*cross-posted from lemmy.ml

sources

on the dprk

on the rok

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:

Show

haircut police

unlike south korea, the dprk never had such policies. here is a very entertaining video debunking that myth.

  • Bedulge [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yea obviously they are lib and bourgeois.

    OP is explicitly saying that it isn't something anymore

    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)