: prolewiki article about the dprk, section on economy (that whole article is generally really great and debunks a lot of western propaganda)
- democratic since inception: kim byong sik. "modern korea: the socialist north, revolutionary perspectives in the south, and unification." 1970.
on the rok
- poverty, slums: prolewiki-article on the term "hell josoen"
- political prisoners: western source confirming the existence of the national security law, stephen gowans (2018). patriots, traitors and empires: the story of koreas struggle for freedom: 'the political partition of korea' (pp. 115–116) , and the prolewiki-article on the rok, sections "national security law" and "unconverted long-term prisoners"
- widespread corruption: a lot of reporting can be found on this topic, even in western media. lets just take the government-sanctioned prostitution and sex trafficking as an example, though there is other equally horrific stuff, including the usage of disabled people as agricultural slaves.
- worlds second highest suicide rate: katrin park (2021-10-5). "south korea is no country for young people" doreign policy.
- tyrannical history: prolewiki-article on the rok, section "history" warning: very bleak read
debunking of anticipated liberal comments
norf korea no food
malnutrition was in fact a thing during the 1990s, though the portrayals of this time period, the so called "arduous march" in westen media are usually exaggerated. mostly omitted by american-allied media is the fact that those difficulties were caused by the inhumane and terrorist western sanctions and embargo against the dprk, as well as the cia-backed illegal and undemocratic dissolution of the ussr. nowadays problems regarding food security have pretty much ceased to exist in the country.
hermit kingdom
first of all, the term itself is nothing but racist, orientalist nonsense, but whatever... the dprk is in no way a kingdom, its democratic model of governance, while obviously imperfect and worthy of (constructive) criticism, is explained in the constitution and infographic linked above.
furthermore, the county is neither "reclusive", nor internationally isolated. the dprk enjoys very friendly relations with fellow aes china, cuba, laos and vietnam, as well as anti-imperialist nations like iran, russia and palestine. the reason you dont hear much from inside the country is due to western press not wanting to report the truth.
no lights, no electricity
the famous "no lights"-photo is a photoshopped fake initially circulated by a southern far-right tabloid. here is an actual image of east asia, including the korean peninsula:
haircut police
unlike south korea, the dprk never had such policies. here is a very entertaining video debunking that myth.
It's a colonial dictatorship of the bourgeoisieOP is explicitly saying that it isn't something anymore and you're saying that he's using that to say it still isYea obviously they are lib and bourgeois.
The phrasing 'spent it's first 42 years as a dictatorship and only recently began to liberalize' is a distortion. Very obviously so for 2 reasons I will enumerate
1 The country is going to celebrate 80 years of independence from the Japanese fascists on August 15 of next year. They liberalized about 36 years ago. They have spent roughly half of their existence as a dictatorship, roughly half as a liberal republic. The phrasing '42 years' vs 'only recently' was clearly chosen to imply that the 'recent' liberal period is vastly shorter. Why use an exact number for one but a wishy-washy and vague phrase like 'recently' for the other? bc if OP used the actual dates and exact numbers, it would not sound as bad as OP wants it to. 42 vs 36 doesn't sound bad enough for OP, so he has to be vague with his numbers. Why not keep it exact? It is a distortion of the facts meant to fool people who do not know when they gained independence.
2 'began to liberalize' is a phrasing clearly meant to imply that they have not yet achieved very much liberalization. They did not 'begin to liberalize' they have liberalized and they are a full fledged bourgeois liberal republic. (and obv that's not great but its far better than being a fascist dictatorship)